Originally from Expert Evidence: Conflicting Assumptions and How to Handle Them in Arbitration - ASA Special Series No. 46

The following is the slightly adapted manuscript of a presentation given at the ASA Annual Conference held in Zurich on 2 February 2018 on the issue of “Expert Evidence: Conflicting Assumptions and Expectations and How to Handle them in Arbitration”. The topic of the first panel session, chaired by Michael Schneider, was “Conflicting Assumptions and Expectations on the Role of Expert Evidence in Arbitration” and I was tasked with giving the civil law perspective.

1.           INTRODUCTION

I have been asked to give an overview on expert evidence from a civil law perspective focusing on conflicting assumptions and expectations that may exist in an international arbitration setting. My presentation, together with that of Christopher Harris on the common law perspective, intends to set the scene for the rest of the day, so to speak. It is more about raising flags and talking points than giving conclusive answers to specific questions. That will be for the ensuing panels.

When I was dealt this topic by the organisers and started thinking about what I would present to you here today, I immediately asked myself several questions:

1.2.        Whose baggage are we talking about?

1.3.        Is it really as easy as drawing, or correct to draw, the popular line between the civil and the common law?

1.4.        What baggage are we talking about?

1.5.        What “civil law perspective” are we talking about?