Popular objections to remote arbitration hearings dismissed in landmark case by Austrian Supreme Court

1. Remote rather than in-person hearing selected by the tribunal against one parties’ objections - the arbitral tribunal enjoys broad discretion as to the organization and conduct of the proceedings, and that the alleged inadequacies of remote hearings do not exist (or can be remedied)

2. Time zones – perceived disadvantage needs to be set in the context of reduced effort and discomfort in accommodating hearings outside of normal business hours verse long flight and jet lag. 

3.  Remote Witness tampering – no more an issue than physical hearings

Read a detailed review of the case on Kluwer Arbitration Blog by Maxi Scherer (WilmerHale & Queen Mary University of London) and Franz Schwarz, Helmut Ortner, J. Ole Jensen (WilmerHale)

http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/10/24/in-a-first-worldwide-austrian-supreme-court-confirms-arbitral-tribunals-power-to-hold-remote-hearings-over-one-partys-objection-and-rejects-due-process-concerns/