Business Regulations, Law & Practice | |
Business Regulations, Law & Practice | |
983 VIEWS | |
![]() | |
PROSHARE | |
PROSHARE |
Sunday, June 21, 2020 / 05:00PM / Hogan Lovells / Header Image Credit: menafn
Today,
in the age of imagination, 'virtual' has become real, and even more so, the new
normal in the face of the COVID-19 global pandemic. The world has dramatically
changed in the past few months, including government lockdowns and gathering
restrictions. The question for many in the legal profession is this - "Where
does that leave the administration of justice?" Courts around the globe have
answered that question by taking a pragmatic approach.
Courts
have been required to think both quickly and efficiently to ensure that, where
possible, hearings can proceed with the use of virtual hearings. Virtual
hearings have been used to conduct hearings remotely in order to minimise the
risk of the transmission of COVID-19 and to ensure the health of all parties in
attendance is maintained.
There
is a litany of issues concerning virtual hearings in the arbitral tribunal -
from the right to fair hearing, witness tampering, security bridges, and the
overall future of virtual hearings in a post-COVID-19 world. These issues were
at the centre of discussion at the recently concluded virtual hearing webinar
organised by The Nigerian Bar Association Section on Business Law (NBA-SBL).
Speaking
during the webinar, Samaa Haridi, a Partner at Hogan Lovells in New York,
emphasized the standing of physical hearings and an increase in willingness to
adopt virtual hearings. She said, "While we are going to see an increase no
doubt in the number of virtual hearings as a result of COVID-19, I do not
believe that it will be the end of physical hearings. I do think that sometimes
there is no substitute for physical hearings". Samaa also spoke in detail
regarding presenting evidence in a virtual hearing. In terms of presenting
evidence, Samaa believes that the impact of the evidence presented may not the
same when you are sitting in a physical room versus when you are in front of a
computer.
Samaa
posited that for a virtual hearing to successfully take place, the tribunal has
to balance on one hand its duty to conduct the arbitration expeditiously and
efficiently, and on the other hand the parties' right to equal treatment and
their right to be heard. According to her, it could be helpful to get the
parties to sign an agreement that they will not challenge the award should they
agree to pursue a virtual hearing (although such an agreement may not
ultimately fully protect against a risk of vacatur). In the scenario where one
party is opposed to a virtual hearing, it is necessary to look at the arbitration
provision, the relevant institutional rules, the arbitration laws of the lex
loci arbitri and any other applicable legal framework. The Nigeria Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, for instance, is potentially permissive of virtual
hearings. Under Section 16.2 of the Act, "unless otherwise agreed by the
parties, the arbitral tribunal may meet at any place it considers appropriate
for consultation among its members, for hearing witnesses, experts or the
parties, or for the inspection of documents, goods or other property."
If
the tribunal determines to proceed with a virtual hearing, it should be after
careful consideration of various factors, including what are the reasons for
requesting a virtual hearing; do all parties have equal access to technology;
is the hearing heavily focused on argument or on testimonial evidence; or what
is the likely delay if the virtual hearing does not go forward.
Another
issue is related to maintaining the integrity of the process of giving evidence
and avoiding assistance to witnesses while they testify. According to
Samaa, the issue is not specific to virtual hearings. Rather the issue becomes
more complex in virtual hearings as you cannot see the environment where the
witnesses are, nor can you tell to what extent the witnesses are being coached,
or helped. These issues need to be addressed by the tribunal and it is
incumbent on the arbitral tribunal to remind the parties and counsel that no
witnesses should be allowed to confer with counsel or with any parties' representatives while they are giving evidence. Additionally, the tribunal
should work to ensure that only the designated individuals are in the room
during the hearing, and it could also consider including in the witness oath,
where applicable, confirmation that the witness is not being assisted and is
not communicating with anyone while giving evidence.
Given
the current environment, and only where appropriate, virtual hearings allow for
the administration of justice to continue when physical hearings cannot take
place.
Related News
1.
Bank NPLs (16) -
The Place of Arbitration, Resolution or Debt Management
2. Contracts During
a Public Health Pandemic - Legal Alert
3. Directors Duties
in The Context Of COVID-19
4. NSE Issues
Guidance on Companies' Virtual Board, Committee and Management Meetings
5. Policy and
Regulatory Measures against the Coronavirus Pandemic in Nigeria
6. PTF-COVID-19
Issues Implementation Guidance For Lockdown Policy
7. Presidential
Directive on Lockdown: LASG Exempts MAN Entire Supply Chain
8. Hotels and
Recent Tax Amendments - Legal Alert
9. President Buhari
Signs COVID-19 Regulations 2020
10. COVID-19 and
Commercial Transactions: Some Emerging Legal Issues
11. The Infection
Diseases (Emergency Prevention) Regulations 2020 - Lagos State
12. NCDC Issues
Guidelines for Employers and Businesses in Nigeria
13. COVID-19: NSE
Extends Time to Submit Audited Financial Statement by Dealing Members