This article examines whether arbitral tribunals should exercise general restraint in ordering remote evidentiary hearings when parties disagree, focusing on Singapore law and practice in contrast to the Dutch approach articulated in Bas van Zelst’s article ‘Similar ≠ Equal – A Nuanced Approach to Remote Hearings’. While van Zelst argues that such restraint is required to safeguard the principle of parity between parties, this article contends that the Singapore framework adopts a more pragmatic and flexible stance. It also argues that most concerns commonly raised against remote hearings are either addressable through technological and procedural safeguards or overstated in principle. Accordingly, the article concludes that a general posture of restraint is neither doctrinally required nor practically necessary in Singapore, and that tribunals should instead conduct a fact-specific balancing exercise informed by efficiency and reasonableness.
Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management