Blog
Press Round-Up: Regulatory and Professional Discipline – May 2026
Jack Garden
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
This is not a love song: Song & Zhao v Smith & Others
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Song & Zhao v Smith & Others [2026] EWCA Civ 719, provides some useful reminders about the interplay between alleged breaches of director’s duties, insolvency and the unfair prejudice remedy.
No off-season for sports law: five cases that defined a remarkable four weeks
For a number of sports, this time of year traditionally marks the end of the season - a moment when professional players down tools, fans digest another campaign, and those who work in and around sport draw breath.
The Fair Work Agency: enforcement framework, criminal exposure and employer response
The Fair Work Agency (FWA) was established under the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025) on 7 April 2026 as an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade, consolidating labour market enforcement functions previously carried out by other authorities.
Financial abuse and dementia
This Dementia Action Week, we are shining a light on an issue that affects thousands of families across the UK: the misappropriation of assets from people living with dementia.
Litigation Funding Agreements: Still in limbo
Although the King’s Speech on 13 May 2026 contained an ambitious 37 bills for the next parliamentary session, there was a notable exception for litigators.
Civil Fraud Case Update: Q1 2026
This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period of January - March 2026.
Cross-border tax scrutiny: what non-residents need to know about UK tax investigations
Many people mistakenly believe that once they've established residency outside the UK, HMRC's authority over their tax affairs ceases to exist. However, HMRC retains the power to examine historical matters stretching back up to two decades in the most serious cases, and UK-situated assets remain within their jurisdiction regardless of where the owner physically resides.
When does tax litigation cross the line? Indemnity costs outcome in the First-tier Tax Tribunal
Costs in tax litigation often catch even experienced advisors off guard. Unlike other areas of civil litigation, where costs consequences are ever-present and a continuous strategic consideration, proceedings before the First-tier Tax Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) are often approached with less emphasis on potential costs exposure.
Managing reputation in tax disputes
Privacy and confidentiality in tax cases have always been important, particularly where the taxpayer is someone in the public eye. Whilst a tax enquiry, or indeed litigation, does not mean that the taxpayer has ‘done something wrong’, there are certain negative inferences made by the public and media which could impact future opportunities for the individual or corporate involved.
Court of Appeal confirms strict approach to late tax appeals: What taxpayers need to know
One of the benefits of an appeal before the First-tier Tax Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) is that it is seen as less formal than an appeal in the Higher Courts. However, the Court of Appeal's recent ruling in HMRC v Medpro Healthcare [2026] is a reminder in case it was needed that deadlines matter in tax disputes and securing permission for a late appeal is not guaranteed.
No time limit on shareholders’ rights to petition for unfair prejudice
Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 provides one of the most important protections available for shareholders - allowing a shareholder to apply to the court by petition for relief where “the company’s affairs are being or have been conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the interests of members generally or of some part of its members (including at least himself),…”. These claims are often termed as “corporate divorce”.
The Olympic Games: Swift justice through the CAS Ad Hoc Division
The 2026 Winter Olympic Games in Italy are in full swing, showcasing athletic excellence on the world stage. At the time of writing, British hopes remain high despite some agonisingly close finishes, with Kirsty Muir, Mia Brookes, Jen Dodds and Bruce Mouat all delivering thrilling performances that placed them just outside the medals.
2025 in review: International arbitration
2025 was a notable year for arbitration in England & Wales, marked by legislative change, technological advances, and significant judicial developments that continue to shape the arbitration landscape.
2025 in review: Trust and estate disputes
2025 produced many interesting decisions in trust and estate disputes in the courts of England & Wales. We consider just a few of those key decisions below, which illustrate that the outcome in cases of this nature remains highly dependent on the particular facts of the case and available evidence.
Data protection v defamation as a means to protect reputation – where are we now and what can we expect in 2026?
There has been a trend in recent years of seeking to use data protection claims as a means of obtaining redress for reputational harm, which would traditionally have been sought through defamation proceedings.
Civil Fraud Quarterly Round-Up: Q4 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 October - December 2025.
2025 in review: Under construction - Tax investigations
In Rachel Reeve’s Budget on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor set out plans, among other things a to tackle fraud within the Construction Industry Scheme (“CIS”) and announced a technical consultation “aimed at simplifying and improving the administration of the scheme”.
Under construction: Tax investigations
In Rachel Reeve’s Budget on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor set out plans, among other things a to tackle fraud within the Construction Industry Scheme (“CIS”) and announced a technical consultation “aimed at simplifying and improving the administration of the scheme”.
No more deemed fulfilment: The Supreme Court decision in King Crude Carriers SA v Ridgebury November LLC
The recent Supreme Court judgment in King Crude Carriers SA and others v Ridgebury November LLC marks a significant development in English contract law.
The decision arose from an appeal against an arbitration award and addresses the fundamental question of whether the so called “deemed fulfilment” principle established by the 1881 Scottish Appeal case of Mackay v Dick exists in English Law.
2025 in Review: Civil fraud
In 2025, two High Court rulings, Apollo XI Ltd v Nexedge Markets Ltd and J&J Snack Foods Corp & ICEE Corp v Ralph Peters & Sons Ltd highlighted the strict nature of the duty of full and frank disclosure in without notice applications.
In both cases, the court discharged freezing injunctions after finding that the applicants had failed to meet the requisite standard of candour and fair presentation. These decisions serve as a clear reminder that when seeking urgent relief without notifying the other party, applicants must present all material facts - including those that may undermine their case, and ensure the court receives a balanced and accurate account.
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print