Post by anik4200 on Feb 18, 2024 6:14:20 GMT -5
The persistent and growing violence against women, in addition to guaranteeing an integrating role of the Judiciary with the population", she concluded. With information from the CNJ . Brave ConJur EditorDoubts regarding the arbitrator's impartiality and compliance with the duty to disclose justify the nullity of arbitration awards. The understanding is from the 2nd Reserved Chamber of Business Law of the São Paulo Court of Justice. ConJur Facade of the Court of Justice of São Paulo ConJur In a judgment on March 28, the court suspended a decision by the Ciesp/Fiesp Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration Chamber after one of the parties pointed out an alleged violation of the duty of disclosure of an arbitrator and a co-arbitrator.
In this specific case, the chairman of the arbitration received a power of attorney from both parties to the arbitration dispute in 2009 and 2011, when he was a partner at his former firm, and came to act in favor of one of the parties before the Superior Court of Justice. For the case's rapporteur, judge Grava Brazil, it is not up to the Judiciary to redo arbitrations. Doubts about the arbitrator's bias and compliance with the duty to disclose, however, are enough to suspend decisions at first. "The documents in this appeal re Special Phone Number Data veal that there was effective action by the presiding arbitrator, in the contentious context (before the C. STJ), in mid-2010 and 2011, to the benefit of one of the parties [...] There is no way to disregard the probability of the desired right by the aggravating parties, especially if the relevant arguments that support the thesis that the facts revealed denote objective doubt regarding the impartiality of the arbitrator are supported, leading to the nullity of the arbitration award", said Grava Brazil. The rapporteur cited the paradigm judgment in the Abengoa case by the Special Court of the STJ, in which it was defined that failure to observe the prerogative of impartiality in arbitration disputes offends public order.
The judge recalled that in the case judged by the STJ there is an opinion from the arbitrator in question against the actions of judges who have already defended parties in arbitration disputes. "Prior professional performance for the benefit of the applicants in itself already denotes partiality", said the arbitrator in an excerpt from the opinion given in the Abengoa case and cited in the TJ's decision. The rapporteur also drew attention to the need for a more rigorous duty of disclosure, given that lawyers rotated in the roles of reviewers, lawyers and arbitrators. "The legal professional wants to be an academic, advocate, be an arbitrator and give an opinion. And that's all right. But the consequences exist. These are elements, in my opinion, sufficient for the [suspensive] effect to be given", said the judge in your vote. In this specific case, the TJ-SP judged an interlocutory appeal in which one of the parties questioned a sentence against him in which the amount of R$ 65 million was declared payable.
In this specific case, the chairman of the arbitration received a power of attorney from both parties to the arbitration dispute in 2009 and 2011, when he was a partner at his former firm, and came to act in favor of one of the parties before the Superior Court of Justice. For the case's rapporteur, judge Grava Brazil, it is not up to the Judiciary to redo arbitrations. Doubts about the arbitrator's bias and compliance with the duty to disclose, however, are enough to suspend decisions at first. "The documents in this appeal re Special Phone Number Data veal that there was effective action by the presiding arbitrator, in the contentious context (before the C. STJ), in mid-2010 and 2011, to the benefit of one of the parties [...] There is no way to disregard the probability of the desired right by the aggravating parties, especially if the relevant arguments that support the thesis that the facts revealed denote objective doubt regarding the impartiality of the arbitrator are supported, leading to the nullity of the arbitration award", said Grava Brazil. The rapporteur cited the paradigm judgment in the Abengoa case by the Special Court of the STJ, in which it was defined that failure to observe the prerogative of impartiality in arbitration disputes offends public order.
The judge recalled that in the case judged by the STJ there is an opinion from the arbitrator in question against the actions of judges who have already defended parties in arbitration disputes. "Prior professional performance for the benefit of the applicants in itself already denotes partiality", said the arbitrator in an excerpt from the opinion given in the Abengoa case and cited in the TJ's decision. The rapporteur also drew attention to the need for a more rigorous duty of disclosure, given that lawyers rotated in the roles of reviewers, lawyers and arbitrators. "The legal professional wants to be an academic, advocate, be an arbitrator and give an opinion. And that's all right. But the consequences exist. These are elements, in my opinion, sufficient for the [suspensive] effect to be given", said the judge in your vote. In this specific case, the TJ-SP judged an interlocutory appeal in which one of the parties questioned a sentence against him in which the amount of R$ 65 million was declared payable.