Evidence

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis

The role of documentary evidence in arbitration

This Practice Note explains the importance of evidence in arbitration and highlights how it is treated differently compared with court litigation. It provides practical tips about introducing documentary evidence into arbitration proceedings, how a tribunal may apply rules of evidence and how to deal with evidence in the hands of third parties to the arbitration.

See Practice Note: The role of documentary evidence in arbitration.

Disputes over documentary evidence in arbitration

This Practice Note covers how the parties, the tribunal and the court (under section 43 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) for English-seated arbitrations) may be involved in the resolution of disputes over documentary evidence in arbitration. It includes discussion of the guidance set out in the International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (IBA Rules). It also covers the consequences of a party's failure to comply with an order to produce issued by the tribunal. In resolving a dispute over evidence, parties often make use of a Redfern Schedule (see Precedent below).

See Practice Note:

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in TAKE A FREE TRIAL
Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

French Annulment Decision confirms a pro arbitration approach by the Paris Court of Appeal and Affirms Arbitrators’ Authority to Refine and Order Effective Remedies

Arbitration analysis: Arbitrators’ authority to order specific remedies is not precluded by the broad wording of a claim, as held in substance by the Paris Court of Appeal in its decision of 13 January 2026. Under French law, the scope of arbitrators’ powers is limited by the subject matter of the dispute, which is in turn defined by the parties’ claims. Accordingly, a ruling ultra petita exposes the award to annulment. In this case, the court dismissed the application for annulment and upheld an ICC partial award, holding that the arbitral tribunal had not exceeded its powers by translating a request for good-faith performance and cooperation, subject to a per diem penalty (astreinte), into a more detailed order to execute an agreement and complete the related formalities, since these measures were provided for in the contract and had been addressed in the claimant’s submissions. This decision therefore confirms the discretion that arbitrators have when specifying the modalities of performance needed to give effect to the relief granted, even where these are not expressly requested, provided they remain consistent with the contract and the claims made. Written by Sara Nadeau-Seguin, partner and Yassine Alaoui, associate at Teynier Pic.

ICC publishes guidance on expedited arbitration procedures based on eight years of case analysis

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has published new guidance on expedited arbitration procedures, drawing on an analysis of nearly 800 cases administered since the provisions were introduced in 2017. This guidance is presented in three separate publications: a report that reviews eight years of experience, a toolkit designed for arbitrators and a statistical factsheet.

IACA launches Global Passport for the dispute resolution community

The International Arbitration Centre Alliance (IACA) has launched the IACA Global Passport, enabling dispute resolution practitioners to access facilities on a reciprocal basis across seven partner hearing centres worldwide. The Global Passport provides access to shared lounges, concierge services, member discounts, networking opportunities and other facilities at partner hearing centres. The initiative is intended to facilitate cooperation among participating centres and improve access to services for members.

England and Wales Court of Appeal ruling on peremptory orders (LLC Eurochem North-West-2 v Techimont SPA & others)

Arbitration analysis: the key issue in this case turned on a question of statutory construction, namely whether pursuant to section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), the court has the power to enforce a peremptory order of an arbitration tribunal which grants anti-suit relief. The arbitration tribunal had made a series of peremptory orders following the non-compliance by the appellant with its non-peremptory orders. Dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal unsurprisingly held that compliance with an order or direction of the tribunal is necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the arbitral proceedings, and such an order includes anti-suit relief. On that basis, under AA 1996, s 41, the tribunal had the power to grant the peremptory orders, and the court could make an order requiring a party to comply with those orders of the tribunal. Written by Daniel Jukes, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers.

View Arbitration by content type :  
News
Practice notes
Precedents
Q&As

Popular documents

Law of the arbitration proceedings—curial law or lex arbitri (England and Wales)

Law of the arbitration proceedings—curial law or lex arbitri (England and Wales)STOP PRESS: This Practice Note has been updated in light of the new Arbitration Act 2025 and contains reference to amended provisions in the Arbitration Act 1996. For further information on when the new act comes

Early dismissal, summary dismissal and strike out in arbitration proceedings

Early dismissal, summary dismissal and strike out in arbitration proceedingsSTOP PRESS: This Practice Note is currently Under Review in light of the new Arbitration Act 2025. For further information on when the new act comes into force see Practice Note: When will the Arbitration Act 2025 come

Arbitration agreements—the doctrine of separability (England and Wales)

Arbitration agreements—the doctrine of separability (England and Wales)This Practice Note considers the doctrine of separability under the law of England and Wales (England and English are used as shorthand throughout). This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note:

Ad hoc arbitration—an introduction to the key features of ad hoc arbitration

Ad hoc arbitration—an introduction to the key features of ad hoc arbitrationAn ad hoc arbitration is any arbitration in which the parties have not selected an institution to administer the arbitration. This offers parties flexibility as to the conduct of the arbitration, but less external support
Law of the arbitration proceedings—curial law or lex arbitri (England and Wales)

Law of the arbitration proceedings—curial law or lex arbitri (England and Wales)

Law of the arbitration proceedings—curial law or lex arbitri (England and Wales)STOP PRESS: This Practice Note has been updated in light of the new Arbitration Act 2025 and contains reference to amended provisions in the Arbitration Act 1996. For further information on when the new act comes

Early dismissal, summary dismissal and strike out in arbitration proceedings

Early dismissal, summary dismissal and strike out in arbitration proceedings

Early dismissal, summary dismissal and strike out in arbitration proceedingsSTOP PRESS: This Practice Note is currently Under Review in light of the new Arbitration Act 2025. For further information on when the new act comes into force see Practice Note: When will the Arbitration Act 2025 come

Arbitration agreements—the doctrine of separability (England and Wales)

Arbitration agreements—the doctrine of separability (England and Wales)

Arbitration agreements—the doctrine of separability (England and Wales)This Practice Note considers the doctrine of separability under the law of England and Wales (England and English are used as shorthand throughout). This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note:

Ad hoc arbitration—an introduction to the key features of ad hoc arbitration

Ad hoc arbitration—an introduction to the key features of ad hoc arbitration

Ad hoc arbitration—an introduction to the key features of ad hoc arbitrationAn ad hoc arbitration is any arbitration in which the parties have not selected an institution to administer the arbitration. This offers parties flexibility as to the conduct of the arbitration, but less external support