IBA RULES ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
The International Bar Association (IBA) publishes Rules on challenging issues such as the taking of evidence in international commercial arbitration.
We are grateful to the IBA which has kindly allowed us to publish the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration as a resource for parties and their representatives and for arbitral tribunals acting under the NZDRC Arbitration Rules.
When acting under NZDRC’s Arbitration Rules, the Arbitral Tribunal may have regard to, but is not bound to apply, the International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration current at the Commencement Date.
IBA Rules on Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration
In 2010 the International Bar Association adopted the new IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, which superseded the 1999 Rules. The revised Rules apply to all arbitrations in which the parties agree to apply the IBA Rules after 29 May 2010, whether as part of new arbitration agreements or in determining the rules of procedure in a pending or future arbitration.
Access the IBA Rules on Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration
Other resources you might like
If you found this article helpful and are interested in learning more, there is a wealth of other resources available on our website. We have a wide array of articles and guides on a variety of topics, each designed to provide you with a deeper understanding of the subject matter. We encourage you to explore these resources and deepen your knowledge.
It pays to check: US$54 million error a “simple” mistake
When the US$54 million error was brought to its attention, the tribunal sincerely apologised but refused to amend the award on the grounds it was a “fair assessment” of loss. Needless to say, the claimants weren’t happy. They asked the tribunal to correct the error. The tribunal refused. The claimants then filed a challenge to the award in the English High Court on the grounds that the mistake was a “serious irregularity”, causing “substantial injustice”, and the damages should be reduced to US$4 million. [1]
The challenge was heard by Sir Ross Cranston, who described how “a tribunal of leading arbitrators” made a “simple mistake” when assessing the damages. Sir Ross said it was “the sort of mistake any of us can make” but “with the most unfortunate of consequences”. The challenge was successful. The High Court remitted the award back to the tribunal for reconsideration.
The nuts and bolts of appealing an arbitral award when you need the court’s leave
