Federal Arbitration Act Rules Of Evidence In Travis
Description
Form popularity
FAQ
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.
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.
The Tribunal has discretion to determine the admissibility, weight and credibility of the evidence adduced (Arbitration Rule 36(1)). Parties file their evidence with their written pleadings. Evidence filed in the written process may include exhibits, witness statements, expert reports, audio and video files.
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.
This standard requires proposed arbitrators to disclose to all parties, in writing within 10 days of service of notice of their proposed nomination or appointment, all matters they are aware of at that time that could cause a person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that the proposed arbitrator would ...
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.
The Court determined that the parties cannot agree to broader review than that allowed by the Federal Arbitration Act, but the Texas Arbitration Act defines the limits of the arbitrator's authority, which allows the courts to review decisions that are explicitly outside of the law, much like appeals of a judicial order ...