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International Bar Association adopted the new IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, which superseded the 1999 Rules.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

DOWNLOAD

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.

A person in a suit sits at a table with an open book, placing a hand on it, signifying an oath. A wooden judge's gavel is prominently placed in the foreground on the table. The background is blurred.
Arbitration

Enforcement and recognition of foreign awards made in international arbitrations: as easy as one, two, three…

A Court’s hands can be tied if a party does not ask for its assistance. In this case, the losing parties in an international arbitration had a foreign award enforced against them because they failed to ask the local Court to consider the law on when enforcement could be refused. Without that request, the Court’s hands were tied and obtaining the orders was a straightforward process.
Learn more
A person wearing a white shirt is seated at a wooden table, typing on a laptop. The table has notes and a pen. Sunlight comes through a window in the background, providing natural light to the scene.
General

Introducing our refreshed website: A new experience awaits!

Learn more
Expert Determination

When consent to cross‑lease changes can be “reasonably” withheld  

The Court of Appeal has clarified the law on when consent to cross-lease alterations can be withheld – and the decision represents a meaningful shift from how the issue has long been approached in practice.

Cross‑leases are a common form of residential tenure in New Zealand. In most arrangements, structural alterations require the consent of all lessors (the owners of all cross-lease flats on the land). However, that consent cannot be “unreasonably withheld”.

For decades, the case of Smallfield v Brown was widely understood to mean that withholding consent would only be unreasonable where the proposed alteration delivered a substantial benefit to the applicant and caused only trifling detriment to the neighbour.

In the recent case of Liow v Martelli, the Court held that Smallfield v Brown does not correctly state the law.
Learn more

Sign up for our newsletter​