A hands-off pro-arbitration stance from courts and institutions was arguably necessary as arbitration evolved as a dispute resolution process, but has this gone too far?  For example, current and anticipated procedural reforms in England make the process of challenging awards – already very difficult – even more so.  Institutions scrutinize arbitral awards to varying different degrees, and in some instances not at all.  As commercial arbitration in particular is typically confidential, there may be little public scrutiny of outcomes.  Are there sufficient safeguards on the arbitral process?  What risk is there that the arbitration process becomes something which goes against the parties’ reasonable expectations without recourse, and does the pro-arbitration stance need to be revisited?