Expert Evidence - Chapter 32 - Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration
Peter Ashford is Solicitor of the Supreme Court and a Partner at Cripps Harries Hall LLP and is Head of the firm's Commercial Peter Ashford is a Partner and Head of commercial dispute resolution in the leading United Kingdom Firm of Cripps Harries Hall LLP, Tunbridge Wells, United Kingdom. Mr. Ashford advises on a wide range of commercial disputes with a particular emphasis on substantial commercial contract disputes, especially those involving an international aspect, partnership and LLP disputes, professional issues for solicitors and professional negligence. He is particularly experienced in complex, high value claims and acts for many international clients. He handles disputes in court, arbitration, mediation and disputes without any formal process. Mr. Ashford received his training in London and qualified in 1986. He joined Cripps Harries Hall LLP in 1987 and became a partner in 1991.
Originally from Handbook on International Commercial Arbitration
Preview page
Many references may raise issues that either cannot sensibly be resolved without expert testimony or which the determination of which are greatly assisted by expert testimony. In consequence, and in addition to dcumentary evidence and witness statements, it is common practice to adduce the evidence of experts. Expectations as to the manner in which experts are selected, appointed, and give evidence can, however, vary greatly.
To many the notion of expert evidence in arbitration is an anathema as the arbitral tribunal are appointed for their expertise. This is indeed often the case for trade arbitrations with disputes on, say, quality. The preponderance of lawyers as arbitrators necessitates that technical evidence is given by experts. This results in expert evidence on, among others, engineering, science, trade practice, foreign law and accounting. The issues upon which expert evidence is adduced are therefore not on whether something occurred but why or how it occurred or on the consequences of a breach of contract, such as the damages naturally arising flowing from the breach. The common feature is that the evidence is of opinion.1 Necessarily, there can be a range of opinion typically with a narrower range within which reasonable professionals could quite properly differ. This makes the function of the Arbitral Tribunal all the more difficult.