We all know that arbitration and litigation are governed by different rules which dictate the way disputes are dealt with and the way that hearings proceed. One perhaps surprising difference, however, is the approach to oral evidence.
Oral Evidence in Court
In court, oral evidence is often central to the trial and follows the Civil Procedure Rules. Witnesses and experts are generally required to attend trial and give live evidence under oath. This allows judges to assess credibility first hand often by observing how witnesses respond to hostile questioning by way of cross-examination by the opposing legal team.
Courts enforce formal procedures to ensure fairness and transparency. Importantly, courts also have the power to compel attendance by summoning witnesses or experts who refuse to appear, ensuring that all relevant oral evidence is heard.
Oral Evidence in Arbitration
By contrast, arbitration provides a much more flexible framework for presenting oral evidence. Under section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the arbitral tribunal has the authority to decide all evidential matters, subject to any agreement by the parties. This includes whether and to what extent oral evidence will be heard and how it will be managed.
The tribunal’s approach differs markedly from an adversarial court system because the tribunal takes a more active role in managing evidence at the hearing. For example, tribunals may cross-examine witnesses themselves, particularly if one party lacks legal representation. Parties and tribunals can agree on procedures, allowing the process to be tailored to the specific needs of the case.
Evidentiary hearings may or may not take place, depending on factors like complexity, cost, and procedural fairness. Sometimes the tribunal may rely primarily on written statements or reports to avoid unnecessary expense or delay – tribunals have the discretion to limit or waive oral cross-examination entirely, which can speed up proceedings and reduce costs. That said, the evidentiary hearing of a high-stakes arbitration will typically involve cross-examination which is as intense and adversarial as its litigation equivalents; especially those which encompass substantial amounts of factual evidence.
BPY v MXV
The recent Commercial Court decision in BPY v MXV provides important insight into how oral evidence and cross-examination are handled in arbitration.
In that case, the claimant challenged an arbitral award on the basis that certain serious allegations had not been put to witnesses in cross-examination, allegedly breaching the traditional rule in Browne v Dunn. This rule states that if a party intends to contradict a witness’s evidence, they must raise it in cross-examination to give the witness a chance to respond.
The court in BPY v MXV held that the rule in Browne v Dunn does not apply rigidly to arbitration proceedings. Given the practicalities of this particular case – which involved 30 witnesses giving evidence in just 6 days - the arbitrator had decided it was for her to assess the weight of the evidence, regardless of whether cross-examination had taken place in respect of every point. The court emphasised that tribunals have wide discretion to conduct proceedings in a manner they consider fair and efficient, which may include limiting or omitting oral cross-examination, and upheld the award.
Conclusion
Oral evidence can play a crucial role in both court and arbitration proceedings, but how it is ultimately presented can look very different. Courts tend to emphasise live testimony, formal procedures, and have the power to compel attendance to ensure thorough examination. Arbitration affords tribunals a greater degree of discretion to tailor the process to the case’s needs, often prioritising efficiency and cost-effectiveness over strict formality.
About the author
Leyla Maestri is an Associate in the Dispute Resolution team at Kingsley Napley. Leyla has experience acting on a broad range of disputes, including complex cross-border litigation, civil fraud matters, contract disputes, contentious trust and probate claims and arbitration proceedings.
Latest blogs & news
The International Data Insights Report: Trends in international arbitration
Two recent publications, the Law Society’s International Data Insights Report 2025 and Queen Mary University’s (“QMU”) International Arbitration Survey, analyse statistics concerning international arbitration and reaffirm London’s leading role in global dispute resolution.
Practical tips for trustees dealing with breach of trust allegations
Being a trustee carries significant responsibilities and often involves managing high value assets and making complex decisions in the best interests of all the beneficiaries. While trustees generally strive to act with care and integrity, allegations of breach of trust can arise. Whilst such allegations can be stressful and complex, how trustees manage the trust and how they respond to allegations is crucial to maintaining trust, protecting the trust’s assets, and avoiding potential contentious proceedings.
The tips below should generally be adopted through the life of the trust and may avoid disputes arising in the first place.
Civil Fraud Case Update: Q3 2025
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of July - September 2025.
UAE agrees to share crypto information with international tax authorities
The United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) has joined in global efforts to improve transparency and compliance in the crypto sector by signing the Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement (MCAA) under the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF). The framework is expected to be rolled out in UAE in 2027, with the first automatic exchanges of information with other tax authorities such as HMRC taking place in 2028.
HMRC Covid scheme amnesty: action by 31 December 2025
The COVID pandemic was a difficult time for businesses, and many legitimately relied on financial support provided through government schemes to help them to survive and retain employees. However, it is estimated by HMRC that circa £10billion was also lost as a result of incorrect applications and outright fraud.
‘No win, no fee’ - are clients being hoodwinked?
At a time when a national broadcaster feels obliged to unpick (for the lawyer in us: alleged) misleading information from the leader of the free world, I almost choked on my breakfast when reading that we should also be concerned that some of us lawyers may be misleading the public too: 'No win, no fee' under fire: SRA vows to stop law firms hoodwinking consumers | Law Gazette Why now is a mystery; the term has been a feature of daytime TV advertising for decades!
Crypto reporting is changing: what this means for you - and HMRC
As the global regulatory landscape continues to evolve, two major frameworks are set to reshape how crypto-assets are reported: the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (“CARF”) and the European Union’s Directive on Administration Cooperation in taxation (“DAC8”).
Supreme Court clarifies VAT group rules in Prudential v HMRC
On 11 September 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in The Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, a case that delves into the interaction between VAT group rules and the timing of taxable supplies. The decision has significant implications for businesses operating within VAT groups, particularly in relation to deferred consideration and success fees.
Rayner my parade! The importance of specialist advice.
The headlines this week around former Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner are a reminder of the importance of taking the right advice from appropriate professionals and the potential consequences when such advice is called into question.
Civil Fraud case update Q2 2025
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of April - June 2025.
Oral evidence series Part 6: Is an honest recollection of events truly evidence?
Judicial commentary shows that judges are exceedingly aware of the unreliability of witnesses’ memory when considering evidence at trial. While judges may take differing views as to the reliance that ought to be placed on oral evidence as compared to contemporaneous documents, procedural safeguards are now in place to help strengthen the reliability of witness evidence, in CPR Practice Direction 57AC - Trial Witness Statements in the Business and Property Courts (“PD 57AC”).
Privilege update: Privy Council confirms the shareholder principle no longer applies in England & Wales
We have previously written about the potential death of the shareholder principle in our previous blogs. The recent Privy Council decision in Jardine Strategic Limited v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd & Ors No 2 confirms what we suspected; the shareholder principle no longer exists in England & Wales.
Oral Evidence Series Part 5: How Does Oral Evidence Differ in Arbitration Proceedings compared to Court?
We all know that arbitration and litigation are governed by different rules which dictate the way disputes are dealt with and the way that hearings proceed. One perhaps surprising difference, however, is the approach to oral evidence.
Oral evidence part 4: Issues with expert evidence
Issues with expert evidence can have a profound impact on the credibility of a party’s case, and consequently the likelihood or not of a party succeeding at trial. In this article we discuss some recent case law which highlights the need for parties to carefully comply with their procedural obligations regarding expert evidence, namely Part 35 of the CPR (“Part 35”) and the accompanying Practice Direction, to avoid such risks.
Oral evidence part 3: What is the role of a liquidator in giving evidence?
One of the key duties of a liquidator is to investigate the affairs of the insolvent company to determine whether its demise resulted from the acts (or omissions) of its directors or third parties against whom claims may be brought to obtain redress for losses suffered by the Company. This article focuses on claims initiated by the liquidator themselves, whether on their own behalf or on behalf of the company, and considers the weight that will be given to the liquidator’s evidence.
Oral evidence part 2: What if a witness doesn’t turn up to court?
Where a party wishes to rely on a witness statement at trial, Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 32.5 provides that they must call the witness to give oral evidence unless the court orders otherwise, or notice is provided of the intention to rely on the statement as hearsay evidence.
One of the issues that may arise during litigation is a witness failing to turn up at court to give evidence.
Oral evidence part 1: Giving evidence abroad in the First-tier Tax Tribunal
In an ideal world, witnesses providing evidence in First-tier Tax Tribunal proceedings would do so in person at a hearing. It is often easier to build a rapport with the Judge in person, you avoid technical issues, and however informal the Tax Tribunal is in comparison to the civil courts, there is something to be said about looking into the whites of a witness’s eyes during a cross examination.
The future of will disputes part 4: Challenging validity based on capacity
For a will to be valid, the testator must have had testamentary capacity at the time it was made. Testamentary capacity refers to the mental ability of the testator to make a valid will.
Counting the cost of the UK tax system
Waqar Shah, a Partner at Kingsley Napley, takes a closer look at the recent report by the Committee of Public Accounts on the cost of the tax system.
The future of will disputes part three: challenging validity based on forgery and fraud
When a loved one dies, the terms of their will can sometimes surprise surviving family members, with unexpected beneficiaries or unequal distribution of the estate. In England and Wales, individuals have the freedom to leave their estate to anyone, with no legal obligation to provide for specific family members. Even if the will seems unfair, the law generally upholds the testator's wishes, if the will has been validly made. However, certain family members and dependants may be able to bring a claim against the estate (under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975), if adequate provision has not been made for them under a will.
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print