Boutique by Design - International by Instinct

/
/
/
India ADR Week 2025: Witness Preparation and Cross Examination in Construction Arbitration

India ADR Week 2025: Witness Preparation and Cross Examination in Construction Arbitration

Share

On 18 September 2025, Hamish Lal spoke at an event in Delhi jointly hosted by DSK Legal and the Society of Construction Law, India, as part of India ADR Week 2025, organised by the Mumbai Centre For International Arbitration.

The session focused on “Witness Preparation and Cross Examination in Construction Arbitration”.

Hamish shared insightful perspectives alongside distinguished panellists: Mr Arpinder Singh, Ms Adv Avani Malik, and Mr Ratan K Singh. The session was moderated by DSK Legal Partner, Dinesh Pardasani.

Related Insights

/

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 […]

/

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 […]

/

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 […]

/

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 […]

/

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 […]

/

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