Will the recent ruling rendered by The Hague Court of Appeal in the Yukos case bring some light to the controversial issue as to whether awards drafted by tribunal secretaries or assistants might be considered as a justifiable ground for setting aside such awards? The Stockholm Court of Appeal (Svea Court) was also requested to opine on this issue in the Gazprom v Naftogaz of Ukraine case, but it will not have the opportunity to render its ruling as a settlement was reached by the parties in January 2020, thereby putting an end to a multibillion-dollar SCC arbitration, notwithstanding the arbitration community’s interest in the result of these challenge proceedings in which Gazprom complained that the awards had been drafted by the tribunal’s secretary, as argued by the Russian Federation in the Yukos case. The concern is significant as other courts have expressed different opinions on this same issue. Furthermore, the provisions included in the major arbitration rules and/or in the notes and guidelines issued by the leading arbitration institutions also differ from one another. Further still, there is no consensus among arbitration practitioners and users. This divide generates undesirable uncertainty, which may only be resolved if both arbitral tribunals and parties address this issue at the outset of arbitration proceedings in a transparent manner. The purpose of this article is to illustrate the divergent opinions referred to above.