2 total
Fresh evidence on a Model Law jurisdictional review is not admissible as of right.
The applicant sought to set aside an arbitral tribunal's interim award on jurisdiction under Articles 16 and 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.
In support of its application, the applicant filed new expert evidence that was not before the arbitral tribunal.
A previous judge had ruled that the new evidence was admissible as of right.
The hearing judge reconsidered this interlocutory ruling and held that he had the authority to do so.
The court concluded that fresh evidence in an application to set aside an arbitral tribunal's award on jurisdiction under the Model Law may not be introduced as of right.
Instead, a party must obtain leave by satisfying the test for fresh evidence established in R. v. Palmer.
Motion to disqualify foreign law expert dismissed; prior retainers by related parties did not establish bias.
The applicant, The Russia Federation, brought a motion to disqualify the respondent's expert witness on Russian law, arguing bias and lack of qualifications.
The expert had previously provided evidence for related entities in similar claims against the applicant.
The court applied the White Burgess framework and found that the expert's history did not demonstrate a lack of independence, nor did his lack of Russian legal credentials or fluency in Russian negate his demonstrated expertise.
The motion to strike the expert's evidence was dismissed, and the respondent's cross-motion to admit the reports was allowed.
