Evidence

Evidence

The role of documentary evidence in arbitration

This Practice Note explains the importance of evidence in arbitration and highlights how it is treated differently compared with court litigation. It provides practical tips about introducing documentary evidence into arbitration proceedings, how a tribunal may apply rules of evidence and how to deal with evidence in the hands of third parties to the arbitration.

See Practice Note: The role of documentary evidence in arbitration.

Disputes over documentary evidence in arbitration

This Practice Note covers how the parties, the tribunal and the court (under section 43 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) for English-seated arbitrations) may be involved in the resolution of disputes over documentary evidence in arbitration. It includes discussion of the guidance set out in the International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (IBA Rules). It also covers the consequences of a party's failure to comply with an order to produce issued by the tribunal. In resolving a dispute over evidence, parties often make use of a Redfern Schedule (see Precedent below).

See Practice Note:

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

Improper hedging and insufficient proof—setting aside attempt fails (DNO v DNP)

Arbitration analysis: In another decision affirming the narrow scope of curial intervention under Singapore law, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) dismissed an application by DNO to set aside an SIAC arbitral award (Award). The SICC rejected the natural justice ground because, among other reasons, DNO improperly ‘warehoused’ its natural justice objection to be raised only if the eventual award was unfavourable, and instead showed willingness to continue to arbitrate. Such ‘hedging’ was inimical to the arbitral process, and therefore DNO could not raise the objection after the Award was issued. The SICC also rejected DNO’s public policy challenge. Among other reasons, DNO failed to prove the alleged breach of foreign law. In any event, a mere breach of foreign law was, by itself, insufficient. DNO needed but failed to show that upholding the Award would cross the extremely high threshold of conflicting with Singapore’s most basic notions of morality and justice. Written by Eden LI, partner at WongPartnership LLP.

BAC announces programme for Azerbaijan Arbitration days 2025

The Baku Arbitration Centre (BAC) has published the programme for Azerbaijan Arbitration Days 2025, taking place in Baku from 24–25 October 2025. The inauguration will be opened by Azerbaijan’s Chief Justice Dr Inam Karimov and Justice Minister Dr Farid Ahmadov, followed by an opening address from former European Council President Charles Michel on international arbitration as ‘A Last Safe Haven in a Turbulent World’. The programme includes a keynote by former UNIDROIT President Prof Maria-Chiara Malaguti focusing on Middle Corridor infrastructure disputes and investments contracts, alongside panel discussions featuring international arbitration practitioners and academics.

Ciarb announces details of 2025 Alexander Lecture on legal fracture and arbitration system recalibration

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) has announced that its 2025 Alexander Lecture will take place on 4 December 2025 at Central Hall Westminster, London. The lecture will be delivered by Ciarb President, Professor Dr Mohamed Abdel Wahab, on the topic ‘Arbitrating in an Age of Legal Fracture: Guarding the Realm and System Recalibration’. The lecture will explore the challenges posed by fractures and tensions between global, regional, and domestic legal norms, as well as potential remedies. It will also consider how international arbitration can recalibrate to uphold the rule of law and promote constructive cross-border dialogue.

Spanish Supreme Court confirms arbitrator's conviction for defying cease order

The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Spain has upheld the conviction of lawyer, Gonzalo S.C. for the offence of disobedience, confirming a six-month prison sentence and a one-year disqualification from acting as an arbitrator. The conviction stems from his failure to comply with a July 2021 order from the High Court of Justice of Madrid, which instructed him to cease his role in an arbitration between the State of Malaysia and the heirs of the Sultan of Jolo concerning territory in northern Borneo. Despite the order, Gonzalo S.C. continued the arbitration process, relocating its seat to Paris and issuing a final award in February 2022 that required Malaysia to pay $15bn. The High Court of Justice of Madrid had previously annulled his appointment due to procedural irregularities, specifically the violation of summons guarantees for foreign states. The Supreme Court rejected his appeal, dismissing claims of jurisdictional interference and improper conduct by the Lawyer of the Administration of Justice, and concluded that the appellant knowingly disregarded a binding judicial mandate, thereby attempting to override judicial authority.