The arbitrator: The person speaks out of pain.
Adv. Nakar: Oh. Okay. So let him go to a psychologist. What are we doing here? Legal Hearing or Psychological Services?"
- As to the arguments that the Attorney General was not allowed to cross-examine the respondents, I did not find that this argument is sufficient to attest to bias. This is a procedural decision that falls within the scope of the arbitrator's authority as to the manner in which the arbitration should be conducted, especially since the minutes of the arbitration meeting of September 7, 2023 indicate that, contrary to what was claimed, the arbitrator allowed the Applicant's counsel to conduct cross-examinations. (See Appendix 11, p. 355 of the application, line 22: "The Honorable Arbitrator: Let's investigate now. We will stay for another hour. Interrogate them now."). Moreover, as will be detailed below, the Applicant informed the arbitrator of her agreement to waive the investigations, and therefore there is no substance to her claims;
- In the appointment decision, the court gave effect to a decision to the agreement of the parties, according to which the arbitrator would not be subject to the substantive law, the rules of evidence and the laws of procedure.
- To the minutes of the first meeting that the arbitrator sent to the parties on March 7, 2021, the arbitrator attached an arbitration agreement for their signature. In Section 3.1. The agreement stipulates that the arbitrator will rule in accordance with the substantive law. In clause 3.2 of the Agreement, it was stipulated that the arbitrator would not be bound by procedures and the laws of evidence and would act in a manner that he deemed useful for a just and speedy decision. The Applicant attached as Appendix 8 to the application an e-mail message sent by the Applicant's counsel to the Respondents' Counsel on May 26, 2021, to which an amended arbitration agreement was attached. Clauses 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agreement have not been changed. There is no dispute that this agreement was not signed by the parties.
- In other words, both in the appointment decision and in the wording of the agreement that the arbitrator passed and amended by the applicant's counsel and not signed by the parties, it was determined that the arbitrator is not subject to the rules of procedure and the laws of evidence.
- There is no dispute that none of the parties submitted affidavits to the arbitrator on his behalf, even though in accordance with the minutes of the first hearing sent by the arbitrator, the parties were entitled to do so.
- The arbitrator's decision whether to allow cross-examination of the respondents who did not file affidavits is a procedural decision related to the manner in which the proceeding was conducted, which does not establish grounds for removing him from office.
- Moreover, the Applicant informed the Arbitrator on at least two different dates that she had waived the conduct of investigations (see in this regard the Applicant's admission in paragraph 27 of the Application). In an e-mail message dated June 17, 2024, sent by the Applicant's Attorney to the Respondents' Attorney General, it was stated:
"My client approves the proposal to forgo holding an additional arbitration hearing and to make do with submitting summaries. I suggest contacting an arbitrator in the following formulation.