In GCC arbitrations, expert evidence can shape outcomes more than counsel often realise. It can influence how a tribunal understands foreign law, damages, technical performance, causation, or regulatory context. Yet problems often arise before the hearing: the mandate is too broad, the expert is appointed too late, or the report does not answer the legal question the tribunal must decide. For counsel, the objective is not simply to appoint an expert. It is to build evidence the tribunal can use.
Table of Contents
Expert Witness Challenges in GCC Arbitration: Substantive Scope
One of the most common expert testimony issues that Gulf arbitration teams face is scope.
An expert may be asked to address “Arab law” or “GCC law” as if these were single legal systems. They are not. UAE law, Saudi law, Kuwaiti law, and free-zone law may share regional context, but they differ in legal sources, court practice, codification, and public-policy treatment.
A second challenge is mixing Arab law and Sharia principles too broadly. Sharia-informed principles may be relevant in certain disputes, particularly where Saudi law, personal status, finance, or public-policy questions arise. But they should not be used as a substitute for identifying the applicable statute, regulation, contract principle, or court approach.
Free-zone and onshore distinctions also create difficulties. A dispute may involve DIFC or ADGM entities, but still require UAE federal-law evidence. DIFC expert evidence is governed by court rules that emphasise expert independence and the expert’s duty to assist the court, as reflected in the DIFC Courts Rules on Experts and Assessors. ADGM also has a dedicated framework for expert evidence and foreign-law evidence in its legal system, including ADGM provisions on expert evidence.
Outdated knowledge is another risk. GCC laws and arbitration frameworks continue to develop. Counsel should test whether the expert is relying on current law, current practice, and the correct legal system.
Challenges with Independence and Credibility
Expert credibility can be lost quickly.
The first risk is conflict. If the expert has advised one party, appeared repeatedly in similar disputes, or taken positions that may create perceived bias, this should be assessed before appointment. The IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration provide a framework for expert evidence in international arbitration, including party-appointed and tribunal-appointed experts.
The second risk is advocacy. An expert report should not read like a pleading. The expert’s role is to assist the tribunal with a specialised question, not to argue the case. The CIArb Guideline on Party-Appointed and Tribunal-Appointed Expert Witnesses addresses independence and the content of expert reports in international arbitration.
The third risk is cross-examination weakness. A report may appear persuasive on paper but fail when tested. In cross-examination in UAE arbitration contexts, counsel should consider whether the expert can explain the legal issue clearly, respond to competing interpretations, and maintain independence under pressure.
There are also report-quality problems. The mandate may be too broad. The answer may not follow from the cited law. The report may ignore facts that weaken the opinion. In Saudi-related disputes, for example, expert evidence challenges in Saudi arbitration matters can arise where the report does not distinguish between statutory rules, Sharia-informed principles, regulatory practice, and commercial custom. SCCA-administered arbitrations operate under the SCCA Arbitration Rules 2023, which counsel should consider alongside the substantive legal questions in issue.
Previous criticism in awards, judgments, or procedural decisions should also be checked where available. A tribunal may not reject an expert simply because they have appeared before, but repeated criticism can become a credibility issue.
How Youssef + Partners Has Addressed These Challenges
At Youssef + Partners, the Legal Expert Testimony practice supports counsel in disputes involving Middle Eastern, Arab, and GCC law.
The firm has been retained to assess expert reports in GCC arbitrations where the core issue was not whether expert evidence was needed, but whether the evidence answered the right question. In some matters, the problem has been an overbroad mandate. In others, the issue has been an expert report that mixed onshore law, free-zone law, and regional practice without clearly separating them.
The firm’s approach begins with early scoping. Counsel should identify:
- The exact legal system in issue
- The specific question the tribunal must decide
- The documents the expert needs
- The limits of the expert’s mandate
- The likely areas of disagreement with the opposing expert
Report quality control matters. A strong report should identify the source of law, explain the relevant rule, apply it to the facts, and address uncertainty. It should also avoid overstating conclusions where the law or practice is open to interpretation.
Where opposing expert evidence is served, counsel may need support identifying weak assumptions, missing legal sources, outdated authorities, or internal inconsistencies. This is where many expert problems in GCC arbitration can be addressed before the hearing.
Dr. Karim A. Youssef has provided expert testimony on Middle Eastern and Arab law before international arbitral tribunals and courts. The firm’s expert work is also informed by its arbitration practice in disputes involving UAE, Saudi, Kuwaiti, and wider regional law.
Speak to Youssef + Partners
For counsel managing or challenging expert evidence in GCC arbitration, early input can help define the issue, test the report, and reduce the risk of evidentiary weakness later. To discuss expert testimony support, visit the firm’s Legal Expert Testimony practice, read Dr. Karim A. Youssef’s bio, or contact Youssef + Partners.
