Menu
Log in
Forgot password

Association for Conflict Resolution - Greater New York Chapter↑

Search
Log in
Forgot password

Continuing Jurisdiction of an Arbitrator

Wednesday, September 03, 2025 7:17 PM | Anonymous

What is an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and why should you care?

May arbitrators include "continuing jurisdiction" provisions in awards without party request?  Is this a common practice?

What are your thougts?


Comments

  • Thursday, September 04, 2025 2:54 PM | Dean John Feerick
    Many years ago, in a case I had, a federal judge put that in his decision, after a court hearing, when ordering a dispute to arbitration.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Thursday, September 04, 2025 3:02 PM | Hon. Alvin Zimmerman
    I have not seen any case on this, but I do not know how we can retain continuing jurisdiction, even if the parties agree in advance except as the arbitration act provides, e.g. mathematical mistake, etc.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Thursday, September 04, 2025 3:02 PM | Julia E Sullivan
    I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would do that.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Thursday, September 04, 2025 3:06 PM | Alan Harris
    Functus officio
    Link  •  Reply
    • Thursday, September 04, 2025 5:19 PM | Igor Ellyn
      I agree. When the arbitration is closed, the Arbitrator's jurisdiction ends. Even the right to correct an error is typically limited by the procedural rules under which the arbitration is conducted.
      Link  •  Reply
    • Friday, September 05, 2025 6:18 AM | William King Hill
      I agree. I don't think an arbitrator can continue jurisdiction even with parties' consent but certainly not without it. My AAA training made that 100% clear.
      Link  •  Reply
  • Thursday, September 04, 2025 3:07 PM | Erika Birg
    I do not believe that an arbitrator can retain jurisdiction without all parties' explicit consent unless the Rules under which the parties are arbitrating provide for it. Personally, I do not know of any arbitral rules that do allow that. Functus Officio reigns except if the Court sends the award back for modification. But I am not entirely sure what a Court or a party could do about it if an arbitrator did that. Really seems to undermine the principles of arbitration.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Thursday, September 04, 2025 3:28 PM | Edward Groarke
    Yes to ensure that ministerial tasks emanating from the Award are completed appropriately.
    Link  •  Reply
    • Friday, September 05, 2025 10:09 AM | J. W. Cartagena
      The aggrieved party must ask a court to enforce the provisions of an award, very much like seeking enforcement of a judgment.
      Link  •  Reply
  • Thursday, September 04, 2025 3:45 PM | David E. Robbins
    This question is like hitting a softball: y arbitrators include "continuing jurisdiction" provisions in awards without party request? Is this a common practice?
    Answer: Unless the arbitration agreement provides for such continuing jurisdiction, the Panel's authority to do anything is over [unless a court remands the Award for arbitrator reconsideration]. Or, as Yogi Berra said, "It's over when it's over."
    Link  •  Reply
    • Thursday, September 04, 2025 4:19 PM | Judge Richard B. Klein (ret.)
      Usually the rules of arbitration prohibit this. However, when mediating I often will provide (with the consent of the parties) that if the is a dispute over the language of the release, I will arbitrate that. It should save a good deal of time on the rare occasions when it comes up.
      Link  •  Reply
    • Thursday, September 04, 2025 5:22 PM | Igor Ellyn
      When Yogi Berra said, "It's over when it's over," her was referring to hitting hardball not softballs. 😄
      Apart from that, I fully agree.
      Link  •  Reply
  • Thursday, September 04, 2025 5:16 PM | Daniel Feinstein
    I've not-infrequently had cases where the remedy is addressed separately from the merits. For example, in an employment case, decide that the employee is entitled to reinstatement with backpay, but then tell the parties to try to agree on the backpay calculation. I'll retain jurisdiciton in situations like that for a limited period (usually 45 days) and then take up competing submissions on that issue if necessary if filed within that limited period.

    Retaining jurisdiction more generally than to address a reserved issue? I know courts not-infrequently do that in order to enforce their rulings, sometimes for more than a decade, but can't see doing that as an arbitrator.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Thursday, September 04, 2025 6:28 PM | Steven Skulnik
    Sometimes party consent is implicit. Such as where the arbitrators decide the merits before the parties make their costs submissions. There is nothing wrong with the partial award noting that the tribunal retains jurisdiction to consider an award of costs.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Thursday, September 04, 2025 6:44 PM | Bryan H. Levy
    I have not comment before but I find the question interesting. I practice in Michigan. Our statute is MCL 691. 1681 et. seq. On legal and philosophical grounds I suggest that an arbitrator lacks the authority to continue his/her jurisdiction post award. On legal grounds an arbitration is a creature of statute and consent. That is, an arbitrator has solely that authority granted by statute. Arbitration statutes make it clear that:

    1. An arbitrator is appointed to render an award. Sec. 1
    2. An arbitration requires an agreement to arbitrate. Sex. 9
    3. The appointment of an arbitrator is dependent on the arbitration agreement. Sec. 11
    4. The award may be confirmed by the court of general jurisdiction. Sec.22
    5. The Court shall vacate an award if the arbitrator exceeds his/her powers. Sec. 23
    Based on this, I suggest that an arbitrator has no authority to continue to act post award. There is authority to correct is limited to mechanics that do not affect the merits. In my view, this includes things like math errors, transpositions of dates such as 1925 when it should have bee 1952.
    Philosophically, the law above seems to create significant authority to an arbitrator within the arbitration agreement and none without its parameters. It follows that an arbitrator cannot create jurisdiction in any event, but clearly not post award.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Friday, September 05, 2025 6:13 AM | Geoffrey BH
    It would be wise to title the Award, "Interim Award" or "First/... Award", and open with words like "This is the Interim Award of ...".

    Of corse, if the Parties agree, they can stop at any time.

    The phrase "continuing jurisdiction" Is not essential if issues remain undecided, especially if the Parties are to seek a settlement, returning to the Arbitrators if negotiations are unsuccessful.
    Link  •  Reply
  • Friday, September 05, 2025 9:27 AM | Leslie W Langbein
    You are hired to resolve all issues put in front of you. Some issues may not be resolved in the first go round, like remedies. Of course, arbitrators have the authority to issue an interim award and reserve jurisdiction to fashion a complete award. It's done all the time in labor and employment cases.
    Link  •  
    Author
    Comment
     
    • Friday, September 05, 2025 12:15 PM | Doug Bonney
      Yes, not only do labor and employment arbitrators often retain remedial jurisdiction, but doing so is expressly permitted by Sec. 6(E) of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Arbitrators of Labor-Management Disputes.
      Link  •  Reply
Association for Conflict Resolution - Greater New York Chapter

© ACR-GNY

Contact Us

Email us at questions@acrgny.org

ACR-GNY's mission and programming are generously sponsored by:

ADR Notable: Dispute Resolution Management Made Easy

Discounts on ADR Notable platform available for ACR-GNY members!

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software