CIETAC and HKIAC arbitration rules compared (part 2)

In the last issue, we compared the arbitration rules of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) in terms of objections to an arbitration agreement and/or the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal, the appointment of arbitrators and formation of an arbitral tribunal, the language of arbitration, and preservation orders.

This article examines the differences between the two sets of rules in terms of evidence, time periods, fees and costs, and the enforcement of arbitral awards.

Evidence

There is no substantial difference between the two sets of rules with regard to evidence. In both, the burden of proof lies with the party who claims, and both set out regulations on the time limits for producing evidence, cross-examination, and the competence of the arbitral tribunal. However, each set of rules has its own characteristics. The CIETAC rules empower an arbitral tribunal to undertake investigations and collect evidence, which is helpful to parties that encounter difficulty collecting evidence. The HKIAC rules allow witnesses to testify by written statement, which is cheaper than having witnesses attend in person.

Jim Qiu is a partner in the Shanghai office of Yao Liang Law Offices