Back to Insights- Arbitration
- Financial services
Longer Reads
Remote arbitration hearings
A brief summary of the position about remote arbitration hearings in some of the common law jurisdictions – UK, Hong-Kong, Singapore and the USA.
2 minute read
Published 28 March 2022
Authors
- Visit profile
Stephen Rosen
Partner
- Read more from Stephen
- Visit profile
Craig Deuchrass
Senior Associate
- Read more from Craig
Key information
Video links have, of course, been used in international arbitration hearings for many years, for instance, to take the evidence of witnesses or experts. The Covid pandemic has brought about a major change in that many arbitration hearings are either taking place remotely or in hybrid form that is, for instance, one party participating remotely and another in person.
The initial effect of the pandemic was that arbitration hearings were generally postponed but remote hearings were soon contemplated, although with hesitation about whether they were adequately permitted under the applicable arbitral rules.
But arbitral institutions soon adapted and, where the rules did not specifically permit remote hearings, provided guidance about this and some arbitral institutions updated the rules specifically to cover this.
The objective was to avoid due process objections from a losing party who had opposed a remote hearing. Interestingly there has been a decision of the Austrian Supreme Court confirming a tribunal’s power to hold remote hearings over one party’s objections and due process concerns.
The arbitration agreement will often not refer to remote hearings and the institutional rules may not mention this either. However, the rules often give the tribunal wide powers over conducting the arbitration and deciding what procedure should be used and how evidence is taken and arbitral tribunals have been used to relying on this flexibility.
UK
The London Court of International Arbitration updated its rules specifically to cover remote hearings with an update taking effect on 1 October 2020.
The main provision is in Article 19.2 which emphasises the wide power of the tribunal to choose a remote hearing.
Article 19.2 states –“The arbitral tribunal shall organise the conduct of any hearing in advance, in consultation with the parties. The arbitral tribunal should have the fullest authority under the arbitration agreement to establish the conduct of the hearing, including its date, duration, form, content, procedure, time limits and geographical place (if applicable). As to form, a hearing may take place in person, or virtually by conference call, videoconference or using other communications technology with participants in one or more geographical places (or in a combined form).”
There are also other references to the use of technology in the rules. For example, an emergency arbitrator (Article 9.7) is given wide power to use communications technology and Article 14.3 (which relates to communications between the parties and with the tribunal) says that these communications can include conference calls, video conferencing or “using other communications technology”.
Hong Kong
The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre’s approach has been to rely on the wide discretion given in the rules to the arbitral tribunal plus providing detailed practical guidelines for remote hearings.
Article 13 of the 2018 Rules states:
“Subject to these rules, the arbitral tribunal shall adopt suitable procedures for the conduct of the arbitration in order to avoid unnecessary delay or expense, having regard to the complexity of the issues, the amount in disputes and the effective use of technology and provided that such procedures ensure equal treatment of the parties and allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case.”
Further, Article 22.5 allow the tribunal to decide how a witness or expert is examined.
In May 2020 practical guidance was issued by the HKAC and includes directions about technology and how it should be used and also precautions to ensure that witnesses give their evidence in a way in which they are not improperly influenced e.g.: by somebody else in the room. So, a 360 degree viewing of the room by video is featured.
The HKIC has made recommendations for three different forms of hearing:
(a) Physical hearing with social distancing;
(b) Hybrid hearing; and
(c) Fully remote hearings.
Singapore
Again, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre does not have specific rules for remote hearings but Rule 19.1 of the 2016 Rules states “the Tribunal shall conduct the arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate, after consulting with the parties, to ensure the fair, expeditious, economical and final resolution of the dispute.”
Rule 19.3, about preliminary hearings, also states that the tribunal can deal with this either by an in person hearing or “any other means”.
The only specific reference in the rules to video conferencing is in relation to emergency arbitrator proceedings which refers to the arbitrator giving reasonable opportunities for parties to be heard but can provide proceedings by video conferencing.
On 31 August 2020 the SIAC issued “Taking your arbitration remote” – which is a detailed guide about remote hearings. The guide contains many recommendations about the procedure, including practical points about technology. It also contains appendices about technology platforms and guidance about procedural orders and participants’ conduct.
USA
The International Centre for Dispute Resolution, as the international division of the American Arbitration Association, has issued specific rules about remote hearings.
Article 22(2) of the ICDR Rules relating to procedural hearings states that “The Tribunal and the parties may consider how technology, including video, audio or other electronic means, could be used to increase the efficiency and economy of the proceedings”.
In Article 26(2) there is reference to tribunals conducting remote hearings by (a) agreement of the parties; or (b) if the tribunal decides after consulting with the parties that it would be appropriate and would not compromise the rights of any party to a fair process.
As to witnesses; Article 26(2) says that they can be examined in a way that does not require their physical presence.
Related latest updates
PREV
NEXT
Longer Reads
Read more
Nix Of $11B Award Shows Limits Of Arbitral Process
Longer Reads
Read more
English court dismisses section 68 challenge to calculation of ICC award
Longer Reads
Read more
What EU Oil Spill Insurance Ruling Means For UK Arbitration
Shorter Reads
Read more
Lawyers welcome plans to boost arbitration laws to secure London’s status as leading disputes hub
Shorter Reads
Read more
English Court confirms it has no jurisdiction to permit a counterclaim in enforcement proceedings
Longer Reads
Read more
Republic of Mozambique v Credit Suisse – bribery claims proceed by way of arbitration
Longer Reads
Read more
Arbitration and Foreign Governments: Peers debate transparency vs. confidentialityShorter Reads
Read more
ENGLISH HIGH COURT STAYS COURT PROCEEDINGS IN FAVOUR OF ARBITRATION
Shorter Reads
Read more
Arbitration clauses in ISDA master agreementsLonger Reads
Read more
Uk Supreme Court Rules On Apparent Bias Of Arbitrators
Longer Reads
Read more
Taking evidence in international arbitration – IBA rules versus the Italian and English legal systemsLonger Reads
Read more
New LCIA Arbitration Rules: In force on 1 October 2020
Longer Reads
Read more
DOUBLE HATTING: DUTY TO DISCLOSE TIES BETWEEN ARBITRATORS AND EXPERTS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
Longer Reads
Read more
The 2019 LCIA Casework Report: Record Number of New Cases
Related content
Longer Reads
Remote arbitration hearings
A brief summary of the position about remote arbitration hearings in some of the common law jurisdictions – UK, Hong-Kong, Singapore and the USA.
Published 28 March 2022
Associated sectors / services
Authors
Video links have, of course, been used in international arbitration hearings for many years, for instance, to take the evidence of witnesses or experts. The Covid pandemic has brought about a major change in that many arbitration hearings are either taking place remotely or in hybrid form that is, for instance, one party participating remotely and another in person.
The initial effect of the pandemic was that arbitration hearings were generally postponed but remote hearings were soon contemplated, although with hesitation about whether they were adequately permitted under the applicable arbitral rules.
But arbitral institutions soon adapted and, where the rules did not specifically permit remote hearings, provided guidance about this and some arbitral institutions updated the rules specifically to cover this.
The objective was to avoid due process objections from a losing party who had opposed a remote hearing. Interestingly there has been a decision of the Austrian Supreme Court confirming a tribunal’s power to hold remote hearings over one party’s objections and due process concerns.
The arbitration agreement will often not refer to remote hearings and the institutional rules may not mention this either. However, the rules often give the tribunal wide powers over conducting the arbitration and deciding what procedure should be used and how evidence is taken and arbitral tribunals have been used to relying on this flexibility.
UK
The London Court of International Arbitration updated its rules specifically to cover remote hearings with an update taking effect on 1 October 2020.
The main provision is in Article 19.2 which emphasises the wide power of the tribunal to choose a remote hearing.
Article 19.2 states –“The arbitral tribunal shall organise the conduct of any hearing in advance, in consultation with the parties. The arbitral tribunal should have the fullest authority under the arbitration agreement to establish the conduct of the hearing, including its date, duration, form, content, procedure, time limits and geographical place (if applicable). As to form, a hearing may take place in person, or virtually by conference call, videoconference or using other communications technology with participants in one or more geographical places (or in a combined form).”
There are also other references to the use of technology in the rules. For example, an emergency arbitrator (Article 9.7) is given wide power to use communications technology and Article 14.3 (which relates to communications between the parties and with the tribunal) says that these communications can include conference calls, video conferencing or “using other communications technology”.
Hong Kong
The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre’s approach has been to rely on the wide discretion given in the rules to the arbitral tribunal plus providing detailed practical guidelines for remote hearings.
Article 13 of the 2018 Rules states:
“Subject to these rules, the arbitral tribunal shall adopt suitable procedures for the conduct of the arbitration in order to avoid unnecessary delay or expense, having regard to the complexity of the issues, the amount in disputes and the effective use of technology and provided that such procedures ensure equal treatment of the parties and allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case.”
Further, Article 22.5 allow the tribunal to decide how a witness or expert is examined.
In May 2020 practical guidance was issued by the HKAC and includes directions about technology and how it should be used and also precautions to ensure that witnesses give their evidence in a way in which they are not improperly influenced e.g.: by somebody else in the room. So, a 360 degree viewing of the room by video is featured.
The HKIC has made recommendations for three different forms of hearing:
(a) Physical hearing with social distancing;
(b) Hybrid hearing; and
(c) Fully remote hearings.
Singapore
Again, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre does not have specific rules for remote hearings but Rule 19.1 of the 2016 Rules states “the Tribunal shall conduct the arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate, after consulting with the parties, to ensure the fair, expeditious, economical and final resolution of the dispute.”
Rule 19.3, about preliminary hearings, also states that the tribunal can deal with this either by an in person hearing or “any other means”.
The only specific reference in the rules to video conferencing is in relation to emergency arbitrator proceedings which refers to the arbitrator giving reasonable opportunities for parties to be heard but can provide proceedings by video conferencing.
On 31 August 2020 the SIAC issued “Taking your arbitration remote” – which is a detailed guide about remote hearings. The guide contains many recommendations about the procedure, including practical points about technology. It also contains appendices about technology platforms and guidance about procedural orders and participants’ conduct.
USA
The International Centre for Dispute Resolution, as the international division of the American Arbitration Association, has issued specific rules about remote hearings.
Article 22(2) of the ICDR Rules relating to procedural hearings states that “The Tribunal and the parties may consider how technology, including video, audio or other electronic means, could be used to increase the efficiency and economy of the proceedings”.
In Article 26(2) there is reference to tribunals conducting remote hearings by (a) agreement of the parties; or (b) if the tribunal decides after consulting with the parties that it would be appropriate and would not compromise the rights of any party to a fair process.
As to witnesses; Article 26(2) says that they can be examined in a way that does not require their physical presence.
Associated sectors / services
- Arbitration
- Financial services
Authors
Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.
Subscribe
Please add your details and your areas of interest below
Article contributors
Stephen
RosenPartner
Specialising in Banking & financial disputes, Commercial arbitration, Commercial disputes and ManufacturingCraig
DeuchrassSenior Associate
Specialising in Commercial disputes, Banking & financial disputes and Commercial arbitration
Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?
Subscribe to our articlesMessage us on WhatsApp (calling not available)
Please note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.
Close
