Bundles - Chapter 29 - Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration
Peter Ashford is Solicitor of the Supreme Court and a Partner at Cripps Harries Hall LLP and is Head of the firm's Commercial Peter Ashford is a Partner and Head of commercial dispute resolution in the leading United Kingdom Firm of Cripps Harries Hall LLP, Tunbridge Wells, United Kingdom. Mr. Ashford advises on a wide range of commercial disputes with a particular emphasis on substantial commercial contract disputes, especially those involving an international aspect, partnership and LLP disputes, professional issues for solicitors and professional negligence. He is particularly experienced in complex, high value claims and acts for many international clients. He handles disputes in court, arbitration, mediation and disputes without any formal process. Mr. Ashford received his training in London and qualified in 1986. He joined Cripps Harries Hall LLP in 1987 and became a partner in 1991.
Originally from Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration
All of the work that goes into discovery may be wasted if the relevant material cannot be presented carefully and logically to the Arbitral Tribunal. It is suggested that discovery should not normally be presented to the Arbitral Tribunal at the time it is produced. By doing so, a party runs the risk that the Tribunal, being overcome with an enormous quantity of material, cannot sensibly consider it all, much of which might subsequently be found irrelevant. Very considerable cost might be incurred without benefit to the parties. It is preferable for the parties to exchange material and decide what ought to be presented to the Arbitral Tribunal as a “common bundle” suitably before any evidentiary hearing. Clearly in cases of very modest amounts of material, simultaneous transmission to the Arbitral Tribunal might be efficient but the practice of annexing significant documents to the memorials, pleadings, or statements of case will give the Arbitral Tribunal an insight into the key documents and their relevance to the issues in dispute.