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International Bar Association adopted the new IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, which superseded the 1999 Rules.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

Six hands of varying skin tones are gripping each other's wrists, forming a circle. The background is a patch of green grass. Each person is wearing a gold wedding band on their ring finger.

The Trusts Act 2019: keeping it in the family

No-one likes to have their dirty laundry aired in public. Sadly, it has been all too common for parties in family trust and estate disputes, to find their private family affairs made public and become the topic of law journal articles and gossip at parties. The Trusts Act 2019 (Act) has, hopefully, helped put an end to that.

The Act contains provision for the private resolution of disputes through mediation and arbitration (or other non-juridical dispute resolution processes) where the matter would otherwise be headed for the courts. It is a further acknowledgement by Parliament that the court system is not the only, and may not be the most suitable, way for parties to resolve problems.

When reviewing the law of trusts, the Law Commission[1] compared the benefits of private dispute resolution with a court hearing. It said these included lower costs, quicker resolution, achieving finality, maintaining confidentiality and privacy, and being less adversarial. The last is possibly the most important when it comes to maintaining relationships. Given the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the courts’ caseloads, quicker resolution is also a significant benefit.

When the math matters: NZDRC arbitrator gets rent review right

Rent review disputes might not make headlines, but when they end up in arbitration — and then in the High Court — the details matter. A recent case involving a decision of one of NZDRC’s arbitrators, Catherine Green, is a good reminder of why getting the numbers right is so important.
A grand building with intricate architecture and multiple spires, set against a blue sky with scattered clouds. Several flags, including red and yellow ones, can be seen in front of the building. The structure appears historic and majestic.

The State immunity siesta: Australia’s top court renews Spain’s understanding of ICSID

In a recent decision, the High Court of Australia has ruled that an ICSID arbitration award between the Kingdom of Spain and a company from Luxembourg, Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.Ă .r.l, can be recognised and enforced, but not the subject of execution. Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.Ă .r.l. & Anor provides clarity around the application of State immunity and develops an understanding on how the ICSID Convention can be interpreted. [1]

Sign up for our newsletter​