Published: 2026-03-02 00:00
In modern international commercial arbitration, disputes increasingly involve “specialized issues” such as engineering technology, quality inspection, financial accounting, ecological and environmental standards, determination of trade secrets, data evidence collection, and industry customs. Such issues affect not only fact-finding but also the allocation of liability and the calculation of losses. If an arbitral tribunal relies solely on party submissions and ordinary documentary evidence, it may find it difficult to fully grasp technical disputes; if it relies excessively on one party’s expert opinions, this may raise concerns about procedural fairness, such as “experts being biased toward the appointing party,”“lack of methodological transparency,” and “the opposing party being unable to effectively rebut.” Therefore, designing an operable expert procedure that balances efficiency, fairness, and the stability of awards has become an important topic in the drafting of international arbitration rules.
Article 30 of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the International Commercial Disputes Prevention and Settlement Organization (ICDPASO) (the“Rules”) , titled “Tribunal-Appointed Experts,” establishes a relatively complete institutional chain through five paragraphs. From prior consultation with the parties, disclosure of the expert’s qualifications and independence, and time limits for objections, to defining the boundaries of the expert’s authority to obtain information, service of the expert report and opportunities for written comments, and procedural safeguards for the expert’s appearance for questioning, the provision forms an integrated arrangement that accommodates both specialized fact-finding and procedural due process. This article not only aligns with the institutional logic of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules regarding tribunal-appointed experts, but also broadly accords with the directions of mainstream international arbitral institutions such as the ICC, the LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, and others, while offering clear procedural operability at multiple key points.
Moreover, under the institutional background of the newly revised Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (the“New Arbitration Law”), arbitral procedures face more explicit requirements concerning evidence, examination of evidence, case management, and judicial support. The value of Article 30 of the Rules (“Article 30”) lies in the fact that it is not merely an abstract authorization that “experts may be appointed,” but rather incorporates “tribunal-appointed experts” into a procedural pathway that is verifiable, responsive, challengeable, and recordable, thereby providing solid support for the tribunal to ascertain specialized facts, for the parties to exercise procedural rights, and for the award to withstand procedural challenges.
I. Text of Article 30 of the Rules
Article 30. Tribunal-Appointed Experts
1. The Arbitral Tribunal may, after consulting the parties, appoint one or more independent experts to report in writing on the specific issues proposed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
2. The expert shall, before accepting the appointment, submit a statement of his/her professional qualifications and a declaration of his/her impartiality and independence to the Arbitral Tribunal and the parties.
The parties shall, within the time limit prescribed by the Arbitral Tribunal, submit written opinions to the Arbitral Tribunal regarding the qualification, impartiality or independence of the expert.
If a party fails to raise an objection within the time limit and the expert accepts the appointment, the party can only raise an objection to the qualification, impartiality or independence of the expert based on the reasons known only after the appointment of the expert. The arbitration tribunal shall decide whether to accept the objection.
3. The parties shall provide or produce the documents, physical objects and other relevant materials required by the expert for inspection. If any party and the expert dispute on the necessity of providing or producing documents, physical objects and other materials, the dispute shall be submitted to the Arbitral Tribunal for decision.
4. The Arbitral Tribunal shall, upon receipt of the expert report, send a copy thereof to the parties, and give the parties a reasonable period of time to put forward their written opinions.
5. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, if the Arbitral Tribunal considers it necessary for the expert to appear at the hearing or if the parties apply for the expert to appear at the hearing, the expert appointed in accordance with Paragraph 1 of this Article shall attend the court hearing and respond to the inquiry. The expert who submits the report shall, at the request of either party, appear in court for hearing.
II. Clause-by-Clause Commentary on Article 30
Paragraph (1) Initiating the Appointment Mechanism
1. Textual Interpretation
This paragraph serves as the initiating provision for the expert mechanism. Its normative core may be distilled into four key phrases: “after consultation with the parties,” “may appoint,” “independent experts,” and “submit a written report on specific issues.”
First, “after consultation with the parties” emphasizes procedural participation rather than requiring unanimous consent. Although the arbitral tribunal need not obtain the consent of all parties before appointing an expert, it should, prior to exercising this case-management power, hear the parties’ views on matters such as the necessity of an expert, the field of expertise, the scope of the mandate, fee arrangements, and procedural timetable. This design balances party autonomy with tribunal case management.
Second, “may appoint” indicates that this is a discretionary power, not a mandatory step in every case involving specialized issues. The tribunal should decide prudently by taking into account factors such as the complexity of the case, the adequacy of existing evidence, the amount in dispute, procedural cost, and time constraints, so as to avoid delay or excessive costs caused by an improper initiation of expert proceedings.
Third, “independent experts” clarifies the expert’s role: the expert is not an advocate for either party’s position, but a neutral assistant providing professional support to the tribunal in determining specialized issues. “Independence” requires not only objective neutrality in terms of interests, but also professional independence in the reasoning process.
Finally, “submit a written report on specific issues raised by the tribunal” imposes dual constraints on both the boundaries of the expert’s mandate and the form of the deliverable. The expert’s duties should be limited to concrete technical, industry, or quantitative issues clearly identified by the tribunal, and should not be generalized into legal evaluations of the entire case. At the same time, a written report facilitates subsequent transmission, comments, questioning, and procedural record-keeping, thereby enhancing verifiability.
2. Comparative Law Perspective
This paragraph closely aligns with the design of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021) regarding tribunal-appointed experts, both centering on “appointment by the tribunal after consultation” and “an independent expert issuing a written report on specific matters.”① Similar structures also appear in the arbitration rules of major institutions such as the ICC, LCIA, and HKIAC. While the level of detail varies, these rules generally recognize the necessity of an expert mechanism and treat respect for party autonomy as a prerequisite.② The ICC Rules (2021), in particular, place emphasis on consultative appointment as well as defining the expert’s authority and mandate.③
3. Jurisprudential Analysis
The jurisprudential foundation of this paragraph lies in addressing—through proceduralization—the legitimacy question of “introducing specialized knowledge into adjudication.” The expert’s involvement does not substitute the tribunal’s adjudicatory function; rather, it assists the tribunal in understanding and assessing specialized factual material. Therefore, “appointment after consultation” and “limitation to specific issues” are needed to prevent the expert’s role from shifting from “auxiliary fact-finding” to “substitution for factual or legal determination.”
From the perspective of procedural fairness, excluding party participation in expert appointment may invite doubts about neutrality; and an overly broad mandate may allow the expert to restructure the dispute, affecting the parties’ identified core issues. By combining procedural participation with issue limitation, this paragraph embeds the expert mechanism within the arbitral process and reduces procedural defect risks at the source.
4. Practical Considerations
In practice, it is advisable for the tribunal to specify in a procedural order whether it is considering appointing an expert and to allow the parties to make written submissions, in light of the case, on matters including: the necessity of an expert, disciplinary background, issues to be addressed, scope of materials, reporting deadline, cost allocation, and confidentiality arrangements. When finalizing the expert’s mandate, the tribunal may set out a “list of questions” in specific terms, avoiding overly broad expressions such as “quality issues” or “loss calculation” in place of concrete written questions. In addition, where the parties have already engaged party-appointed experts, the tribunal should further clarify the role distinctions between “tribunal-appointed experts” and “party-appointed experts” to avoid procedural confusion.
Paragraph (2) Review Mechanism for Qualifications and Neutrality
1. Textual Interpretation
This paragraph is among the most prominent in Article 30 for its procedural governance function. It establishes a complete mechanism of “disclosure—time-limited objections—waiver upon expiration—exception for subsequently discovered grounds,” which may be divided into three layers.
First layer: the pre-appointment disclosure obligation. Before accepting appointment, the expert must submit to the tribunal and all parties a statement of professional qualifications and a declaration of impartiality and independence. The required disclosure covers not only professional competence (“ability to perform”), but also safeguards of neutrality (“ability to remain neutral”).
Second layer: the parties’ right to object within a time limit. Each party must, within the time limit fixed by the tribunal, submit written comments on the expert’s qualifications, impartiality, or independence. The “time limit” transforms the objection right from an abstract entitlement into a discipline-bound procedural obligation, preventing abuse or strategic suspension.
Third layer: waiver for late objections and preservation of an exception. If a party fails to object within the prescribed time and the expert accepts the appointment, the party may, in principle, object only on “new grounds that became known after the appointment,” subject to the tribunal’s decision on whether to accept the objection. This design both deters tactical delay and preserves necessary space to correct the process where newly discovered conflicts of interest or qualification defects arise.
2. Comparative Law Perspective
The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021) contain mature provisions on disclosure by tribunal-appointed experts, time limits for objections, and objection mechanisms based on “subsequently discovered grounds,” and this paragraph is broadly similar in logic.④ The SIAC Rules (2025) expressly require an expert, prior to accepting appointment, to submit a signed statement of qualifications and independence, with the tribunal handling any party objections.⑤ While the LCIA, HKIAC, and other institutional rules vary in detail, they all emphasize disclosure of independence and protection of the parties’ right to object.⑥ This paragraph states with clarity that, after the objection period expires without objection and the expert has accepted appointment, only newly discovered grounds may be raised, and the tribunal has discretion on acceptance. This “waiver + exception” structure is of significant practical value and can effectively prevent retroactive procedural challenges initiated only after a party realizes the expert report is unfavorable.
3. Jurisprudential Analysis
The core jurisprudential issue addressed here is the fine-grained balance between procedural efficiency and procedural fairness. Without adequate disclosure and objection mechanisms, tribunal-appointed experts may jeopardize procedural neutrality due to potential conflicts of interest; but without constraints on the time and manner of objections, parties may also exploit the mechanism to repeatedly delay proceedings and destabilize the expert appointment process.
The “disclosure—time-limited objections—waiver upon expiration—exception for subsequently discovered grounds” structure is, in essence, a procedural reliance mechanism. The tribunal organizes disclosure and objections to provide parties with full opportunities for review and opposition; where a party fails to exercise rights within a reasonable period, it should bear the procedural consequences; at the same time, to avoid substantive injustice, relief is preserved for unforeseeable new circumstances. This reflects the modern governance logic in international arbitration of giving equal weight to efficiency and fairness.
4. Practical Considerations
For the tribunal, disclosures should be required to be as specific and substantive as possible, avoiding mere standardized, formulaic declarations. It is advisable that disclosures cover prior engagements or cooperation with the parties and their affiliates, counsel, other experts, third-party funders, and relevant industry bodies, as well as any other interests that may affect impartial judgment. The tribunal should promptly issue procedural decisions on objections and, where possible, briefly record reasons in the procedural record to create a complete review trail. For late objections, the objecting party should be required to explain “when it became aware, how it became aware, and why it could not reasonably have become aware earlier,” to prevent delay disguised as “subsequent discovery.”
For parties, the objection window should be fully utilized: disclosure information should be carefully reviewed and written comments raised promptly. Failure to object within time may result in waiver, eliminating the procedural opportunity to challenge the expert on already known grounds. Parties should also pay attention to objections based on grounds discovered only after appointment, and should clearly explain the “newly discovered” nature and reasonableness of such grounds to prompt careful tribunal discretion. The parties may also, through consultation, jointly propose candidates or supplemental disclosure requirements, enhancing participation in expert selection.
Paragraph (3) Mechanism for Expert Access to Materials
1. Textual Interpretation
This paragraph provides two core rules: (i) parties have an obligation to provide or produce for examination such documents, physical evidence, and other relevant materials as the expert requests; and (ii) if a party and the expert disagree as to the necessity of producing such materials, the dispute shall be submitted to the tribunal for decision.
This paragraph has a dual institutional significance. On the one hand, it confirms the expert’s right to request materials necessary to perform professional analysis, and imposes a corresponding duty of cooperation on the parties. On the other hand, it delineates that the expert does not have final authority to decide on material production; where a party objects to necessity, the ultimate decision remains with the tribunal. This design keeps the expert procedure under tribunal control, preventing overreach by the expert or improper expansion of the scope of investigation.
The phrasing “documents, physical evidence and other materials” is sufficiently open-ended to cover documentary evidence, samples, equipment, electronic data, testing records, original ledgers, transaction flows, model parameters, calculation workpapers, and other forms. It adapts well to data-type evidence and technical samples commonly seen in modern commercial arbitration.
2. Comparative Law Perspective
This paragraph is consistent with the Model Law’s approach that tribunal-appointed experts may request parties to provide information and may inspect documents, goods, or other property, and also aligns with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021) design whereby parties must provide information and materials to the expert and disputes over relevance or production are decided by the tribunal.⑦,⑧ Although HKIAC, LCIA, and other institutional rules vary in drafting style, they similarly recognize that expert access to materials should be subject to tribunal procedural control.⑨
This paragraph states clearly that disputes over “necessity” are to be decided by the tribunal. In practice, common disputes are not about whether materials exist, but whether they are necessary, whether the scope is too broad, whether trade secrets are implicated, and whether the request exceeds the expert’s mandate. By reverting decision-making to the tribunal, the paragraph avoids standoffs between parties and experts and prevents unilateral expansion of investigation scope absent authorization.
3. Jurisprudential Analysis
The legal rationale embedded here is a dual confirmation of the boundaries of expert functions and the tribunal’s procedural leadership. The expert’s duty is to conduct professional analysis on specific questions, not to unilaterally determine the scope and intensity of disclosure obligations. Whether materials should be produced, to what extent, and how confidentiality and proportionality should be handled should be determined by the tribunal after hearing the parties.
In disputes involving specialized knowledge, if an expert cannot access necessary underlying data, the expert opinion may be distorted; but if access is unconstrained, it may lead to “over-disclosure,” increased costs, and risk of trade secret leakage. The composite structure of “party cooperation obligation + tribunal decision on disputes” balances these two risks.
4. Practical Considerations
For the tribunal, expert requests may be managed through a “written list + purpose explanation” approach. The expert can specify the materials to be requested or inspected, their scope, purpose, corresponding issues, and necessity reasoning, and the parties can then comment on availability, relevance, and confidentiality. For confidential documents, source code, process parameters, and sensitive financial data, measures such as limiting viewers, on-site inspection without copies, data anonymization, or third-party escrow may be used to balance fact-finding and commercial security. For physical inspections, procedural orders may also clarify sampling, sealing, custody, and re-testing rules to avoid later disputes over contamination or chain-of-custody breaks.
For parties, the duty of cooperation should be taken seriously and reasonable requests responded to in a timely manner. For requests viewed as unnecessary, overly broad, or potentially exposing trade secrets, objections should be raised promptly to the tribunal with specific reasons, so as not to lose procedural remedies through passive non-compliance. Parties should also maintain handover records when producing materials, and may proactively propose appropriate confidentiality arrangements to both comply and protect legitimate interests.
Paragraph (4) Transmission of Expert Reports and Written Comment Procedure
1. Textual Interpretation
This paragraph provides that after receiving the expert report, the tribunal shall transmit copies to all parties and grant a reasonable period of time for written comments. Though succinct, it is a critical safeguard of procedural fairness in the expert mechanism.
First, “transmit copies of the report” means that any expert opinion that may influence the tribunal’s fact-finding must be placed within an adversarial environment visible to both parties, and may not be used as an “internal consultation” opinion known only to the tribunal. Second, “grant a reasonable period of time for written comments” means that parties enjoy not only the right to know, but also a procedural opportunity to systematically comment on and rebut the report’s methodology, factual bases, reasoning logic, and conclusions. “Reasonable period” is a flexible concept and should be assessed in light of the report’s complexity, translation needs, and whether a party needs to engage another expert for rebuttal.
2. Comparative Law Perspective
This paragraph is similar to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021) arrangement requiring that expert reports be sent to parties and that parties be given an opportunity for written comments.⑩ The SIAC Rules (2025) also specify that after submission of a report, it should be transmitted to parties and written comments invited.⑪ Article 30 writes “report transmission + comment period” into the Rules themselves rather than leaving it entirely to tribunal discretion. Such a default rule-level arrangement helps reduce risks of procedural omission and facilitates subsequent judicial review by demonstrating that parties were afforded reasonable opportunities to present and rebut.
3. Jurisprudential Analysis
The essence of this paragraph lies in the procedural principle of audi alteram partem. Expert reports often involve highly technical judgments and can strongly influence the tribunal’s final fact-finding. If a tribunal adopts the report’s conclusions without giving parties sufficient opportunity to respond, even if the conclusions are substantively correct, the process may still be procedurally defective. Conversely, by transmitting the report and setting a written comment period, the parties’ procedural participation rights are protected, and the tribunal can better identify assumptions, evidentiary gaps, and reasoning flaws.
From the perspective of reasoning quality, the written comment procedure also provides the tribunal with a material basis for a second-round review of the expert report. Where the tribunal adopts or rejects expert opinions, responding in the award to key party challenges to the report typically enhances persuasiveness, stability, and enforceability.
4. Practical Considerations
For the tribunal, when transmitting the report it may simultaneously specify the deadline for written comments, page limits, and whether rebuttal expert opinions are permitted. For lengthy or highly technical reports involving extensive model calculations or drawings/data, a more generous comment period should be granted, and staged submissions may be appropriate. The tribunal may also request structured comments around a set of core questions to improve subsequent hearing efficiency. Deadlines, extension requests, and decisions should be fully recorded in procedural orders or other written forms.
For parties, the written comment stage should be treated as procedurally significant and not reduced to generalities. Comments may focus on methodological defects, biased factual bases, logical inconsistencies, or unreasonable key assumptions, with concrete identification of issues; where necessary, a party-appointed expert’s analysis may be appended in support. If the period is insufficient, an extension should be requested promptly with reasonable grounds to avoid waiver due to late submission.
Paragraph (5) Expert Appearance and Questioning Procedure
1. Textual Interpretation
This paragraph establishes the principle that an expert report is not a final written material insulated from challenge, but should be subject to oral examination through questioning. Particularly important, the wording “upon the request of a party … shall appear to be questioned” strengthens the parties’ procedural right to question the expert and test the reliability of the expert’s opinion, effectively preventing improper practices such as “the expert refusing to appear after submitting a report” or “cancelling key questioning in the name of efficiency.”
2. Comparative Law Perspective
Internationally, the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2021) provide that a party may request questioning of a tribunal-appointed expert at a hearing, that all parties have the right to participate and to cross-examine, and that parties may present their own experts to testify on disputed issues.⑫ The SIAC Rules likewise provide that, where requested by a party or decided by the tribunal, the expert shall attend a hearing for questioning and may do so via electronic communications.⑬ The ICC, LCIA, HKIAC, and other institutional rules commonly provide arrangements for expert examination and cross-examination, though they differ in the strength of mandatory wording.⑭ By clearly establishing the chain “party request—expert shall appear for questioning,” this paragraph helps compress procedural disputes about whether questioning is needed and better safeguards the substantive realization of the right to examine evidence. In cross-border arbitration where experts are dispersed, while this paragraph does not expressly specify remote means, it is not inconsistent with the Rules’ general pro-flexibility approach (Article 50), and the tribunal may (by procedural order) arrange in-person, remote, or hybrid appearances and questioning.
3. Practical Considerations
For the tribunal, a procedural order may be issued in advance to clarify the method and sequence of questioning, including whether the tribunal questions first, followed by direct examination by the claimant and then cross-examination by the respondent; whether questioning is limited to the report and its underlying materials; whether concurrent expert evidence (concurrent expert evidence / hot-tubbing) is permitted between a party-appointed expert and the tribunal-appointed expert; and time allocations for each segment. For cross-border cases, remote or hybrid questioning may reduce costs, but identity verification, network stability, document access, interpretation arrangements, and recording methods should be addressed (including through the ICDPASO video hearing system) to ensure that questioning quality is not undermined by technical arrangements.
For parties, requesting the expert’s appearance is not only a right but also a key strategic step to test the expert opinion and shape the tribunal’s evaluation of evidence. Requests should be made early to facilitate tribunal scheduling. Preparation should target core issues such as the report’s methodology, fact-finding approach, logical structure, and the reasonableness of assumptions, avoiding overly generalized questioning or fixation on minor details. Parties should also respect the tribunal’s procedural arrangements and cooperate with the technical requirements of remote or hybrid hearings to ensure smooth questioning.
III. Interface with the New Arbitration Law
The New Arbitration Law provides a more complete legal framework for tribunal-appointed experts. Article 56 of the New Arbitration Law expressly provides that an arbitral tribunal may, upon application or on its own initiative, appoint an appraiser/expert to conduct an appraisal, which aligns with the logic of Article 30(1) of the Rules—“after consultation, appoint an independent expert.”⑮ At the same time, the New Arbitration Law strengthens the tribunal’s powers to investigate and collect evidence, providing clear support where an expert encounters obstacles in obtaining evidence and seeks tribunal assistance.⑯ In addition, the legislative spirit of the New Arbitration Law in strengthening parties’ rights to be heard and to examine evidence corresponds with the procedural design in Article 30(4) and (5) on transmission of expert reports, opportunities for written comments, and expert appearance for questioning, jointly ensuring the concrete implementation of the hearing principle in the domain of expert evidence.⑰ Under the new legal framework, Article 30 further refines expert procedures into more operable guidance; the two form a virtuous interaction in which “rules refine the law, and the law empowers the rules,” collectively serving the enhancement of arbitral credibility.
IV. Conclusion
Through its “five-paragraph structure,” Article 30 systematically constructs a complete procedural framework for tribunal-appointed experts. It initiates the expert mechanism through appointment after consultation; stabilizes the appointment process through disclosure of qualifications and neutrality and a time-limited objection mechanism; controls the boundaries of expert examination through parties’ cooperation in providing materials and referral of disputes back to the tribunal; safeguards parties’ right to respond through transmission of the report and a period for written comments; and finally implements adversarial testing of expert opinions through expert appearance and questioning. This design both conforms to prevailing consensus on expert procedures in international commercial arbitration and demonstrates clear drafting strength and operational governance efficacy at key procedural nodes.
Against the background of the New Arbitration Law’s efforts to modernize arbitration, strengthen procedural fairness, and enhance the credibility of awards, the practical value of Article 30 is increasingly prominent. What it offers is not merely a “technical auxiliary tool,” but a complete rule mechanism that incorporates specialized fact-finding into due process governance. Through this mechanism, the tribunal can more effectively ascertain complex case facts; parties can more fully exercise rights to information, objections, comments, and examination; and awards can become more stable and enforceable due to the transparency and verifiability of their formation process.
①UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules(2021) art 29.1 , which provided that: “After consultation with the parties, the arbitral tribunal may appoint one or more independent experts to report to it, in writing, on specific issues to be determined by the arbitral tribunal. A copy of the expert’s terms of reference, established by the arbitral tribunal, shall be communicated to the parties.”
②LCIA Rules（2020）art.21.1,which provides that: “The Arbitral Tribunal, after consultation with the parties, may appoint one or more experts to report in writing to the Arbitral Tribunal and the parties on specific issues in the arbitration, as identified by the Arbitral Tribunal.”
HKIAC 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules art 25.1, which provided that: “To assist it in the assessment of evidence, the arbitral tribunal, after consulting with the parties, may appoint one or more experts. Such expert shall report to the arbitral tribunal, in writing, on specific issues to be determined by the arbitral tribunal. After consulting with the parties, the arbitral tribunal shall establish terms of reference for the expert, and shall communicate a copy of the expert’s terms of reference to the parties and HKIAC.”
③ICC 2021 Arbitration Rules art. 25.3, which provided that: “The arbitral tribunal, after consulting the parties, may appoint one or more experts, define their terms of reference and receive their reports. At the request of a party, the parties shall be given the opportunity to question at a hearing any such expert.”
④UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules(2021) art 29.2 , which provided that: “The expert shall, in principle before accepting appointment, submit to the arbitral tribunal and to the parties a description of his or her qualifications and a statement of his or her impartiality and independence. Within the time ordered by the arbitral tribunal, the parties shall inform the arbitral tribunal whether they have any objections as to the expert’s qualifications, impartiality or independence. The arbitral tribunal shall decide promptly whether to accept any such objections. After an expert’s appointment, a party may object to the expert’s qualifications, impartiality or independence only if the objection is for reasons of which the party becomes aware after the appointment has been made. The arbitral tribunal shall decide promptly what, if any, action to take.”
⑤SIAC Rules（2025）art.41.3, which provides that: “Any expert appointed under Rule 41.1 shall provide a signed
declaration relating to his or her qualifications, impartiality and independence, prior to his or her appointment, in a form to be determined by the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall determine any objection by a party to the expert’s qualifications, impartiality, or independence.”
⑥ LCIA Rules（2020）art.22.1,which provides that: “ Any such expert shall be and remain impartial and independent of the parties; and he or she shall sign a written declaration to such effect, delivered to the Arbitral Tribunal and copied to all parties.”
HKIAC 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules art 25.5, which provided that: “The provisions of Article 11 shall apply by analogy to any expert appointed by the arbitral
tribunal.”
⑦UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments as adopted in 2006 art 26.(1), which provides that: “(1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal
....... (b) may require a party to give the expert any relevant information or to produce, or to provide access to, any relevant documents, goods or other property for his inspection.
⑧UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules(2021) art 29.3 , which provided that: “The parties shall give the expert any relevant information or produce for his or her inspection any relevant documents or
goods that he or she may require of them. Any dispute between a party and such expert as to the relevance of the required information or production shall be referred to the arbitral tribunal for decision.”
⑨HKIAC 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules art 25.2, which provided that: “The parties shall give the expert any relevant information or produce for his or her inspection any relevant documents or goods that he or she may require of them. Any dispute between a party and such expert as to the relevance of the required information or production shall be referred to the arbitral tribunal for decision.”
LCIA Rules（2020）art.21.3,which provides that: “The Arbitral Tribunal may require any party at any time to give to such expert any relevant information or to provide access to any relevant documents, goods,samples, property, site or thing for inspection under that party’s control on such terms as the Arbitral Tribunal thinks appropriate in the circumstances.”
⑩UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules(2021) art 29.4 , which provided that: “Upon receipt of the expert’s report, the arbitral tribunal shall communicate a copy of the report to the parties, which shall be given the opportunity to express, in writing, their opinion on the report. A party shall be entitled to examine any document on which the expert has relied in his or her report.”
⑪SIAC Rules（2025）art.41.5, which provides that: “Any expert appointed under Rule 41.1 shall submit a report in writing to the Tribunal. Upon receipt of such written report, the Tribunal shall deliver a copy of the report to the parties and the SIAC Secretariat, and the Tribunal shall invite the parties to submit written comments on the report.”
⑫UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules(2021) art 29.5 , which provided that: “At the request of any party, the expert, after delivery of the report, may be heard at a hearing where the parties shall have the opportunity to be present and to interrogate the expert. At this hearing, any party may present expert witnesses in order to testify on the points at issue. The provisions of article 28 shall be applicable to such proceedings.”
⑬SIAC Rules（2025）art.41.6, which provides that: “If any party so requests or the Tribunal so decides, an expert
appointed under Rule 41.1 shall, after delivery of his or her written report, attend for oral examination at a hearing, whether inperson, or by video conference, teleconference, or any other form of electronic communication.”
⑭LCIA Rules（2020）art.21.4,which provides that: “ If any party so requests or the Arbitral Tribunal considers it necessary, the Arbitral Tribunal may order the expert, after delivery of the expert’s written report, to attend a hearing at which the parties shall have a reasonable opportunity to question the expert on the report and to present witnesses in order to testify on relevant issues arising from the report.”
ICC 2021 Arbitration Rules art. 25.3, which provided that: “..........At the request of a party, the parties shall be given the opportunity to question at a hearing any such expert.”
HKIAC 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules art 25.4, which provided that: “At the request of either party, the expert, after delivering the report, shall attend a hearing at which the parties shall have the opportunity to be present and to examine the expert. At this hearing either party may present experts in order to testify on the points at issue. .........."
⑮Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision) art.56, which provides that: “A party may apply to the arbitration tribunal for an expert opinion on a specialized issue concerning ascertainment of facts. An arbitration tribunal may, on application or as it deems necessary, refer the issue requiring an expert opinion to an expert witness agreed on by the parties or designated by it.
At the request of the parties or as required by the arbitration tribunal, the expert witness shall attend the hearing upon notification by the arbitration tribunal. Subject to the permission of the arbitration tribunal, theparties may question the appraiser.”
⑯Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision) art.55, which provides that: “A party shall provide evidence in support of its own claims.
The arbitration tribunal may, as it considers necessary,collect evidence on its own initiative, and may, when necessary, request relevant entities to provide assistance in accordance with the law.”
⑰Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision , which provides that: “art.57 Evidence shall be presented during a hearing,and may be examined by the parties.
art.60 The arbitration tribunal shall make records of the hearings in writing. The parties and other participants in the arbitration shall have the right to apply for supplementation or correction of the record of their own statements if they consider that such record contains omissions or errors. If no supplementation or corrections are to be made, their application therefore shall be recorded.
Art.83 Where a party presents evidence that a foreign-related arbitration award falls under any of the following circumstances, the people's court shall, after examination and verification by a collegial panel formed by the people's court, rule to revoke the award.
.......(2) The respondent was not notified of the appointment of an arbitrator or the commencement of the arbitration proceedings, or was unable to present its case for other
reasons not attributable to the respondent;.....”
