Boutique by Design - International by Instinct

Home
/
/
/
London Arbitration Week 2025: International Construction Arbitration – Pursuit of Effective Expert Evidence

London Arbitration Week 2025: International Construction Arbitration – Pursuit of Effective Expert Evidence

Share
LinkedIn
Email

On 4 December 2025, Hamish Lal Partners, in collaboration with Tahan – Cem Attorney Partnership, held a session at London Arbitration Week 2025 on “International Construction Arbitration – Pursuit of Effective Expert Evidence” at the offices of Alvarez & Marsal. Special thanks belong to our Trainee Solicitors, Ece Tahan and Deren Taşan, for skillfully moderating the session and posing insightful questions to our speakers.

The conversation with Professor John Uff CBE KC provided invaluable insight into the development of Construction Law. It was a true privilege to hear the personal and professional experiences of Professor Uff, who has made such a meaningful impact in the industry.

Distinguished panelists Maude Lebois, David Coyne, Andrew Drennan, and Çağrı Cem shared their expertise and experiences on expert evidence. The lively discussion delved into the distinction between expert evidence in civil and common law jurisdictions as well as the pros and cons of expert cooperation (Joint Statements and Hot-Tubbing).

Related Insights

/

  • Client Alerts

US “Circuit Split” – Law Applicable to Non-Signatories in US Seated Arbitration

The US Supreme Court has been asked to clarify the legal regime governing non-signatories to arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act. In particular, the Court is now asked to resolve whether state law principles of equitable estoppel apply to a claim to extend an arbitration agreement, or whether “federal common law” derived from a […]

/

  • Client Alerts

Tribunal’s Own Interpretation – Singapore Says No Breach of Natural Justice or Excess Jurisdiction

Arbitral awards are rarely set aside. In DWL v DWM,[1] the Singapore High Court dismissed an application to set-aside an arbitral award for excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice. Eminent judges have been clear “there is a difference between, on the one hand, a party having no opportunity to address a point or […]

/

  • Client Alerts

Bond Calls in London – Using Section 68 of the Arbitration Act

In JKD and anor v IKC,[1] the English High Court dismissed a challenge under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to an arbitral Order refusing to restrain a call on a bond. This is another important case because it reinforces the thinking that section 68 challenges apply only to Awards (not arbitral Orders) and […]

/

  • Client Alerts

Similarities between Two Arbitral Awards – Singapore says No Breach of Natural Justice

In DSS v DST,[1] the Singapore High Court found that an award, where 108 out of the 211 paragraphs were wholesale or substantial reproductions of excerpts from a related award, was not rendered in breach of natural justice. The Claimant said that the reproductions were not limited to reciting of uncontroversial procedural matters but “extend […]

/

  • Client Alerts

Bond Calls in London – the Latest Thinking

In TTSJV W.L.L and others v BapCo Refining B.S.C (TTSJV),[1] the English High Court dismissed an application for an injunction against a bond call. Applications to restrain bond calls are difficult, given the high threshold. London has reaffirmed the position that a call on an ‘on-demand’ bond can only be restrained in cases of fraud […]

/

  • Client Alerts

No Recovery of Third-Party Funding Costs in Singapore – Lessons from DTH v DTF

Third-Party Funding (TPF) comes up in international arbitration. Agreements typically require a successful party to reimburse the sums provided by the funder and pay an uplift. There is debate as to whether this uplift (TPF Costs) can be recovered in international arbitration from the unsuccessful party. Tribunals have discretion in costs allocation. The types of […]

© Copyright 2026 – Hamish Lal Partners