Blog
Press Round-Up: Regulatory and Professional Discipline – August and September 2025
Imogen Roberts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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”).
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.
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.
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.
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”).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The 2023/24 tax year marks a major shift in the way unincorporated businesses are taxed. It is a transition year, with HMRC moving from the traditional “current year basis” to a “tax year basis” from 6 April 2024. While this change is intended to simplify the system in the long run, it introduces some short-term complexities (and often tax expense) during the transition year which partners and other sole traders ought to be alive to.
In order for a will to be validly executed it must comply with the requirements set out at Section 9 of the Wills Act 1837.
Two years ago, the UK political and banking world was rocked by the “de-banking” of Nigel Farage, the politician. It turned out that other figures in the public eye, or related to those who were in politics, had struggled to gain access to accounts, or had them shut. Policymakers have sought to make changes. How far have they moved?
There continues to be a rise in will validity challenges involving allegations that an individual was unduly influenced to change the terms of their will. Such cases often involve the elderly or vulnerable, who may be more susceptible to influence, or someone abusing a position of trust to coerce an individual to write a will on terms that they otherwise would not have. This generally results in the person who exerted the influence (or someone close to them) benefitting significantly under the terms of the will.
We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.
Or call +44 (0)20 7814 1200
Imogen Roberts
Sharon Burkill
Jenny Higgins
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print