Evidence in international arbitration

The role of documentary evidence in arbitration

This Practice Note explains the importance of documentary 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.

Electronic evidence in arbitration

This Practice Note sets out how electronic documents are dealt with in international arbitration. It covers how the major arbitral institutions deal with electronic evidence and gives guidance on what parties to arbitration should consider regarding electronic documents from the outset of the arbitration. See Practice Note: Electronic evidence in arbitration.

Electronic evidence in arbitration—checklist

This Checklist provides practitioners with a list of issues to consider when dealing with electronic evidence in arbitration. See: Electronic evidence in arbitration—checklist.

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

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Stay of application for injunction in favour of Arbitration (Hunt v IPS Law LLP and Others)

Arbitration analysis: The claimant, Mr Hunt, invested £1.05m in January 2023 through IPS Law LLP (‘IPS Law’), the second defendant, which was meant to hold the funds for the first defendant, Oceania Capital Reserves Ltd (‘Oceania’). IPS Law later apparently transferred the funds, but the circumstances in which that occurred (and the instructions on which IPS Law and its principal, Mr Farnell, the third defendant, relied) were unclear. Mr Hunt applied for an injunction to preserve the funds in IPS Law’s account. The defendants, in return, applied for a stay of the proceedings, arguing that the Investment Agreement between Mr Hunt and Oceania (with IPS Law as the ‘Investment Escrow Party’) referred disputes to arbitration. The court held that IPS Law was not a party to the arbitration clause and could not rely upon it under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A 1999) (Mr Farnell accepted he was not a party). The court decided, however, that there was a serious issue to be tried in relation to the handling of Mr Hunt’s funds and accordingly granted a proprietary injunction. The case addresses issues over the court’s jurisdiction to order a stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and its ability to order relief where funds held in a solicitors’ client account have been paid away apparently without instruction. Written by Oliver Browne, partner, at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents