Stay Plugged In With Canon
Latest News & Updates

In arbitration, the closing submissions function as the final narrative that ties together evidence, credibility, and legal theory. The practitioner should begin with a concise roadmap that orients the tribunal to the central issues, the relevant law, and the outcomes sought. This framework helps the arbitrator understand how the facts map to conclusions and reduces the cognitive load required to assess the case. The delivery should emphasize coherence over volume, ensuring each factual thread is tied to a legal principle. A well-structured submission also signals confidence, competence, and respect for the arbitral process. Importantly, it should be grounded in the record, reflecting careful reading of exhibits, testimony, and admissions.

The core technique is synthesis: present core facts, then explain their significance under governing standards, and finally articulate the corresponding remedies. Begin with a crisp statement of the relief sought, followed by a selective listing of supporting facts. Then translate those facts into legally recognizable propositions, showing how the evidence meets each element of a claim or defense. Throughout, maintain a neutral tone that avoids advocacy as melodrama. The goal is to demonstrate methodical reasoning, enabling the tribunal to trace each point from evidence to conclusion without unnecessary detours. Close with a concise summary that reiterates the preferred award and the reasons underpinning it.

A successful closing presents each issue with unmistakable clarity. The submission should juxtapose the pleaded issues against the adjudicatory framework, identifying the precise elements and standards applicable to each. For every element, reference the corresponding facts and the evidentiary weight assigned to them in the record. This approach helps the tribunal see gaps or strengths in the case without sifting through conflicting narratives. Where there are ambiguities in the factual record, acknowledge them succinctly but explain why they do not undermine the desired outcome. By foregrounding a disciplined map of issues, the closing becomes a navigational chart rather than a sprawling argument.

Authentic credibility emerges from consistent sourcing and precise citations. When you invoke a fact, attach its evidentiary anchor—witness testimony, document, or authenticated data—and, where appropriate, direct the tribunal to the page, paragraph, or exhibit. Avoid overloading the submission with irrelevant detail, yet ensure that key moments in the testimony receive careful attention. Present the most persuasive pieces early in the discussion where they will set the frame for why the tribunal should prefer your position. A disciplined citation strategy reinforces trust in the counsel’s analysis and reduces the likelihood of misinterpretation.

The synthesis step converts raw materials into a reasoned argument aligned with law. Begin by highlighting the legal standards governing the dispute—statutory provisions, contractual clauses, applicable jurisprudence, and any arbitral rules that guide the tribunal’s analysis. Then explain how the record satisfies each standard with selective, high-impact facts. The narrative should move from general principles to concrete applications, showing how a particular clause supports the remedy you seek or why the opposing position fails under the same standard. This progression helps the tribunal internalize the logic and appreciate the fairness of the proposed outcome.

The party’s position should be contextualized against credible counterarguments. Anticipate the strongest points the other side might press and respond succinctly within the closing, preserving credibility while narrowing risk. Structure rebuttals to address legal defects first, then factual inconsistencies, and finally any equitable considerations. This triad keeps the tribunal oriented toward the law while recognizing practical implications. By addressing counterarguments early, you reduce the chance of last-minute surprise and demonstrate a robust, thoughtful approach to dispute resolution that respects the tribunal’s role.

A pivotal feature of closing submissions is issue-narrowing without oversimplification. Distinguish questions that are dispositive from those that are ancillary, ensuring the tribunal can identify a clear path to relief. Where multiple theories exist, select the strongest, most legally coherent approach and explain why alternative routes are weaker. The writing should guide the tribunal toward a single, persuasive conclusion, supported by a tightly argued rationale and unambiguous references to the record. This focus reduces ambiguity and increases the likelihood of a timely, unambiguous award that reflects the merits.

Precision in remedy formulation reinforces the persuasive effect. State the exact relief sought, the reasons supporting it, and the practical consequences for the parties if granted. When appropriate, propose conditional or partial relief where full relief is not feasible, but only if it remains legally permissible and aligned with the evidentiary record. The tribunal should not be left to infer the remedy from generalities; instead, it should be directed to the precise order you propose, complete with any necessary qualifications or implementation steps. Clarity here translates into decisiveness.

The manner of presentation matters as much as the content. Use a calm, respectful tone that conveys confidence without aggression. Keep paragraph length manageable, with logical transitions that connect ideas fluidly. Visual aids are optional but should be restrained; a single, well-placed table of key facts versus elements can aid comprehension without becoming a distraction. The flow should feel like a journey from issue to evidence to conclusion, with each segment reinforcing the central thesis. Avoid repetitive phrases and ensure that every sentence advances the argument toward a purchase of the requested award.

The practicalities of timing and formatting can influence reception. Adhere to any word limits or page constraints set by the tribunal, and align citations with the preferred style. Use headings and subheadings sparingly to reinforce structure without interrupting the narrative. The closing should stand alone as a coherent document, comprehensible even for a reader unfamiliar with the full record. Finally, ensure that the conclusion is unmistakable: the award sought is justified by the evidence and the governing law, articulated in language the tribunal can readily adopt.

A high-quality closing is more than a summary; it is a persuasive synthesis that respects the arbiter’s time and duties. Start by recapping the most persuasive elements in a single, concise framework. Then map those elements to each applicable legal standard, demonstrating why the standards yield the requested remedy when applied to the facts. Maintain a consistent narrative voice, avoiding cherry-picking or selective emphasis that could undermine credibility. A well-crafted closing also acknowledges the risks and weaknesses candidly, but reframes them as matters of interpretation that favor your position. The overall aim is to leave the tribunal with a precise, confident impression of why the award should go your way.

In the final lines, offer a crisp conclusion that ties every strand together. Reiterate the relief sought, restate the core reasons, and remind the tribunal of the evidentiary and legal anchors supporting the decision. A strong closing finishes with a forward-looking note about the impact of the award and the parties’ responsibilities under it. The respondent’s arguments, if any, should appear as acknowledged, not ignored, but shown to be outweighed by the weight of the record and the applicable law. The result should feel inevitable, grounded in careful analysis, and delivered with professional integrity.