An introduction to witness conferencing in arbitration Witness conferencing (also known as ‘hot-tubbing’ or ‘concurrent evidence’) is a process of taking evidence where two or more fact or expert witnesses testify on common issues at the same time, which is increasingly common in international arbitration. When used properly, witness conferencing may save time and costs and lead to a more efficient determination of the merits of the case. However, if not used well, witness conferencing may complicate and confuse the parties’ positions as well as add unnecessary time and cost. As discussed below, either the arbitral tribunal or the parties may propose witness conferencing, and there is a significant amount of flexibility in how witness conferencing can be structured. Witness conferencing can be shaped to reflect the specific issues in dispute, the number of witnesses and the type of evidence being adduced. In some cases, witness conferencing may take place in addition to cross-examination of the witnesses by counsel. In others, it may be the only examination of those witnesses. Moreover, witness conferencing may be conducted by the tribunal,

DR analysis: The Queen’s Bench Division has debarred, of its own initiative under Rule 32.10, evidence on specific issues following the claimant’s failure to comply with a directions order. In doing so it also held this was not a case for relief from sanctions under Rule 3.9 (applying Mitchell). This judgment is an important reminder of the importance of pro-active case management; complying with rules, practice directions and orders; and the overriding objective.

This Practice Note explains the procedural requirements and practical issues which need to be satisfied when dealing with oral witness evidence in criminal prosecutions in England and Wales. For information on how to draft a witness statement, see Practice Note: How to draft a witness statement in criminal proceedings. For information on the additional rules which apply to expert evidence, see Practice Note: Expert evidence in criminal proceedings. For information about the admissibility of written witness statements, see Practice Notes: Stages of a summary trial and Procedure during a Crown Court trial—arraignment, trial requirements and evidence. Preliminaries A number of common sense preliminary rules relating to the giving of evidence by witnesses are set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules 2025 (CrimPR 2025), SI 2025/909: • unless the court directs otherwise: ◦ a witness waiting to give evidence must not wait inside the courtroom, unless they are a party (eg a defendant) or an expert witness ◦ a witness who gives evidence in the courtroom must do so from the place provided

This Practice Note sets out the general approach to witness evidence in family proceedings as provided for in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pts 22 and 24, and the format such evidence should take, including where a witness is unable to read or sign their statement and in relation to a non-English speaking witness. It also provides guidance on filing and service, witness summonses, requirements for both interim and final hearings, deposition evidence and the memorandum issued by the President of the Family Division on witness evidence in November 2021. In contested proceedings it will very often be the case that the court will hear evidence from witnesses. FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 22 applies to witness evidence in family proceedings. FPR 2010 generally requires a witness statement verified by a statement of truth, as opposed to an affidavit, however where the court of its own initiative, or following an application or a provision of a rule, Practice Direction or enactment, requires it, evidence must be given

This Checklist sets out the key requirements for witness evidence in family proceedings under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pts 22 and 24, together with relevant practice directions and guidance. It addresses the preparation and content of witness statements, including formal requirements, statements of truth and provisions where a witness is unable to read or sign or requires translation. The Checklist also covers procedural matters such as filing and service, witness summonses and the use of evidence at interim and final hearings, including deposition and hearsay evidence. It is intended as a tool to assist practitioners in ensuring compliance with the procedural rules and relevant judicial guidance, including the President of the Family Division’s memorandum on witness statements issued in November 2021. See also Practice Note: Witness evidence in family proceedings. General approach Reference ● confirm whether witness evidence is required under FPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 22 See Practice Note: Witness evidence in family proceedings—General approachFPR 2010, SI 2010/2955, Pt 22 ● identify the issues on which evidence is required,

ARCHIVED: Note: this Practice Note only gives guidance on the provisions implemented in April 2013. It does not provide guidance on any subsequent procedural amendments (whether to the CPR or any other procedural rules). Neither does it provide guidance on the implementation or interpretation of the April 2013 (or any subsequent) procedural updates. For guidance on the Jackson Reforms one-year on and on subsequent CPR updates, see Practice Note: Jackson Reforms—one year on [Archived] and CPR updates—overview respectively. The new provisions in CPR 32.2(3) came into force on 1 April 2013. This Practice Note only gives guidance on the new provisions at CPR 32.2(3). You should also consider the effect other provisions may have on witness evidence, including other Jackson Reforms, the Code of Conduct and any relevant court guide provisions. To assist you with this you may wish to consider the following: • for information on witness evidence generally see: Witness evidence—overview • for information on the April 2013 Jackson Reforms generally see: Summary of the Jackson April 2013 reforms [Archived] • for information

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Code of conduct requirements A solicitor's relationship with witnesses has to be handled carefully. When preparing witness evidence there are a number of new requirements for solicitors. These are set out in the SRA Code of Conduct contained in the new SRA Handbook which came into force on 6 October 2011 (the Code). Solicitors are now required to meet a number of mandatory outcomes (Outcomes) with indicative behaviours (IBs) being used to suggest whether the Outcomes are being achieved. Chapter 5 of the 1st Section of the Code governs solicitors' relations with the court and includes the Outcomes together with the relevant IBs which you should take into account when preparing witness evidence. The IBs provides clear examples of the kind of conduct considered as falling below the standards required of solicitors when drafting witness

An amended version of the Chancery Guide referred to in this Practice Note was published on 5 September 2025. For further information, see: LNB News 05/09/2025 57—September 2025 update to Chancery Guide and accompanying Practice Note. As this Practice Note is archived, paragraph numbers to the Chancery Guide have been removed to prevent their becoming out of date. ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note gives guidance on witnesses giving evidence remotely via video-conferencing in civil proceedings. It is not maintained and is for background information only. For information on remote hearings in civil proceedings generally, including the guidance on video-conferencing under CPR PD 32, Annex 3, see Practice Notes: Witness evidence—the mechanics of giving evidence at trial and Remote and hybrid hearings in civil proceedings, and Checklist for remote and hybrid hearings in civil proceedings. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to consider additional provisions—see: Court specific guidance. Witness evidence via video-conference The court, using its case management powers, may hold a hearing and receive

This Practice Note considers the circumstances in civil proceedings in which a court can draw inferences about the evidence that a witness who has not given evidence at trial because they were not called might have given if present. It looks at cases where inferences have and have not been drawn, and it sets out the requirements that must be met before a court will consider if it should draw any inference about the ‘missing evidence’. Proving an assertion Proof of an assertion made in a statement of case is usually achieved through the deployment of documentary evidence disclosed in the claim or by oral evidence given at trial that withstands cross-examination, or a combination. To prove less significant allegations, hearsay evidence may be put forward. Being untested by cross-examination, the weight given to hearsay statements tends to be limited; this is always a matter for the trial judge’s evaluation. Judges like documentary proof. They are conscious of the degree to which witnesses’ recollections can fade or be affected by their involvement in litigation.

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note deals with a number of issues relating to trial preparation in the context of factual witness evidence. It explores various factors to consider when deciding whether or not to call a particular witness, including the risks in submitting evidence as hearsay evidence, and the important distinction between preparing and coaching a witness. It also addresses a solicitor’s code of conduct requirements and the importance of ensuring that all those whose oral testimony you wish to call at trial have filed witness statements in compliance with CPR 32.4(2). It is not maintained and is for background information only. For information on interviewing witnesses and preparing them to give evidence at trial, see Practice Note: Witnesses—interviewing and preparing for trial [Archived]. This Practice Note provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the CPR. Depending on the court in which your matter is proceeding, you may also need to be mindful of additional provisions—see further in the section: Court specific guidance. This Practice Note should be

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. Similar facts evidence—meaning and the general position Evidence may exist regarding similar activity or the approach taken to a similar issue in other circumstances outside the dispute that a party may wish to put forward as tending to prove that activity or approach also occurred in the dispute. In those circumstances, an application can be made to the court to seek to admit such evidence of similar (albeit unconnected) incidents or facts. Courts tend to be resistant to such applications. The general position is that facts similar to a fact in issue are not generally admissible to prove the fact in issue. However, exceptions to this have been established and, it seems, the courts will generally admit evidence of similar facts if it is logically probative, it is not oppressive or unfair to the other side, the other side has fair notice and is able to deal with it. In deciding on the question of fairness, a court will evaluate the impact that

This Practice Note considers how judges evaluate the credibility and honest recollection of factual witnesses appearing in trials. The entirety of evidence To discharge the court’s fact-finding function, many factors ‘must all be considered together, fact-finding being a single compendious exercise’ (Tomlinson LJ in Synclair v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, citing Lord Pearce in a House of Lords’ case, Onasiss & Calogeropoulos v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 403 (not reported by LexisNexis®). In UK Insurance Ltd v Gentry, the court noted that ‘[i]n cases of this nature [a claim based on an alleged staged traffic collision], it is necessary to stand back and have regard to the whole of the evidence’. The judge also referred to the value of contemporaneous documents. Examples of the court taking into account the entirety of evidence include: • Yavuz v Tesco Stores Ltd—where feelings were running high and the witnesses had taken up entrenched positions in their written evidence; the court noted that ‘the best guide to the truth is often