§ 172.063.Substitution of Arbitrator

Replacing an arbitrator mid-arbitration, and the consequences depend on which seat is vacant.

The substitute is appointed the same way the original was. The rules applicable to the appointment of the arbitrator being replaced govern.

That keeps the parties’ bargain intact. A party-appointed seat is refilled by that party; a court-appointed seat goes back to the court.

Replacing the sole or presiding arbitrator requires repeating a hearing. A hearing previously held shall be repeated.

The reason is that this arbitrator decides. A sole arbitrator decides alone, and a presiding arbitrator is usually decisive on a divided panel; neither can rule on evidence never heard.

Replacing any other member is discretionary. A previously held hearing may be repeated, at the tribunal’s discretion.

That distinction saves cost where it can be saved. A wing arbitrator’s replacement does not necessarily require re-running weeks of testimony.

Earlier rulings survive the change. An order or ruling made before the replacement is not invalid because the composition of the tribunal changed.

All three rules yield to the parties’ agreement, which is how institutional rules on truncated tribunals and repeated hearings take effect.