Limitation provisions. 59 H. 207, 579 P.2d 673.

Proper to ask for clarification of award after the ten-day period has expired. 72 H. 41, 805 P.2d 455.

Notice of motion must be timely served on adverse party. 73 H. 201, 830 P.2d 503.

Notice provision applies when party seeks to change substance or amount of award, not where party seeks clarification of award. 74 H. 210, 847 P.2d 652.

To the extent that an HRCP rule 59(e) motion to reconsider is limited to new evidence that (1) supports a statutory basis already raised in a timely motion to vacate under §658-9 and this section and (2) could not have been raised in a petition to vacate nor could have been discovered, despite due diligence, prior to the expiration of the ten-day period in this section, such a reconsideration motion would not contravene the express notice requirements of this section. 92 H. 505, 993 P.2d 539.

Where motion for reconsideration raised a new basis for vacating the arbitration award, motion amounted to a motion to amend defendant’s prior motion to vacate after the ten-day period set forth in this section had elapsed, and was therefore untimely. 92 H. 505, 993 P.2d 539.