CHINA Law and Practice Contributed by: Paul Zhou and Leslie Shen, SGLA Law Firm
avoid ex parte communications with any party. A vio - lation of these duties may result in challenge, removal or the setting aside of the award. The 2025 Arbitration Law does not provide for civil compensation liability of arbitrators: under Article 50, an arbitrator who falls under the serious circumstances specified in the law (including soliciting or accepting bribes, committing acts of favouritism or malpractice, or perverting the law in rendering the award) shall bear legal liability in accordance with the law and shall be expelled by the arbitration institution – a disciplinary and criminal- law-oriented provision. Any civil compensation claim against an arbitrator would have to rest on institutional rules or general principles of tort law, not on the Arbi - tration Law. The interaction between Chinese arbitration proce - dure and the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration merits par - ticular attention. While the IBA Rules are not directly applicable as a matter of Chinese law, several lead - ing Chinese institutions have incorporated them as a “guide” or “reference” in their rules. In practice, tribu - nals in China tend to adopt a more document-centric approach to evidence than their common-law coun - terparts, reflecting the civil-law tradition. However, the 2025 ‘s reinforcement of the right to cross-examine evidence, combined with the increasing appointment of arbitrators with common-law backgrounds, is grad - ually shifting Chinese arbitration practice towards a more adversarial model. Parties should nevertheless expect that document production requests will be scrutinised more rigorously than under the IBA Rules, and that the tribunal may be reluctant to order broad document disclosure. 7.4 Legal Representatives Parties may be represented in arbitration by qualified lawyers, legal representatives or authorised agents. For foreign-related arbitration, parties may be rep - resented by foreign-qualified lawyers for procedural matters (for example, the submission of documents), but representation on the merits may be restricted to qualified PRC lawyers if the governing law is PRC law or if the proceedings involve the application of PRC law. The 2025 Arbitration Law does not substantially change the rules on legal representation. Institutional rules (for example, CIETAC Rules, Article 22) require
parties to notify the institution and the other party of the identity and authority of their authorised repre - sentatives. 8. Evidence 8.1 Collection and Submission of Evidence The parties bear the primary responsibility for col - lecting and submitting evidence in support of their respective claims, defences and factual contentions. Under Article 55 of the 2025 Arbitration Law, where the tribunal deems it necessary to collect evidence, it may do so on its own initiative and, where neces - sary, request the relevant authorities to provide assis - tance in accordance with the law. The statute does not provide for court-ordered third-party document production at the tribunal’s request; compulsory pow - ers of that kind exist, if at all, only at the level of insti- tutional rules. Practitioners should not cite Article 55 as authority for common-law-style discovery against third parties. Document production in Chinese arbitration does not follow the broad, US-style discovery model. Docu - ment production is confined to documents that are rel - evant, material and in the possession, custody or con - trol of the opposing party. The tribunal has discretion to order document production, taking into account the principle of proportionality and the parties’ agree - ment. Institutional rules (for example, CIETAC Rules, Articles 41–43) govern the submission, examination and collection of evidence. A party seeking docu - ment production must specify: (i) the documents to be produced; (ii) the relevance and materiality of the requested documents; and (iii) the efforts made to obtain the documents through its own means. 8.2 Rules of Evidence The arbitral tribunal determines the admissibility, rel - evance, materiality and weight of evidence. Chinese arbitration does not apply the strict exclusionary rules that characterise common-law court proceed - ings. The tribunal applies the principles of procedural fairness and equality of the parties. Electronic evi - dence, including emails, instant messaging records (for example, WeChat messages) and digital docu - ments, is admissible if properly authenticated. The
247 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook