Federal Arbitration Act Rules Of Evidence In Middlesex
Description
Form popularity
FAQ
Every arbitrator must be and remain impartial and independent of the parties involved in the arbitration. Before appointment or confirmation, a prospective arbitrator shall sign a statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence.
The rules of evidence are generally relaxed in arbitration as compared to court trials (e.g., objections not based upon claims of privilege are often overruled, subject to weight). Exhibits and documents already admitted in the record often do not need to be read verbatim by witnesses.
Federal Rule of Evidence 103 specifically provides that a party may claim error “if the ruling excludes evidence, and a party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context.” Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(2).
Rule 105 states that when evidence is admitted for one purpose or party, but is inadmissible for another purpose or against another party, the court, upon request, must restrict the evidence to its proper scope.
In order for the arbitrator to decide in favor of a party, the party must provide sufficient clear and convincing evidence to support their claims. This is known as meeting the “burden of proof.” The arbitrator will determine whether the party has met their burden of proof.
All evidence must be taken in the presence of the arbitrator and all parties, except where any of the parties has waived the right to be present or is absent after due notice of the hearing.
Most arbitrators and academics have long understood that, absent terms to the contrary in the agreement providing for arbitration, the traditional rules of evidence do not apply, and certainly do not strictly apply, in arbitration.
Explanation: In an arbitration, the rules of evidence generally tend to be more relaxed when compared to a court trial. This more flexible approach is due to the fact that arbitration is intended to be a more efficient and accessible method of resolving disputes, as opposed to the formalities of court processes.
Public Records: Since the proceedings are public, all of the case details become public record. The lack of privacy can be a concern for some parties.