In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Decision 4A_412/2025</span>, the Swiss Supreme Court dismissed Libya’s attempt to challenge an arbitral award issued more than eight years earlier, finding the application to be inadmissible due to lateness.
The dispute arose from a mediation in which Libya agreed to pay CHF 20 million to a businessman. In March 2017, a sole arbitrator seated in Geneva ratified the parties’ settlement by issuing an arbitral award reflecting the agreed terms. The award was characterised as an “arbitral judgment” incorporating the settlement.
In 2024, enforcement proceedings were initiated in Switzerland and a Geneva court authorised the seizure of a Libyan-owned building to enforce the award. In response, Libya petitioned the Swiss Supreme Court in 2025, seeking to have the award declared null and void or, in the alternative, set aside. Libya argued that the award had never been properly notified in accordance with its domestic law and that, as a result, the statutory 30-day deadline for challenging the award had never begun to run. Swiss arbitration law requires that any application to set aside an arbitral award be filed within 30 days of notification.
The Swiss Supreme Court rejected this argument. The award had been delivered to Libya’s Ministry of Finance by private courier in May 2017, at the initiative of Libya’s own mediation representative. While the court did not consider it necessary to determine whether this method of notification complied with Libya’s domestic law, it found that Libya had actual knowledge of the award at that time.
Crucially, Libya had failed to raise any alleged defect in notification before the arbitral tribunal at any rate. The court recalled that parties are under a duty to raise procedural irregularities immediately once they become aware of them. A party that has actual knowledge of an award but does not promptly notify the tribunal of any alleged notification defect forfeits the right to rely on that defect at a later stage.
The court emphasised that accepting Libya’s position would undermine legal certainty and breach the principle of good faith, as it would allow parties to reopen arbitral proceedings years later simply because they were dissatisfied with the outcome.
The Supreme Court also dismissed Libya’s alternative argument that the award was null and void due to the absence of an arbitration agreement. It reaffirmed that a finding of nullity is reserved for exceptional circumstances and only where the court has been seized of an admissible challenge. In this case, the application was manifestly out of time and therefore inadmissible.
The decision serves as a clear reminder that the duty to act in good faith and to raise procedural defects promptly continues beyond the conclusion of arbitral proceedings. Failure to do so will result in the loss of the right to rely on such defects in subsequent proceedings.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Decision 4A_412/2025</span>, Swiss Supreme Court, 9 December 2025
