Preventing the raising of a claim of disqualification: The respondent further noted in his motion that the arbitrators' decision to prevent him from raising a claim of invalidity against them constitutes a violation of his procedural rights and the basic principles of due process. According to him, the refusal of the arbitrators to address the claim of disqualification as a preliminary argument is sufficient to establish grounds for annulment of the award in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Law, since this is sufficient to attest to conduct that is inconsistent with the rules of natural justice.
- The applicants did not file a response to the request for cancellation, and in fact, in the absence of a response, the court is not presented with a factual version, supported by an affidavit, which is capable of contradicting the respondent's factual claims.
00Discussion:
- 08. First, I will address the Applicant's argument that the motion to cancel the arbitration award should be rejected due to its late filing. Indeed, the third judgment was sent to the parties on September 1,2025, and therefore the deadline for filing the application Annulment of the Arbitral Award Effective on November 2,2025. The application was actually submitted on November 4,2025, i.e., two days late.
The respondent petitioned in the framework of the hearing for an extension of the deadline until the actual date of filing. In view of the fact that this is a very slight delay, even before the arbitrator's award was approved, and in fact it is an application that was filed a few days after the filing of the amended application for approval of the arbitrator's award, and given the respondent's request and its reasons, I found it appropriate to grant it and order an extension of the deadline as requested. Therefore, the request for cancellation is discussed on the merits of the matter.
- According to the arbitration regime signed by the parties, the tribunal was granted broad and unique jurisdiction, which includes, inter alia, an exemption from the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence and the obligation to record minutes, as drafted in section D of the arbitration deed:
"... The court will be exempt from due process and evidence, and will be exempt from recording arguments and the parties, and will also be entitled to hear and receive testimony at night, the court will be authorized to hear without one of the parties if he does not appear for the rest of the hearings, and at the discretion of the court. ..."
- Notwithstanding these powers, The case law indicates that an exemption from the rules of procedure does not detract from the duty of the arbitrators to act in accordance with the rules of natural justice. In this spirit, it was held in Opening Motion (Jerusalem District) 761/01 Yaakov Levy v. Meir Bar (Published in Nevo, February 28,2002), that arbitration must be conducted properly, while maintaining the rules of natural justice, except in matters that the parties expressly waived in the arbitration agreement. Hence, even under the procedural freedom of action granted to the Tribunal, the duty of fundamental fairness remains a guiding principle that accompanies the entire proceeding:
"Indeed, the Arbitration Law was enacted in order to encourage the settlement of disputes by consent by this convenient and economical means of arbitration. It is also the court's policy - that it is not good for civil disputes to be resolved in a way agreed upon by the parties. The case law enumerated the virtues of consensual arbitration: see: Shahab v. Shahab, Application for Leave to Appeal 125,124/68, IsrSC 23(1) 16,19-20, and Ottolungi, Arbitration - Law and Procedure, pp. 2-3 (Third Expanded Edition, 5751-1991). However, once the parties have signed an arbitration agreement, their matter falls under the shadow of the Arbitration Law, and they cannot benefit from what this Law grants them, including the approval and revocation of an arbitration award, unless they have acted in accordance with the positive and non-do's commandments of the Arbitration Law. Therefore, since arbitration is an alternative way of resolving a dispute that the law recognizes and encourages, it must be conducted properly. Therefore, arbitration is subject to the supervision and review of the courts that will conduct itself properly. For this purpose, the Arbitration Law was enacted. According to it, the parties are free to determine the framework of the arbitration and to appoint the arbitrator, and the court will not intervene in this except for specific reasons listed in the law. The court will encourage efficiency and speed, but not at the expense of the observance of basic rules. In particular, not at the expense of the rules of natural justice, which must also take place in arbitration, unless the parties clearly and explicitly stipulate in the arbitration agreement that the arbitrator is free from them (see: Batulonghi, ibid., pp. 283-284,508). The parties did not release the arbitrator as aforesaid - the assumption is that the parties based the arbitration on the factions of the rules of natural justice."