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International Bar Association adopted the new IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, which superseded the 1999 Rules.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

Court found arbitrator’s jurisdiction could not be resuscitated after delivery of final award even when award was conditional – that parrot is no more!

The Singapore Court of Appeal found an arbitrator’s jurisdiction had come to an end and there was no implied reservation of jurisdiction in the conditional award which he had issued. In its judgment, the Court stepped through the “tells” of a final arbitral award and how an arbitrator may reserve their jurisdiction.
A red cable car is pictured traveling uphill in an urban area with a lush green field, city buildings, and mountains in the background. The scene is bright and clear under a blue sky, resembling the clarity often sought in discussions about reduction of damages for contributory negligence.

Leaky Home Case: Failure to obtain a building report results in reduction of damages for contributory negligence

Apportionment for contributory negligence allows a court to share the responsibility between parties in circumstances where the test for causation and remoteness of damage justifies it. It doesn’t mean a respondent will not be held liable for negligence, but it can affect the amount of damages awarded to a claimant, as Roberts v Jules Consultancy Limited (in liq) [2021] NZCA 303 has shown.

A clause that works only on paper 

A cross-border dispute clause can be legally sound and still be inaccessible to the business relying on it. For SMEs, the real test is whether the pathway remains usable when trust, cashflow and cooperation are under pressure.

Sign up for our newsletter​