Abstract

Expert testimony can be submitted on a wide range of topics such as technical issues, damage expertise or quantum expertise. An expert should provide independent assistance to the court by way of objective and unbiased opinion to matters within this expertise, never act as an advocate and always make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his expertise. It is well known that international arbitrations often involve complex cases and technical issues that may exceed the arbitrators’ knowledge and that is why expert evidence becomes necessary: to explain the problems that only the parties may understand. Many arbitration statutes and institutional rules allow the parties to appoint their own experts and also permit the appointment of experts by the tribunal. Taking into consideration the different opinions about party-appointed and tribunal-appointed experts, we will present below the advantages and disadvantages of each type of expert and  methods used  by the Arbitral Tribunal and by the parties in order to encounter the disadvantages and make it more valuable for the arbitration.

I. Introduction

Many international arbitrations often involve complex evidences which only the parties may understand, due to the fact that they are represented by technical issues. Therefore, the dispute to be decided by the arbitral tribunal may require particular knowledge in fields that the arbitrators are not sufficiently familiar with and where the arbitral tribunal may need assistance “that might guide it in its search for the truth”.[1]

II. The role of an expert in any arbitral procedure

The arbitral tribunal may appoint an expert to provide evidence regarding disputed facts that require technical advice (evidentiary function) or to advise the tribunal and explain to it issues that are difficult to understand, although they may not be disputed by the parties (advisory function).[2] Furthermore, when selecting an expert one should pay attention to the expert personal trustworthiness, its communication skills and reliability and of course to its professional qualifications and expert skills. In general, this last criterion is the most important and the arbitral tribunal should give this factor the most weight when selecting an expert.

Expert testimony can be submitted on a wide range of topics such as technical issues, damage expertise or quantum expertise. An expert should provide independent assistance to the court by way of objective and unbiased opinion to matters within this expertise, he should never act as an advocate and always make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his expertise.

An expert’s role is to provide opinion evidence to assist the tribunal in understanding and deciding specialized issues that go beyond the ordinary experience and knowledge of the layperson.

The use of experts varies in many jurisdictions. While civil law countries prefer the expert to be appointed by the arbitral tribunal, in common law jurisdictions experts are often appointed by the parties and they appear as formal witnesses. According to specialized opinion “the trend in international arbitration is to rely on party-appointed experts rather than tribunal ones, although there have been important suggestions and possibly more recent trends to the contrary.” [3]

Many arbitration statutes and institutional rules allow the parties to appoint their own experts and also permit the appointment of experts by the tribunal. In principle, parties should be able to submit expert reports on whatever topic they consider to be necessary, while tribunals are not obliged to appoint an expert even though they have the authority to do so. In international arbitration, practice has shown that it is difficult to choose either system for general use, each case having different needs, depending on which the tribunal must choose the best option: party-appointed experts or tribunal-appointed experts.

III. Advantages and disadvantages of a party-appointed expert

III.1 Advantages

Party-appointed experts are very useful in explaining and solving technical problems, especially when arbitrators are not sufficiently prepared. For example, in complex cases such as those that arise in construction, engineering and industrial equipment or energy industries, calling a specialist that is able to explain the crucial facts and present them to the arbitrators can be valuable to the final award.

Specialists in this field consider that “even though, in theory, the tribunal could take over from the beginning in selecting and appointing suitable experts, it does make sense to have the parties in the driver’s seat in this regard, since at that stage of the proceedings they know the facts better than the arbitrators and will therefore be able to appoint the expert most suited to the proceedings.” [4]

Even though the arbitral tribunal may have a list of experts ready to present their opinion, in complex cases they might not be what the parties are searching for and therefore it is more advantageous to use party-appointed experts.

Another reason which should encourage the appointment of expert witnesses is that they are granted the information needed from the parties, having more access to information than tribunal-appointed experts. “The flow of factual information between the party and the corresponding party-appointed expert is usually much smoother than between a party and the tribunal-appointed expert, who, at least in case of non-compliance, has to obtain the assistance of an intermediary, i.e., the arbitral tribunal.”^[5] This is why reports submitted by party-appointed experts are more complex than reports written by tribunal-appointed experts, and in some specialists’ opinion[6] more difficult to be read.

From the parties’ point of view, this is seen as an advantage because party-appointed experts tend to be more motivated and more efficient than tribunal appointed experts, by having access to documents and detailed explanations thanks to the direct communication which party-appointed experts have with the parties and with the parties’ employees also involved in the technical performance of the contract. On the other hand, “while an objective, tribunal-appointed expert may have the best intentions, he may nonetheless inadvertently neglect a possible viewpoint and thereby put one party at a disadvantage.”[7] Party-appointed experts are highly motivated to ensure that they persuade the arbitrators and reject the opposing expert’s opinion and they ensure that, even with respect to more complex facts, the parties’ right to be heard is respected. Also, a party-appointed experts will always base its technical conclusions on documents and complex probative analysis, whilst a tribunal-appointed expert will always tend to have a more superficial approach, as their mission is just to answer someone’s questions in order to invoice its payment. Meanwhile, a party-appointed expert must submit a complex analysis and answer in a comprehensive way and very well based on documents because otherwise, the party who appointed him will refuse to pay its fee. Consequently, the direct connection between a party and an expert might increase the quality and the level of profoundness of the expertise and also motivates the expert.

Finally, especially when the evidence is voluminous, the report submitted by this kind of expert may summarize the most important claims, evidences and costs incurred.

III.2 Disadvantages

One of the disadvantages that one may encounter when using party-appointed experts is the alleged lack of impartiality, being described in the doctrine as ‘hired guns” and accused of “producing evidence “bought by the party presenting it”.[8] This lack of objectivity is often deduced front the previous relationship between the parties and the expert chosen, which might be a reason to challenge an expert. The existent relationship between the party and the expert does not render the expert unreliable, but it may cause some subjectivity.

Furthermore, some specialists think that expert’s testimony can be abused when the expert is paid by the party in the arbitration. In addition, regarding their impartiality, there are concerns about how the parties addresses their questions to the experts and how the experts are no longer expressing their opinion, but their client’s opinion. A party-appointed expert who is truly independent and is conscious that he has an ethical duty of honesty and an obligation to assist the tribunal, can write a valuable unilateral report, without being influenced by the party that appointed him.

Conversely, a party-appointed expert who believes that he must help the party win may be reticent in discussing technical matters with counterpart experts or be reluctant to agree on issues that might undermine their party’s position. In principal, one cannot conclude that every party-appointed expert is impartial and, before challenging an expert they must have in mind all the circumstances, such as their previous relationship or the expert’s qualifications and abilities.

In addition, although the access to more information might be seen as an advantage, from another point of view, some might be afraid that an expert appointed by a party might withhold some important information and refrain from identifying problems just to protect its client.

Another disadvantage, this time from the arbitral tribunal’s point of view, is that the party-appointed experts tend to produce complex and complicated reports and therefore not very clear. It is obvious that opponent experts might come to divergent conclusions which might fail to prioritize important matters for the arbitration. That is because conflicting opinions are difficult to reconcile. In the doctrine it was said that these reports “are often based on different facts, different scientific approaches and different assumptions, and they address different issues.”[9] Working separately, they might follow different methods and modes of expressions which would also might put the arbitral tribunal in difficulty when examining their reports.

Another disadvantage of the party-appointed experts concerns the costs and specifically that the costs are larger than the ones requested by a tribunal-appointed expert and if the costs are larger it is expected that each party will seek to recover them from their opponent.

IV. Advantages and disadvantages of a tribunal-appointed expert

IV.1 Advantages

By comparing them with the party-appointed experts, the first advantage is the presumed independence. Being appointed by the arbitral tribunal and not by the parties, the expert is thought to be more objective and reliable. “Objectivity” imposes the obligation to be impartial, intellectually honest, disinterested and free from conflicts of interest.”[10] An independent and impartial expert will always be dedicated to its duty and to the tribunal and less interested in the parties’ interests. Being objective, a tribunal-appointed expert might reveal issues that the parties do not want to talk about and present an even more clear picture of the case.

Furthermore, their fee is subject to cost control by the tribunal and being part of the tribunal cost it will be cheaper than appointing different experts by each party. The cost of the tribunal-appointed expert will be established by the tribunal and should be borne by both parties.

Finally, when the Arbitral Tribunal will make its decision, it will have in mind only one technical opinion and not two technical opposing opinions which might create difficulties when solving the case and motivating the decision. Thus, the Arbitral Tribunal will have the conviction that its solution is also technically correct.

IV.2 Disadvantages

From the parties’ point of view, one important disadvantage that characterize the appointment of the expert by the tribunal is the lack of control regarding what issues and documents the expert is going to analyze and which one he is going to ignore. The parties’ ability to control the manner in which an extremely important aspect to the dispute will be verified is taken away from them which is not according to the reason why the parties have decided to submit their conflict to the arbitral tribunal. “Although a tribunal-appointed expert has to be competent and neutral and is subject to the same standards of impartiality and independence as the members of the tribunal, he is not the person chosen by the parties to resolve their dispute.”[11]

In addition, the Arbitral Tribunal can guide the expert regarding important aspects that must be analyzed, but too much guidance from the tribunal may put in danger important key issues.

Another disadvantage might appear in complex cases such as construction, engineering or industrial equipment, where specialized opinion is required. Court-appointed experts are often chosen from lists, which might be out-of-date or unrepresentative for the topic in discussion. Equally, judges or arbitrators may not be skilled in the selection of appropriate experts for a given issue and the expert appointed by the tribunal might turn out to be not enough qualified to submit an opinion regarding the problem disputed by the parties. [12]

In addition, it should be taken into consideration the flow of information between the parties and the expert appointed by the arbitrators because while party-appointed experts have access to more information, tribunal-appointed experts might encounter difficulties in accessing the information needed and search for help at the arbitral tribunal which might be seen as a disadvantage from the tribunal’s point of view.

A single expert tends to be more negligent when writing a report, in comparison with a party-appointed expert who is always in a competition with his opponent and wants to analyze everything very carefully. Furthermore, even though they may have the best intentions, they may inadvertently neglect a possible viewpoint and thereby put one party at a disadvantage.[13]

V. The use of experts according to different international arbitration rules

While tribunal-appointed experts are always regarded as experts according to different international arbitration rules such as the ICC rules, the IBA rules, or Singapore’s Rules of Arbitration, party-appointed experts might be regarded different by the international arbitration rules.

According to the Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce, Singapore’s Rules of Arbitration or Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre’s rules party-appointed expert are regarded as witnesses and their report is presented as their testimony and not as an ordinary expertise report. However, The IBA rules on Taking Evidence and also the Arbitration Rules of the Court of International Commercial Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania refer to party-appointed experts just like they refer to tribunal appointed experts, each of them having to submit an expertise report.

The 2017 Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) regulate in art. 25 the use of both party-appointed experts and tribunal-appointed experts.

“The arbitral tribunal may decide to hear witnesses, experts appointed by the parties or any other person, in the presence of the parties, or in their absence provided they have been duly summoned. The arbitral tribunal, after having consulted the parties, may appoint one or more experts, define their terms of reference and receive their reports. At the request of a party, the parties shall be given the opportunity to question at a hearing any such expert.”[14]

The arbitrators are free in choosing the experts and their measure of instruction. Conversely, arbitrators may also refuse a party’s request that the tribunal appoint an expert. The Arbitral Tribunal will rarely appoint an expert upon its own will, but rather at the request of the parties with the condition that the parties support all the costs and if the Arbitral Tribunal refuses to appoint an expert, it should explain its decision to the parties. Even though the Tribunal has the authority to appoint an independent expert, it is not obliged to do so.

The costs of an expert are not included in the general advance costs paid by he parties to the ICC, therefore paying the expert’s fee represents a condition for the Arbitral Tribunal to appoint an expert. According to the ICC rules, the parties must always have access to the report submitted by the tribunal-appointed expert to respect their right to make comments. The Rules also allow the parties to appoint their own experts. The ICC recommends that each party is allowed only one expert for any particular area of expertise. Party-appointed experts are heard as witnesses even though they submit their own reports.

The 2010 IBA Rules on Taking Evidence are also talking about experts, this time presenting separately party-appointed experts and tribunal-appointed experts in article 5 and 6. The IBA Rules allow the parties to appoint their own experts and asks that their report contains some specifications such as a description of the methods, documents and information used to arrive at his conclusion, an affirmation of his or her genuine belief in the opinions expressed in the Expert Report, a description of the instructions pursuant to which he or she is providing his or her opinions and conclusions and the most important, a statement of independence. The IBA Rules allow the Tribunal to ask a meeting with the party-appointed experts in order to have an independent opinion about the case. It provides that at such a meeting the party-appointed experts shall attempt to reach agreement on those issues as to which they have differences of opinion.

The Tribunal-appointed experts are regulated by article 6 of the IBA Rules which requires that whenever the Tribunal wants to appoint an expert and to establish the questions to be answered or the terms of reference, it must consult the parties. The statement of independence is also required in the case of tribunal-appointed experts and the Evidentiary Hearing is also permitted for the Tribunal-appointed experts to give the parties the chance to ask questions and defend their case.

Singapore’s Rules of Arbitration dated 2016 give the parties the freedom to appoint experts and to have their expert evidence admitted as part of their case. “The parties and tribunal may also agree to engage an expert to assist the tribunal where the dispute is very technical.”[15] Under the SIAC[16] rules dated 2016, party appointed experts are regulated by art. 25 together with witnesses whilst tribunal-appointed experts are referred to in article 26. According to the rules of Singapore International Arbitration Centre’s rules, party-appointed experts are treated as any other witness and thus, the Tribunal may limit or refuse the appearance of these experts which can be questioned by the parties and also by the arbitrators. Party-appointed experts present only a testimony who can be given in writing or at the oral hearings. Tribunal appointed experts must submit a report and may be invited to participate at oral hearings to present explanations and to answer the parties and tribunal’s comments and questions.

According to Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre’s rules dated 2018 (HKIAC)[17] party appointed experts are not referred in particular, but the rules provide the parties the right to produce any document that they may consider to be relevant to the case, while the Tribunal is given the authority to determine its admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of evidence.  Tribunal-appointed experts are presented in article 25 of the HKIAC. According to this article, experts may e appointed by the tribunal at any party’s request, if the tribunal considers to be necessary and relevant to the case. The tribunal should ask the parties’ opinion, before deciding to appoint an expert. The HKIAC’s rules also state that a tribunal-appointed expert must submit its report about the specific issues determined by the tribunal and that the expert may also be requested to attend hearings where he should answer any of the parties’ comments and questions. In addition, at this hearing the parties have the right to bring their own experts to testify about the major issues of the case.

Finally, the Arbitration Rules of the Court of International Commercial Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania[18] refer to the party-appointed experts together with the witness. Thus, the experts appointed by the parties are seen as witness and should be called to provide testimony in front of the arbitral tribunal. In comparison with the party-appointed experts, tribunal appointed experts are referred to in a different article. The rules state that the tribunal may appoint one or more experts after it has consulted the parties. A tribunal-appointed expert must provide the arbitral tribunal and the parties a report in order for them to submit comments and objections. The CICA rules provide the parties the right to appoint “a counsellor expert” to participate at the expertise. In practice, the participation of the party-appointed experts represents a single report submitted by the tribunal-appointed expert where he makes reference regarding the opinion of the party-appointed experts and if they do not agree about certain issue, the report will include the separate opinion. In this way, the Tribunal will be presented a single report which contains all three opinions.  In addition, the CICA rules also talk about the possibility that the tribunal-appointed expert should be heard and asked questions in the context of an organized hearing.

As it may be seen, party-appointed experts and tribunal-appointed experts are referred to in many of the international rules. The value of their testimony and reports may differ from country to country, but what is important is that the parties are given the right to name their own experts. After all, the tribunal should make a decision after hearing all witness, after reading all documents and should weight the value of each evidence brought by the parties.

VI. How can we overcome the disadvantages?

One solution that is used in the international arbitration is represented by pre-hearing meetings between party-appointed experts, described by the Protocol for the Use of Party-Appointed Expert Witnesses in International Arbitration which was issued by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in September 2007 (CIArb Expert Protocol). The experts must meet before the hearing to discuss the issues they do not agree upon. In the doctrine,[19] it is said that the pre-hearing meetings can clarify factual and technical issues, help the experts focus on relevant issues and narrow down the differences between their reports. In addition, these meetings encourage the debate about scientific issues and therefore, makes the taking of evidence more efficient. Meeting at different stages of the arbitration might help the experts to act more independently and objectively. The ICC Task Force also recommended the use of pre-hearing expert conferencing because experts may be more willing to present a nuanced view to their peers than they would in the context of confrontational cross-examination.[20] These meetings should happen before the experts start to work on their reports, eventually to establish the methods that should be used, the same questions to be answered and if they happen before they draft their reports, this meeting should help on discussing the disagreements in order to make a clear statement for the arbitral tribunal.

The instrument of pre-hearing meetings is expressly foreseen by Art. 5(3) of the IBA Rules which reads as follows:

“The Arbitral Tribunal in its discretion may order that any Party-Appointed Experts who have submitted Expert Reports on the same or related issues meet and confer on such issues. At such meeting, the Party-Appointed Experts shall attempt to reach agreement on those issues as to which they had differences of opinion in their Expert Reports, and they shall record in writing any such issues on which they reach agreement.”

Witness conferencing was built upon the results of “pre-hearing meetings”. It consists of “the simultaneous joint hearing of all fact witnesses, expert witnesses, and other experts involved in the arbitration” [21]. It is for that reason that the instrument is not foreseen by Art. 5 of the IBA Rules, which deals with party-appointed experts, but rather by Art. 8(2) of the IBA Rules, which provides rules for the evidentiary hearing and thus applies to all types of witnesses. “Key advantages of witness conferencing are that a skilled arbitrator can ask particular experts why they disagree with the views of others, and ask for their views as to the appropriate process or methodology to resolve the conflict and in some cases the mere exchange of views will allow the tribunal to form an opinion.”[22]

This solution is somehow related to cross-examination, which represents the method of questioning the party-appointed experts by the tribunal or by every party about the relevant aspects of the case. The disadvantage of cross-examination is that it might be time-consuming and repetitive. However, cross-examination can be controlled in order to avoid unfavorable responses and bar the expert from expanding on their opinion in a more nuanced way. The cross-examination can represent for the experts their chance to present their reports to the arbitral tribunal in order to persuade it and to prove that their opinion is the correct one. From the Tribunal’s point of view, the cross-examination is an opportunity to ask any question to the experts and to make an independent and objective opinion about the issues disputed by the parties.

Another method that may be used to encounter the disadvantages that party-appointed experts present is to use an independent neutral coordinator. It is advisable to use an expert with expertise in a particular area. “A substantive expert who has also had arbitral experience might be ideal, given their understanding of the kind of reports that will assist the tribunal.”[23] This coordinator should try to organize the party-appointed experts in order for them to work more properly and efficiently. This solution should be based on the brainstorming of ideas, by encouraging the experts to express their objective opinion and try to present to the arbitral tribunal a clear and sole solution. “Van Houtte argues that the parties themselves should agree on the facilitator. If the parties are not able to come to a speedy agreement, the tribunal may suggest a list and allow for reasoned objections leading to an individual’s selection. Another possibility is to use a selection body such as the International Centre for Expertise of the International Chamber of Commerce”.[24]

Nonetheless, the coordinator can be represented by the tribunal-appointed expert. If the Tribunal thinks the issues are not clear, it can appoint another expert to explain the reports submitted by the party-appointed experts. The Arbitral Tribunal can appoint the expert at the same time the parties appoint their own experts and to decide that they work together or by using the same methods. They should be careful to keep their views for themselves and try not to influence one another.

Another way the tribunal can overcome the disadvantages that party-appointed experts allegedly present is to work with an expert-teaming. The experts in the arbitration suggest that this expert team should combine the advantages of party-appointed and tribunal-appointed expert models. This means that each party should provide a list with the desired experts and the tribunal would have to choose from each list one expert and form a team. In that way, each party would have the right to propose an expert and at the same time they would not be seen as advocates of the parties, but as tribunal-appointed experts which allegedly are more independent.  This expert team would prepare a joint report, a result of their work as a team, and this report should be transmitted to the parties and to the tribunal in order for them to present their conclusions and their comments. After the comments, the team would take into consideration all the information from the parties and will submit a final report. “One value of an expert team is that it has internal checks and balances not available with a single expert. The two experts are more likely to act independently as assistants to the tribunal as they are not independently selected and paid for by the parties, although there may be a problem in parties approaching potential experts prior to drafting the initial list.”[25]

The joint report could be used also when dealing with party-appointed experts. If the Tribunal thinks it appropriate, it could ask the two expert who would work independently to present a single report. This could have the benefit of making the experts to use the same terms, which would make it easier to the Tribunal to understand where their opinions differ and why.

VII. Conclusion

An expert’s duty should be to provide assistance to the arbitral tribunal, regardless the fact that we talk about a party-appointed expert or a tribunal-appointed expert. Both party-appointed and tribunal-appointed expert should have the same duty of independence and impartiality and even though we may identify advantages and disadvantages for both type of experts, it can be made to work properly in order to add value to the case because a professional and well prepared expert will always add value to the case regardless the person who appointed him.

From the parties’ point of view, an expert appointed by them and not by the tribunal might be more preferable due to the fact that he may analyze their problems in a comprehensive way and taking into consideration that the communication may be more direct and efficient. However, tribunal-appointed experts will be preferred by the parties who might not be willing to pay huge costs on an expertise report.

From the expert’s perspective, it might be preferable to be appointed by the parties and not by the tribunal. He may have a better communication with the party which appointed him, and, in this way, he would have access to all documents and explanations needed. Furthermore, despite the fact that being a party-appointed expert implies a higher fee, it is important to build a relationship with the parties in a way that allows him to keep its independence in presenting his own thoughts and opinion.

Finally, if we try to analyze the Arbitral Tribunal’s perspective, we might conclude that for the Tribunal it might be preferable an expert appointed by it because he would take a decision based on a single and clear report avoiding this way the hypothesis to decide based on  two opposing reports. However, in complex cases such as those who involve engineering and technical problems, party-appointed experts might be chosen by the tribunal due to the fact that they may be more technically prepared than the experts from the Tribunal’s list and they have the necessary knowledge to produce a complex and technical report.

In the end, all the advantages and the disadvantages presented above can be overcome by organizing pre-hearing meetings, witness conference or cross-examination, by appointing an independent coordinator for the expert team or by asking all experts to present a joint report with all opposing opinions.

---

[1] Dieter Hofmann and Oliver M. Kunz – Arbitration in Switzerland: The Practitioner’s Guide (Second Edition), 2nd edition (Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International 2018) pp. 719 – 736
[2] Herman Verbist, Erik Schfer, et al., ICC Arbitration in Practice (Second Edition), 2nd edition (Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International 2015) pp. 471 – 492, available on www.kluwerarbitration.com
[3] Jeffrey Maurice Waincymer, Procedure and Evidence in International Arbitration, (Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International 2012) pp. 885 – 976
[4] Elena Samaras and Christof Strasser – German Arbitration Journal, (Kluwer Law International; Verlag C.H. Beck oHG 2013, Volume 11 Issue 6) pp. 314 – 321 available on www.kluwerarbitration.com
[5] Klaus Sachs and Nils Schmidt-Ahrendts – ‘Protocol on Expert Teaming: A New Approach to Expert Evidence‘, in Albert Jan Van den Berg (ed), Arbitration Advocacy in Changing Times, ICCA Congress Series, Volume 15 (Kluwer Law International; ICCA & Kluwer Law International 2011) pp. 135 – 148, available on www.kluwerarbitration.com
[6] Jeffrey Maurice Waincymer, Procedure and Evidence in International Arbitration, (Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International 2012) pp. 885 – 976
[7] idem
[8]  Klaus Sachs and Nils Schmidt-Ahrendts – ‘Protocol on Expert Teaming: A New Approach to Expert Evidence‘, in Albert Jan Van den Berg (ed), Arbitration Advocacy in Changing Times, ICCA Congress Series, Volume 15 (Kluwer Law International; ICCA & Kluwer Law International 2011) pp. 135 – 148, available on www.kluwerarbitration.com
[9] idem
[10] Giovanni de Berti – Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration, Volume 2011 (Manz’sche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung; Manz’sche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung 2011) pp. 53 – 63 available on www.kluwerarbitration.com
[11] Klaus Sachs and Nils Schmidt-Ahrendts – ‘Protocol on Expert Teaming: A New Approach to Expert Evidence‘, in Albert Jan Van den Berg (ed), Arbitration Advocacy in Changing Times, ICCA Congress Series, Volume 15 (Kluwer Law International; ICCA & Kluwer Law International 2011) pp. 135 – 148, available on www.kluwerarbitration.com
[12] Howard Rosen – Legitimacy: Myths, Realities, Challenges, ICCA Congress Series, Volume 18 (Kluwer Law International; ICCA & Kluwer Law International 2015) pp. 379 – 430 available on www.kluwerarbitration.com
[13] Elena Samaras and Christof Strasser – German Arbitration Journal, (Kluwer Law International; Verlag C.H. Beck oHG 2013, Volume 11 Issue 6) pp. 314 – 321 available on www.kluwerarbitration.com
[14] The 2017 Arbitration Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) available on https://iccwbo.org
[15] Cristopher Lau- Practitioner’s handbook on international commercial arbitration, Second edition, edited by Dr. Frank Bernd Weigand, Oxford University Press
[16] Singapore’s Rules of Arbitration dated 2016 available on https://www.siac.org.sg/our-rules/rules/siac-rules-2016#siac_rule26
[17] Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre’s rules dated 2018 (HKIAC) available https://www.hkiac.org/arbitration/rules-practice-notes/hkiac-administered-2018
[18] Arbitration Rules of the Court of International Commercial Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania available on http://arbitration.ccir.ro/arbitration-rules-2/
[19] Jeffrey Maurice Waincymer , Procedure and Evidence in International Arbitration, (Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International 2012) pp. 885 – 976
[20] idem
[21] Klaus Sachs and Nils Schmidt-Ahrendts – ‘Protocol on Expert Teaming: A New Approach to Expert Evidence‘, in Albert Jan Van den Berg (ed), Arbitration Advocacy in Changing Times, ICCA Congress Series, Volume 15 (Kluwer Law International; ICCA & Kluwer Law International 2011) pp. 135 – 148, available on www.kluwerarbitration.com
[22] Jeffrey Maurice Waincymer, Procedure and Evidence in International Arbitration, (Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International 2012) pp. 885 – 976
[23] Jeffrey Maurice Waincymer, Procedure and Evidence in International Arbitration, (Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International 2012) pp. 885 – 976
[24] idem
[25] Jeffrey Maurice Waincymer , Procedure and Evidence in International Arbitration, (Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International 2012) pp. 885 – 976

---

Eugen Sârbu, Partner Lawyer OGLINDĂ & PARTNERS
Ana-Maria Castravete, Associate Lawyer, OGLINDĂ & PARTNERS