Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-23 (2025)

     [§658A-23]  Vacating award.  (a)  Upon motion to the court by a party to an arbitration proceeding, the court shall vacate an award made in the arbitration proceeding if:

     (1)  The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means;

     (2)  There was:

          (A)  Evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral arbitrator;

          (B)  Corruption by an arbitrator; or

          (C)  Misconduct by an arbitrator prejudicing the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding;

     (3)  An arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing upon showing of sufficient cause for postponement, refused to consider evidence material to the controversy, or otherwise conducted the hearing contrary to section 658A-15, so as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding;

     (4)  An arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator's powers;

     (5)  There was no agreement to arbitrate, unless the person participated in the arbitration proceeding without raising the objection under section 658A-15(c) not later than the beginning of the arbitration hearing; or

     (6)  The arbitration was conducted without proper notice of the initiation of an arbitration as required in section 658A-9 so as to prejudice substantially the rights of a party to the arbitration proceeding.

     (b)  A motion under this section shall be filed within ninety days after the movant receives notice of the award pursuant to section 658A-19 or within ninety days after the movant receives notice of a modified or corrected award pursuant to section 658A-20, unless the movant alleges that the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means, in which case the motion shall be made within ninety days after the ground is known or by the exercise of reasonable care would have been known by the movant.

     (c)  If the court vacates an award on a ground other than that set forth in subsection (a)(5), it may order a rehearing.  If the award is vacated on a ground stated in subsection (a)(1) or (2), the rehearing shall be before a new arbitrator.  If the award is vacated on a ground stated in subsection (a)(3), (4), or (6), the rehearing may be before the arbitrator who made the award or the arbitrator's successor.  The arbitrator shall render the decision in the rehearing within the same time as that provided in section 658A-19(b) for an award.

     (d)  If the court denies a motion to vacate an award, it shall confirm the award unless a motion to modify or correct the award is pending. [L 2001, c 265, pt of §1]

Case Notes

  Plaintiff contended that district court erred in granting defendant's motion to confirm and denying plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award because the arbitrator was biased against plaintiff and failed to follow the law; confirmation of the arbitration award and denial of the motion to vacate the award, affirmed.  603 F.3d 676 (2010).

  Arbitration award of remedial promotions of police officers to rank of sergeant with mandatory back pay did not exceed arbitrator's authority to determine and remedy violations of the collective bargaining agreement, where the authority could have rested on an interpretation and application of the agreement.  135 H. 456, 353 P.3d 998 (2015).

  Pursuant to the plain language of subsection (a)(2)(A), where there is evident partiality on the part of a neutral arbitrator, the arbitration award shall be vacated.  137 H. 1, 364 P.3d 518 (2015).

  Where arbitrator's connections to a law firm that previously employed arbitrator, a witness who testified in a prior proceeding before arbitrator, and attorney who previously appeared in two cases before arbitrator were called into question as relationships evidencing partiality requiring disclosure under §658A-12, the circuit court did not clearly err in determining that these were not "relationships" for the purposes of §658A-12 requiring vacatur under subsection (a)(2) because:  (1) the mere fact that an arbitrator has observed a witness in a prior proceeding and therefore may have "had an opportunity to evaluate the person and form an opinion as to the person's credibility[,]" without more, is not a "relationship" that requires disclosure; (2) there was no actual direct connection between the law firm and the parties, counsel, witnesses, and arbitrator in the present proceeding; and (3) appearance as expert witness of attorney who previously appeared in two cases before arbitrator was not a "relationship" that created a reasonable impression of impartiality.  140 H. 75, 398 P.3d 664 (2017).

  Circuit court did not err in denying motion to vacate part of arbitration award that awarded prejudgment interest on backpay because judicial review of an arbitration award is confined to the strictest possible limits, and the arbitrator reasonably interpreted arbitration agreement in fashioning the award and did not exceed his authority in awarding prejudgment interest against the State.  The doctrine of sovereign immunity does not protect the State from an arbitrator's award of prejudgment interest.  140 H. 381, 400 P.3d 582 (2017).

  In the narrow circumstances of the case, perjury may constitute a basis for vacating an arbitration award.  126 H. 99 (App.), 267 P.3d 683 (2011).

  Where defendant failed to allege or establish that the arbitration award itself--i.e., awarding damages in favor of plaintiff--violated any public policy, and alleged that the arbitrator's findings and conclusions were tainted by plaintiff's perjury, the statutory grounds embodied in subsection (a) provided sufficient recourse to vacate awards for fraud, including perjury, and the public policy exception was inapplicable to the case.  126 H. 99 (App.), 267 P.3d 683 (2011).

  Section provides authority for relief from an arbitration award, but not from a final judgment on an order confirming an arbitration award.  131 H. 301 (App.), 318 P.3d 591 (2013).

  The arbitrator was expressly authorized by the collective bargaining agreement to award "back pay to compensate the teacher wholly ... for any salary lost" and interpreted the provision to allow interest for the time that the teacher was without pay.  Even if the arbitrator incorrectly construed the agreement or misinterpreted applicable law, the arbitrator acted within the arbitrator's power to interpret the agreement and fashion a remedy in accordance with the arbitrator's interpretation.  131 H. 301 (App.), 318 P.3d 591 (2013).

  Where collective bargaining agreement provisions granted arbitrator broad authority to remedy grievances and, pursuant thereto, arbitrator ordered that employees be promoted:  (1) employer was not estopped from asserting that the arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator's authority in granting remedial promotions; (2) the arbitration award did not violate public policy; and (3) the arbitrator's award did not exceed the arbitrator's authority.  134 H. 155 (App.), 338 P.3d 1170 (2014).