When an award debtor challenges an award on public policy grounds, usually the principle of finality prevails, and courts will consider the award debtor bound by the decision of the tribunal. However, because public policy has implications beyond the disputing parties themselves, some courts consider themselves justified in reviewing the award. There is therefore a tension between finality versus the court’s duty to stand as the guardian of public policy. Whether a review of an award should be allowed under this ground, and if so, the extent of permissible review, differs across various jurisdictions. For instance, common law authorities have generally preferred a very strict approach where a court may review an award on public policy grounds only in extremely limited situations. This paper considers the prevailing approaches taken across different jurisdictions and ultimately proposes an alternative approach for the common law to strike a better balance between all competing interests.