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International Bar Association adopted the new IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, which superseded the 1999 Rules.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 desk, writing with a pen on a piece of paper. The image focuses on their hands and the pen, with their face and upper body blurred in the background. The setting appears to be a professional or formal environment.
Arbitration

Marco Polo’s arbitration odyssey: When can the courts play the guessing game?

Two similar cases. Two different jurisdictions. Two different outcomes. How did two courts in Hong Kong and Singapore reach such opposing conclusions on whether a mystery Chinese arbitration centre can be read into an agreement? The cases, while held in different common-law jurisdictions, saw arbitration clauses put under the microscope due to errors at the drafting stage. In both, the parties had attempted, and failed, to name an arbitration centre in China. Despite the commonalities, the courts treated the mistake in different ways. The clear unpredictability of these decisions shows why care and precision are needed when drafting arbitration agreements, and why periodically reviewing your nominated centre(s) might not be such a bad idea.
Learn more
A person pointing a remote control at a blurred television screen displaying a news program. The screen shows a person's upper body, but the details are unclear due to the out-of-focus effect, making it difficult to identify any counterclaim being discussed during this enforcement stage.
Arbitration

English High Court confirms that parties are not permitted to raise a counterclaim at enforcement stage of a New York Convention award

In Selevision Saudi Co v BeIN Media Group LLC [2021] EWHC 2802 (Comm), the High Court in England and Wales held that it had no jurisdiction to permit a counterclaim at the enforcement stage of a New York Convention award pursuant to the English Arbitration Act given the “very streamlined” and “highly summary and essentially quasi-administrative proceedings”. Articles III-VI of the New York Convention address the recognition and enforcement of awards. The Convention provides for a simple enforcement regime where the ability to resist enforcement is severely curtailed.
Learn more
Arbitration

Eternity Sky Investments v Zhang: would-be consumer’s appeal on public policy matter backfires

Learn more

Sign up for our newsletter​