Arbitration – Interim order

Listen to this article

Where (1) a Superior Court judge refused to confirm an interim arbitration order in favor of the plaintiff, ruling as a matter of law that he lacked the authority to confirm an interim arbitration order, and (2) a single justice of the Appeals Court, concluding to the contrary that the Superior Court judge had such authority, remanded the matter to the Superior Court for the judge to decide whether the interim order should be confirmed, the defendant’s appeal must be dismissed because the single justice’s decision was not appealable.

“The defendant, Hennep Properties LLC (Hennep), appeals from an order of a single justice of this court. The single justice order vacated an order of a Superior Court judge that had refused to confirm an interim arbitration order in favor of the plaintiff, Dominion Builders, LLC (DAG). The Superior Court judge had ruled, as a matter of law, that he lacked the authority to confirm an interim arbitration order. The single justice concluded, to the contrary, that the Superior Court judge had such authority, and remanded the matter to the Superior Court for the judge to decide whether the interim order should be confirmed.

“On appeal, Hennep advances two principal positions. First, it argues that the single justice lacked ‘jurisdiction’ to consider the Superior Court judge’s refusal to confirm the order, because (according to Hennep) under the Massachusetts Arbitration Act, G.L.c. 251, §18, the judge’s decision was appealable, exclusively, to a panel of this court. Second, Hennep contends in the alternative that if the single justice did have jurisdiction, then the single justice’s decision must be reversed, because the arbitrator’s interim order was not an ‘award,’ and thus the Superior Court judge was correct, under the plain language of G.L.c. 251, §11, that the interim order was not confirmable.

“As set forth below, the single justice had jurisdiction to consider the Superior Court judge’s order that refused to confirm the arbitrator’s interim order. The Superior Court judge’s order was interlocutory, and thus petitionable to the single justice under G.L.c. 231, §118, first paragraph. DAG’s single justice petition was proper whether or not the Superior Court judge’s decision was also appealable to a full panel of this court. … Furthermore, under long-settled law, we decline to exercise jurisdiction to consider the decision of the single justice here. As a general rule, decisions of the single justice on petitions pursuant to G.L.c. 231, §118, are themselves interlocutory, and absent a recognized exception, this court does not review such decisions on an interlocutory basis. … Here, the single justice’s decision merely remanded the matter to the Superior Court; it did not order confirmation of an arbitrator’s award, nor did it deny confirmation. As the single justice’s decision was not appealable, this appeal is dismissed.”

Dominion Builders, LLC v. Hennep Properties LLC, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-087-25) (12 pages) (Englander, J.) A motion to confirm an interim arbitration award was heard by Michael P. Doolin, J.; a proceeding for interlocutory review was heard in the Appeals Court by Shin, J., sitting as single justice. Peter F. Carr II for the defendant; Richard E. Briansky for the plaintiff (Docket No. 25-P-1046) (Dec. 3, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.