The three-part paper analyses important issues in the field of Experts and Expert evidence in the arbitration process in particular problems - both in common and civil law jurisdictions. It covers legal proceedings and arbitrations as well as the limits to the use of Expert evidence. The key point here is that it is an opinion - what the Expert thinks - which is of evidentiary value. Ordinarily, evidence is fact based, not opinion based. Such opinions, therefore, have to reach a very high standard in proceedings where they are used. If judgments and decisions are to be used, and be based upon such opinions, they have to be sound, and be anchored in a real Expertise. Interesting and exciting new directions in case management of such evidence are discussed The overall objective of this paper is to provide the reader with an appreciation of Expert evidence, some of the current debates on its use, and how to challenge it when it is used. The paper also contributes to the current debates on Expert evidence with some observations on how t might be improved.