Originally from Expert Evidence: Conflicting Assumptions and How to Handle Them in Arbitration - ASA Special Series No. 46

1.    Introduction and summary

       International arbitration looks slightly different from the chair in the centre of the hearing room than from the three sides of the typical U-shaped hearing room layout, and a large global team of expert witnesses has collectively a breadth of experience of the assumptions and expectations surrounding the use of experts in international arbitration that may be of interest to practitioners and other actors. It is with these points in mind that I undertook a survey of testifying colleagues around the world to gain insight into the conflicting assumptions and expectations on the role of expert evidence, from the expert perspective.

       In summary, our experience is that:

•   There is a significant degree of convergence in expectations around many aspects of the way experts are used in international arbitration;

•   However, we also see some significant areas of divergence, with the background of tribunal members and counsel often an indicator as to likely approach;

•   The use of tribunal-appointed experts in our experience is rare (and with no settled process for using them when they are appointed), but may be more common when more technical expertise is needed and/ or in civil law jurisdictions;

•   That the extent of adoption of other process innovations (including meetings of experts/ joint statements, witness conferencing, and slide presentations made by experts) varies by region and individual arbitrator;