Upon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where:
1. The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means;
2. There was evident partiality by an arbitrator appointed as a neutral, corruption in any of the arbitrators, or misconduct prejudicing the rights of any party;
3. The arbitrators exceeded their powers;
4. The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of § 8.01-581.04, in such a way as to substantially prejudice the rights of a party;
5. There was no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under § 8.01-581.02, and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection; or
6. The award was rendered by an arbitrator selected in violation of the provisions of Article 3 (§ 8.01-017 et seq.).
The fact that the relief was such that it could not or would not be granted by a court of law or equity is not grounds for vacating or refusing to confirm the award.
An application under this section shall be made within 90 days after delivery of a copy of the award to the applicant, except that, if predicated upon corruption, fraud, or other undue means, it shall be made within 90 days after such grounds are known or reasonably should have been known. An application shall be made by filing a petition with the appropriate court within the prescribed time limits of this section, or by raising reasons supporting vacation in response to another party's petition to confirm the award, provided that such response is filed within the prescribed time limits of this section.
In vacating the award on grounds other than that stated in subdivision 5, the court may order a rehearing before new arbitrators chosen as provided in the agreement, or in the absence thereof, by the court in accordance with § 8.01-581.03. If the award is vacated on grounds set forth in subdivisions 3 and 4 the court may order a rehearing before the arbitrators who made the award or their successors appointed in accordance with § 8.01-581.03. The time within which the agreement requires the award to be made is applicable to the rehearing and commences from the date of the order.
If the application to vacate is denied and no motion to modify or correct the award is pending, the court shall confirm the award.
1986, c. 614; 1998, c. 303; 2026, c. 490.
Notes of Decisions
BBF, INC. v. Alstom Power, Inc., 645 S.E.2d 467 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 16× “Code § 8.01-581.010 of the Act provides the exclusive grounds to set aside an arbitration award, Lackman v.”
SIGNAL Corp. v. Keane Fed. Sys., Inc., 574 S.E.2d 253 (Va. 2003).
· cites it 10× “As permitted by Code § 8.01-581.010, SIGNAL filed an application in the circuit court to vacate, or in the alternative, modify or correct the arbitration award.”
Lackman v. Long & Foster Real Est., Inc., 580 S.E.2d 818 (Va. 2003).
· cites it 34× “In Counts I through V, Lackman asserted that the award should be vacated on four of the *23 statutory grounds enumerated in Code § 8.01-581.010. 1 In Count VI, Lackman asserted that the trial court should use its equity powers to enjoin enforcement of the award because the…”
Marks v. Marks, 548 S.E.2d 919 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 21× “Code § 8.01-581.010, entitled “Vacating an award,” provides that, [и] pon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where: 1.”
Bates v. McQueen, 613 S.E.2d 566 (Va. 2005).
· cites it 16× “McQueen also argues that Bates "waived and/or is estopped" from complaining about the arbitrators' failure to conduct a formal hearing because Bates participated in the informal process by meeting with and/or supplying information to two of the three arbitrators and by failing…”
Bandas v. Bandas, 430 S.E.2d 706 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Husband contends that the trial court used the incorrect standard of review when affirming the arbitration award.”
Meuse v. Henry, 819 S.E.2d 220 (Va. 2018).
· cites it 50× “LEMONS In this appeal of a judgment confirming an arbitration award, we consider whether the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria ("circuit court") erred in refusing to vacate the award under Code § 8.01-581.010. I. Facts and Proceedings A.”
Seguin v. Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp., 672 S.E.2d 877 (Va. 2009).
· cites it 2× “3 Pursuant to Code § 8.01-581.010, the circuit court retains jurisdiction to vacate an arbitration award; pursuant to Code § 8.”
Anteon Corp. v. BTG, Inc., 62 Va. Cir. 41 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 6× “§ 10 ; Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.010 . Flowever, under the VUAA, when the Court finds that the arbitrator exceeded her powers, it may order a rehearing with the same arbitrator to fix the offending language.”
Ben-Ami v. Katz (In Re Ben-Ami), 348 B.R. 320 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Code § 16-4311; Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-581.010. Mr. Katz also raises the same judicial estoppel and collateral estoppel arguments he made in connection with the Feldgreber note.”
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.010(1): 3 cases
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.010(2): 3 cases
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.010(3): 15 cases
BBF, INC. v. Alstom Power, Inc., 645 S.E.2d 467 (Va. 2007).
“Code § 8.01-581.010 of the Act provides the exclusive grounds to set aside an arbitration award, Lackman v.”
SIGNAL Corp. v. Keane Fed. Sys., Inc., 574 S.E.2d 253 (Va. 2003).
“As permitted by Code § 8.01-581.010, SIGNAL filed an application in the circuit court to vacate, or in the alternative, modify or correct the arbitration award.”
Marks v. Marks, 548 S.E.2d 919 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
“Code § 8.01-581.010, entitled “Vacating an award,” provides that, [и] pon application of a party, the court shall vacate an award where: 1.”
Lackman v. Long & Foster Real Est., Inc., 580 S.E.2d 818 (Va. 2003).
“In Counts I through V, Lackman asserted that the award should be vacated on four of the *23 statutory grounds enumerated in Code § 8.01-581.010. 1 In Count VI, Lackman asserted that the trial court should use its equity powers to enjoin enforcement of the award because the…”
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.010(4): 4 cases
Bates v. McQueen, 613 S.E.2d 566 (Va. 2005).
“McQueen also argues that Bates "waived and/or is estopped" from complaining about the arbitrators' failure to conduct a formal hearing because Bates participated in the informal process by meeting with and/or supplying information to two of the three arbitrators and by failing…”
Meuse v. Henry, 819 S.E.2d 220 (Va. 2018).
“LEMONS In this appeal of a judgment confirming an arbitration award, we consider whether the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria ("circuit court") erred in refusing to vacate the award under Code § 8.01-581.010. I. Facts and Proceedings A.”
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.010(5): 5 cases
Bates v. McQueen, 613 S.E.2d 566 (Va. 2005).
“McQueen also argues that Bates "waived and/or is estopped" from complaining about the arbitrators' failure to conduct a formal hearing because Bates participated in the informal process by meeting with and/or supplying information to two of the three arbitrators and by failing…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.