Unless otherwise provided by the agreement:
1. The arbitrators shall appoint a time and place for the hearing and cause notification to the parties to be served personally or by registered mail not less than five days before the hearing. Appearance at the hearing waives such notice. The arbitrators may adjourn the hearing from time to time as necessary and, on request of a party for good cause, or upon their own motion may postpone the hearing to a time not later than the date fixed by the agreement for making the award unless the parties consent to a later date. The arbitrators may hear and determine the controversy upon the evidence produced notwithstanding the failure of a party duly notified to appear. The court on application may direct the arbitrators to proceed promptly with the hearing and determination of the controversy.
2. The parties are entitled to be heard, to present evidence material to the controversy and to cross-examine witnesses appearing at the hearing.
3. The hearing shall be conducted by all the arbitrators, but a majority may determine any question and render a final award. If, during the course of the hearing, an arbitrator for any reason ceases to act, the remaining arbitrator or arbitrators appointed to act as neutrals may continue with the hearing and determination of the controversy.
1986, c. 614.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case:
Bates v. McQueen, 613 S.E.2d 566 (Va. 2005).
Bates v. McQueen, 613 S.E.2d 566 (Va. 2005).
· cites it 11× “Because we conclude that a hearing is required by the terms of Code §§ 8.01-581.04 and -581.010(4), and because the issue of attorney's fees must be decided by arbitrators, we will reverse the judgments of the circuit court.”
SIGNAL Corp. v. Keane Fed. Sys., Inc., 574 S.E.2d 253 (Va. 2003).
“The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of § 8.01-581.04, in such a way as to substantially prejudice the…”
Marks v. Marks, 548 S.E.2d 919 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
“contrary to the provisions of § 8.01-581.04, in such a way as to substantially prejudice the rights of a party; or 5.”
Meuse v. Henry, 819 S.E.2d 220 (Va. 2018).
· cites it 7× “010(4) requires an arbitration award to be vacated where "[t]he arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of § 8.”
Virginia E. Co. v. N. C. Monroe Constr. Co., 56 Va. Cir. 220 (Salem Cir. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 3× “to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of § 8.01-581.04, in such a way as to substantially prejudice the rights of a party.”
Bandas v. Bandas, 25 Va. Cir. 492 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 2× “The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of Section 8.01-581.04, in such a way as to substantially…”
Lloyd v. Nomikos, 68 Va. Cir. 27 (Goochland Cir. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 4× “010, misconduct *30 prejudicing the rights of any party? Second, did the conduct of the arbitrators under Subsection 4 of the aforementioned code section constitute conducting the hearing contrary to the provisions of Virginia Code § 8.01-581.04 in such a way as to substantially…”
P.J. Potter Enter., Inc. v. Comfort Sys. of Virginia, Inc. (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “They argued that the preaward ruling was unlawful because Judge Canada failed to give adequate notice, lacked authority to issue a preliminary injunction, and denied the Bridgeman parties the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, contrary to the protections in…”
Jacqueline D. Davis, etc. v. Liberty Ridge Healthcare Grp., LLC, etc. (Va. Ct. App. 2023).
“” She maintains that “[a]n arbitration may not be dismissed on motion” and that the hearing on Liberty’s Ridge’s motion was not “an arbitration hearing” as contemplated by Code § 8.01-581.04. Further, Davis contends that the trial court erred by “failing to vacate” the…”
Garofalo v. Di Vincenzo (Va. 2026).
“The arbitrators refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of § 8.01-581.04, in such a way as to substantially prejudice the…”
Varina Chase P'ship v. P. E. Eubank & Co., 19 Va. Cir. 51 (Henrico Cir. Ct. 1989).
“The issue before the Court is whether the arbitrators "refused to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of § 8.01-581.04, in such a way as to substan *52 daily prejudice the rights of a party.”
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.04(1): 1 case
Bates v. McQueen, 613 S.E.2d 566 (Va. 2005).
“Because we conclude that a hearing is required by the terms of Code §§ 8.01-581.04 and -581.010(4), and because the issue of attorney's fees must be decided by arbitrators, we will reverse the judgments of the circuit court.”
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-581.04(2): 3 cases
Bates v. McQueen, 613 S.E.2d 566 (Va. 2005).
“Because we conclude that a hearing is required by the terms of Code §§ 8.01-581.04 and -581.010(4), and because the issue of attorney's fees must be decided by arbitrators, we will reverse the judgments of the circuit court.”
Virginia E. Co. v. N. C. Monroe Constr. Co., 56 Va. Cir. 220 (Salem Cir. Ct. 2001).
“to hear evidence material to the controversy or otherwise so conducted the hearing, contrary to the provisions of § 8.01-581.04, in such a way as to substantially prejudice the rights of a party.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.