New Jersey and federal courts regularly note that arbitration can provide an expeditious and economical means of resolving commercial and other covered disputes. As noted last term, “To be sure, arbitration can be an effective means of resolving a dispute in a low cost, expeditious, and efficient manner. The parties may be afforded the opportunity to choose a skilled and experienced arbitrator in a specialized field to preside over and decide the dispute. And the proceedings may be conducted in a forum out of the public glare.” Delaney v. Dickey, 244 N.J. 466, 493 (2020). “Like the federal policy expressed by Congress in the FAA, ‘the affirmative policy of this State, both legislative and judicial, favors arbitration as a mechanism of resolving disputes.’ Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc., 173 N.J. 76 [] (2002).” Legislation providing for the enforcement of arbitration therefore provides, for example, that the grounds for any judicial review of the eventual arbitration award are procedurally and substantively limited.
The promise of arbitration can be reduced, though, by the time and expense devoted to motions in court, at the outset, to compel arbitration. The New Jersey Revised Uniform Arbitration Act, like its predecessor, therefore provides that motions to compel should be handled on an expedited basis, and both the state and federal Acts provide that any order compelling arbitration should result in a stay of the case, rather than a dismissal; pursuant to the statutes, appeals at this stage are limited to final orders of dismissal and orders denying arbitration, with a policy judgment that to permit interlocutory appeal of an order staying litigation would deny one arbitration benefit, i.e., an expedited process. In both federal and state court, interlocutory review remained possible by certification on motion.
