kulawrKutafin Law ReviewKutafin Law Review2713-05252713-0533MSAL10.17803/2313-5395.2017.1.7.050-063kulawr-7Research ArticleLEGAL PROFESSION ABROADEXPERTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONGoddardC.casgoddard@gmail.comGoddardI.casgoddard@gmail.comKutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)Russian FederationKutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL); Ruperti Project Services InternationalRussian Federation201729042020415063Copyright © Goddard C., Goddard I., 20202020Goddard C., Goddard I.Goddard C., Goddard I.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://kulawr.msal.ru/jour/article/view/7

The article analyzes important issues of the arbitration process in particular experts and expert evidence 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 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. 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 use, and be based upon such opinions, they have to be sound, and be anchored in a real expertise.

Arbitration processcommon law jurisdictioncivil law jurisdictionevidenceexpertReferencesNational Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (“The Ikarian Reefer”) [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 68. Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court), before Cresswell J.National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (“The Ikarian Reefer”) [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 68. Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court), before Cresswell J.National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (“The Ikarian Reefer”) [1995] 1 Lloyds Rep 455, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), before Stuart-Smith, Farqharson, Evans LJJ.National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (“The Ikarian Reefer”) [1995] 1 Lloyds Rep 455, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), before Stuart-Smith, Farqharson, Evans LJJ.National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (“The Ikarian Reefer” (No2)) (2000) 1 Lloyds Rep 129 Court of Appeal. [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 129.National Justice Compania Naviera SA v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd (“The Ikarian Reefer” (No2)) (2000) 1 Lloyds Rep 129 Court of Appeal. [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 129.http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/JudgementParis.htmlhttp://www.theoi.com/Olympios/JudgementParis.html

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.