06
Panel discussion
What each seat wants from the expert, and what it does not want.
The talks end with 25 minutes of discussion, moderated by Philip Boulding KC. The first half looks at the work before the hearing. When should an expert be appointed, and who pays for the early work? Should counsel ever see a draft joint statement? Should Hong Kong tribunals order an early meeting of the experts on data and method? The second half turns to the hearing and what comes after it. Cross-examination or witness conferencing? How should a technical arbitrator use his own expertise? Where is the line on an expert's earlier work for a party? And should experts have to say how they used AI?
The questions below are the moderator's bank, with the seat each one is put to first.
Before the hearing
Before the hearing: what do you want from your expert, and what not?
The first half of the discussion covers the work before the hearing. The prompt to each seat is the same: what do you want from your expert before the hearing, and what do you not want? The follow-ups are these.
- What makes an expert report useful on first reading, and what makes a tribunal stop trusting it? (tribunal)
- Hong Kong gives a "reasonable", not a "full", opportunity to present a case. How far should a tribunal go: one expert per discipline, page limits, no reply reports? (tribunal and counsel)
- In HKIAC cases, do procedural orders adopt the RHC Code of Conduct, the IBA Rules or the CIArb Protocol, and which works best? There is no published data; the answer is practice. (tribunal and counsel)
- Arbitrators and in-house counsel say experts are over-instructed; most experts say not. Who is seeing it wrongly? (expert, client, counsel)
- Chinachem says an expert may agree points at the joint meeting without asking the client. How does that work when the client is paying? (expert and client)
- When should a contractor appoint its testifying expert, and should the shadow expert and the testifying expert be the same person? (client and expert)
- Single joint expert, tribunal expert, or one each? Has a tribunal expert ever been the cheaper route? (client and tribunal)
- Should counsel ever see a draft joint statement? Would the CIArb 2026 model direction help or hurt the client? (counsel, expert, tribunal)
- Should Hong Kong tribunals order an early meeting of the experts on data and methodology, before reports? Who pays? (tribunal, expert, client)
“The central message is that expert evidence is most effective when tribunals take a more proactive, structured role”
At the hearing, and what comes next
How should a tribunal test expert evidence, and what should it require about AI?
The second half turns to the hearing and what follows it. The prompt is: how should a tribunal test expert evidence, and what should it require about AI? The follow-ups are these.
- Cross-examination or witness conferencing for delay and quantum experts? What must the tribunal do to make conferencing work? (tribunal, counsel, expert)
- A technical arbitrator who uses his own expertise, as the court allowed in CS v HKR: how and when should he tell the parties? (tribunal and counsel)
- In Redland Precast the court refused leave for a party's expert who had represented it in mediation; his connections might have cost his evidence weight. Where is the line on earlier work on the project or the claim? (counsel, expert, client)
- If a party's own expert moves in the joint statement, what can it do in an arbitration, where CPR 35.12(5) does not apply? (counsel and tribunal)
- Should Hong Kong tribunals require experts to say whether and how they used AI, as the Irish High Court now does? Should HKIAC issue guidance? (counsel, tribunal, expert)
- Where is the line between AI as a tool (search, summary, checking) and AI doing the expert's job? (expert, counsel, client)
- What one thing should a tribunal do at the first procedural meeting to get better expert evidence? (everyone)