Technology and data

This overview provides a guide to the Technology and Data subtopic within the Arbitration content with links to appropriate materials.

Technology in arbitration

This Practice Note gives an overview of considerations in the use of technology at all stages of an arbitration, before proceedings commence, during proceedings, use in hearings, post-hearing considerations including enforcement and commentary on general technical issues that arise when considering the use of technology in arbitration proceedings.

See Practice Note: Technology in Arbitration.

Remote hearings in international arbitration—a practical guide

This Practice Note provides a comprehensive practical guide to conducting remote hearings in international arbitration. The Practice Note provides a broad overview of this highly practical topic, including sections on: considering the options for remote hearings (fully remote, partially remote, hybrid); potential benefits and concerns when conducting hearings remotely (advantages and disadvantages, pros and cons); potential legal issues related to remote hearings such as the arbitral tribunal’s power (jurisdiction, authority) to order a remote hearing without a party or all parties’ consent; and, all key aspects of planning and conducting remote hearings, including discussion of the technology required.

See

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Drawing the line—court review of arbitral institutions’ administrative decisions in Brazil (Vale v B3 & others)

Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents