The devil is in the details: An analysis of the criteria for adequate reasoning in arbitral awards in Jordan

Arbitration has become a popular method for resolving disputes in Jordan due to its flexibility, confidentiality, and efficiency. However, the validity of an arbitration award depends on several factors, including the adequacy of the award's reasoning. This case report from Jordan highlights the importance of adequate reasoning in arbitral awards and the consequences of its absence. The report analyzes a recent court ruling that annulled an arbitration award due to the lack of reasoning and examines the criteria that arbitration jurisprudence has set for appropriate reasoning. The report concludes that an arbitration award without adequate reasoning is tainted by a flaw where the reasoning behind a decision is not provided or is insufficient, leading to its invalidity/annulment.