What is the case law on jurisdiction and natural justice in arbitration?

A frank discussion of the merits of arbitrations is found in Mungo v. Saverino[9] where Campbell, J. stated as follows: “The great merit of arbitrations is that they should be, compared to courts, comparatively quick, cheap, and final. There is a trade-off between perfection on the one hand and speed, economy, and finality on the other hand. If you go to arbitration, you can get quick and final justice and you can get on with your life. If you go to court, you can get exquisitely slow and expensive justice and you can spend the rest of your life enduring it and paying for it. For a disappointed arbitral litigant, jurisdiction and natural justice are good pickings. Jurisdiction and natural justice invoke the primordial instinct of courts to second guess other tribunals and thus defeat the greatest benefit of arbitration, its finality. It is therefore important for the court to resist its natural tendency, faced with a clear and attractive argument on jurisdiction and natural justice, to plunge into the details of the arbitration and second-guess the arbitrator not only on the result but also on the punctilio of the process. If an arbitration is basically fair, courts should resist the temptation to plunge into detailed complaints about flaws in the arbitration process.”