The Production of Expert Evidence in Arbitration Proceedings Involving Construction Disputes

 

Joana Zacko Schmidt[1]

 

1. Introduction

The consolidation of arbitration as the preferred mechanism for resolving construction disputes is due to various factors [2], such as party autonomy, the inability to appeal on the merits, the possibility of appointing expert arbitrators, and the limitation of annulment grounds to formal issues[3].

The complexity of these conflicts—which involve multiple parties[4], long timelines, and strict technical standards[5]—demands the production of multifunctional expert evidence, which brings unique challenges, such as the (im)partiality of experts.

 

2. The Technical Nature of Disputes and Expert Evidence

Construction disputes often revolve around highly technical issues, for which purely legal analysis is insufficient to resolve the matter. One common feature of these long-term contracts is their susceptibility to changes in socioeconomic conditions and the emergence of problems[6].

Common causes of action in construction conflicts include project delays, which require schedule reconstructions (e.g., Critical Path Method – CPM)[7], analysis of unforeseen events, and verification of supply delays[8].

Equally significant are construction defects, requiring inspections, lab testing, and comparison with technical standards. Cost claims also demand precise calculations, such as the evaluation of changes, contract adjustments, or rework expenses.

 

3. Challenges in Producing Expert Evidence

Producing expert evidence in construction disputes involves both practical and procedural challenges, including interactions between experts, parties, and the arbitral tribunal.

In common law systems, the traditional approach is the technical testimony model, where each party appoints an expert witness. The rationale is that attorneys can better present their case when they control the expert appointment, choosing someone they trust and deem qualified. It is then up to the tribunal to reconcile opposing technical views[9].

Although Brazilian doctrine and case law often translate “expert witness” literally as “testemunha técnica” [10], international arbitration doctrine classifies this as technical rather than testimonial evidence[11].

These professionals, while appointed by the parties, are expected to be independent and impartial, addressing technical—not factual—matters[12]. They differ from technical assistants commonly used in Brazilian practice.

This impartiality is reinforced by soft laws. Notable examples include the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence and the Protocol for the Use of Party Appointed Expert Witnesses in International Arbitration, from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb).

The IBA Rules (Article 5.2) require experts to declare their independence and disclose any potential conflicts of interest. CIArb’s Protocol (Article 4) stresses expert independence, clarifying that fees do not affect objectivity. Cross-examinations are encouraged, focusing on methodologies and assumptions[13].

In Brazil, party-appointed experts are less common; typically, the arbitral tribunal appoints the expert. This is partly due to the lack of clear rules in the Arbitration Law or institutional regulations regarding expert impartiality[14].

Some authors suggest that the same rules on arbitrator impartiality should apply analogously to experts[15]—meaning that any fact compromising independence must be disclosed and can justify the expert’s rejection[16].

 

4. Strategies for Optimization and Credibility

To address these challenges, tribunals should guide the evidentiary process[17], ensuring expert work remains cost-effective and timely[18]. One strategy is early case management, where key technical issues are defined early in the process. This allows coordinated scheduling and reduces inefficiencies.

Collaborative techniques like hot-tubbing[19] and other cross-examination techniques are also gaining traction. In this practice, experts discuss their views in real-time before the tribunal, explaining both disagreements and agreements[20]. This is especially useful for interpreting results and assessing indirect costs. In simpler cases, parties may even submit joint expert reports[21].

 

5.                Conclusion   

Expert evidence in construction arbitration is essential but requires a meticulous approach that balances technical rigor with procedural awareness. The complexity of these disputes demands not only qualified experts but also active case management by the tribunal to ensure that technical analyses lead to fair and efficient decisions.

 

[1] Law student at Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.

[2] NETO, João; GUANDALINI, Bruno. 18. A Prova Pericial na Arbitragem In: NETO, João; GUANDALINI, Bruno. Provas e Arbitragem – Ed. 2023. São Paulo (SP):Editora Revista dos Tribunais. 2023..

[3] APRIGLIANO, Ricardo de Carvalho. ‘O Controle Judicial sobre a Limitação à Produção Probatória Determinada pelos Árbitros. Violação ao Devido Processo Legal ou Revisão Indevida do Mérito?’, Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem, (© Comitê Brasileiro de Arbitragem CBAr & IOB; Kluwer Law International 2015, Volume XII, Issue 45), pp. 58 – 81.

[4]  KONDEV, Dimitar. Multi-Party and Multí-Contract Arbitration ln the Construction Industry. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017, p. 35.

[5] MARCONDES, Fernando. Consequências da Falta e dos Desvios de Planejamento. ln: MARCONDES, Fernando. Direito da Construção no Ambiente Internacional. São Paulo: Almedina, 2019, p. 14.

[6] MESQUITA, Marcelo A. Botelho. Arbitragem no setor da construção: árbitro-especialista, arbitragens complexas e produção da prova técnica pelas partes. Editora Foco Jurídico Ltda. 2023.

[7] MESQUITA, Botelho de; ALENCAR, Marcelo de. Adjudicação de conflitos na construção. In: MARCONDES, Fernando (coord.). Temas de direito da construção. São Paulo: Pini, 2015. p. 105-119.

[8] AZEVEDO NETO, João Luiz Lessa de; MAIA. Alberto Jonathas. Produção de provas nas arbitragens de projetos de construção e infraestrutura. In: Adriana Regina Sarra de Deus; Fernando Maluf; Ricardo Medina Salla. (Org.). Arbitragem, Infraestrutura e Direito da Construção. 1ed.São Paulo: Thompson Reuters, 2024, p. 309-320

[9] MESQUITA, Marcelo A. Botelho. Arbitragem no setor da construção: árbitro-especialista, arbitragens complexas e produção da prova técnica pelas partes. Editora Foco Jurídico Ltda. 2023.

[10] A menção ao termo “testemunha técnica” foi feita, por exemplo, no REsp n. 1.903.359/RJ, relator Ministro Marco Aurélio Bellizze, Terceira Turma, julgado em 11/5/2021.

[11] Shilston W. Alan, ‘Some Reflections on the Role of the Expert Witness’, Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, pp. 251 – 258, as available on Kluwer Arbitration at https://www.kluwerarbitration.com/document/kli-ka-amdm-58-04-007-n. No mesmo sentido, BRAY, John F., ‘Book Review: Construction Disputes – Liability and the Expert Witness, General Editor – Andrea Burns’, Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, pp. 208 – 208, as available on Kluwer Arbitration at https://www.kluwerarbitration.com/document/kli-ka-amdm-56-03-015-n

[12] NUNES PINTO, José Emílio. Anotações práticas sobre a produção de prova na arbitragem, em Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem, Comitê Brasileiro de Arbitragem CBAr & IOB, Volume VII Issue 25, 2010, p. 24

[13] Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Protocol for the Use Party-Appointed Expert Witnesses in International Arbitration. 4.1 An expert’s opinion shall be impartial and objective. 4.2 Payment by the appointing Party of the expert’s reasonable professional fees for the work done in giving such evidence shall not, of itself, vitiate the expert’s impartiality.

[14] CARMONA, Carlos Alberto. Flexibilização do procedimento arbitral, em Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem, Comitê Brasileiro de Arbitragem CBAr & 10B; Comitê Brasileiro de Arbitragem BAr & I0B, Volume VI, Issue 24, 2009, p. 19.

[15] MARTINS, André Chateaubriand. Deveres de imparcialidade e independência dos peritos: uma reflexão sob a perspectiva da prática internacional. Revista de Arbitragem e Mediação, 39/99, out 2013. Nesse sentido, CARNEIRO, Paulo Cezar Pinheiro. O Justo Processo Arbitral e o Dever de Revelação (Disclosure) dos Peritos. Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual – REDP. Volume XII. V.12, n.12 (2013). p. 593.

[16] Neste caso, aplicar-se-ia o disposto no Art. 14 da Lei de Arbitragem e nos Arts. 144 e 145 do Código de Processo Civil.

[17] Lei de Arbitragem. Art. 22.

[18] NETO, João; GUANDALINI, Bruno. 18. A Prova Pericial na Arbitragem In: NETO, João; GUANDALINI, Bruno. Provas e Arbitragem – Ed. 2023. São Paulo (SP):Editora Revista dos Tribunais. 2023..

[19] PUCCI, Adriana Noemi. Perito do tribunal, Hot-tubbing e Sachs Protocol. In: NETO, Maia Francisco; FIGUEIREDO, Flavio Fernando de. Coords.). Perícias em Arbitrages. 2. ed. atual. e ampl. São Paulo: Leud, 2019. p. 169.

[20] MIRANDA, Daniel Chacur de. O cross-examination no processo civil: um diálogo entre arbitragem e processo. 2020. Dissertação (Mestrado em Direito Processual) – Faculdade de Direito, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2020.

[21] Douglas S. Jones, ‘Party Appointed Experts in International Arbitration—Asset or Liability?’, in Stavros Brekoulakis (ed), Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, (© Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb); Sweet & Maxwell 2020, Volume 86, Issue 1), pp. 2 – 21