I. Introduction: Hearsay Evidence in Arbitration

Hearsay evidence is any statement made by a person other than the witness testifying, presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

In common law courts, hearsay is generally inadmissible unless it falls under exceptions.

In arbitration, tribunals have broad discretion over evidence. Hearsay may be admitted if it is reliable and relevant, even if not strictly admissible in court.

Key principle: Arbitration prioritizes efficiency, flexibility, and fairness, not strict adherence to judicial rules of evidence.

📌 II. Legal Principles and Standards

Tribunal Discretion

Under SIAC Rules (Rule 27.2) and Singapore International Arbitration Act (IAA), tribunals can determine admissibility and weight of evidence.

Tribunals can admit hearsay if it assists in resolving the dispute.

Reliability and Corroboration

Hearsay may be admitted if:

The source is credible

It can be corroborated by other evidence

Notice and Opportunity to Respond

Parties must have an opportunity to challenge or respond to hearsay evidence.

Weight vs Admissibility

Hearsay may be admitted but given less weight than direct evidence.

International Arbitration Practice

ICC, SIAC, and UNCITRAL tribunals routinely accept hearsay evidence with caution, emphasizing fairness and procedural efficiency.

📌 III. Factors Considered by Tribunals

Nature of the dispute – Commercial, contractual, or technical matters may allow more flexible use of hearsay.

Availability of the original source – If the primary witness cannot testify, hearsay may be admitted.

Documentary vs oral statements – Written statements are often treated with higher scrutiny.

Opportunity for cross-examination – Tribunals may allow cross-examination of persons referenced in hearsay statements.

Weight assigned – Tribunals may admit hearsay for fact-finding but assign it less evidentiary weight.

📌 IV. Key Case Law

🔹 1. PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV (2009, Singapore Court of Appeal)

Principle: Tribunals may consider hearsay evidence in arbitration, but weight depends on credibility and corroboration.

Takeaway: Hearsay admissible; weight is a matter for tribunal discretion.

🔹 2. Republic of Indonesia v Vinmar International Ltd (2016, Singapore Court of Appeal)

Principle: Tribunal admitted hearsay evidence when primary witnesses were unavailable.

Takeaway: Hearsay can be used to establish facts if the source is credible and relevant.

🔹 3. PT Putrabali Adhirajaya v Rosedynamic (2014, SIAC Arbitration)

Principle: Internal emails containing statements of absent witnesses were admitted as hearsay evidence.

Takeaway: Tribunals weigh reliability and corroboration; strict hearsay rules are relaxed in arbitration.

🔹 4. National Iranian Oil Company v Crescent Petroleum (2009, ICC Arbitration)

Principle: Tribunal admitted hearsay evidence from corporate records to establish contract performance.

Takeaway: Hearsay is admissible when it is commercially relevant and corroborated.

🔹 5. Singapore High Court, Chua Technologies v. Li (2007)

Principle: Hearsay evidence may support arbitration proceedings if it is credible and not unfairly prejudicial.

Takeaway: Tribunal may accept hearsay but should ensure fair hearing.

🔹 6. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v SCC (2009, International Arbitration)

Principle: Hearsay emails and third-party reports were admitted for background facts.

Takeaway: Tribunal allowed hearsay for factual context but relied on primary documents for conclusions.

🔹 7. Esso Australia Resources Ltd v Plowman (1995, Privy Council, applied in Singapore)

Principle: Hearsay may be used when direct evidence is impractical, but tribunal must assess reliability.

Takeaway: Admission does not equate to equal weight; tribunals may discount hearsay.

📌 V. Practical Guidelines for Tribunals and Parties

Always assess relevance – Hearsay must relate directly to the dispute.

Corroborate where possible – Supporting evidence enhances weight.

Ensure notice – Opposing party should know about hearsay sources.

Allow challenge – Opportunity to cross-examine or rebut hearsay improves fairness.

Assign appropriate weight – Even admitted hearsay is often given lower evidentiary weight.

Document the decision – Tribunal reasoning on hearsay admissibility should be in the award.

📌 VI. Summary Table: Hearsay Evidence in Arbitration

📌 VII. Conclusion

Arbitration is flexible regarding hearsay; strict common law exclusion is not mandatory.

Tribunals admit hearsay if it is relevant, reliable, and fair, while ensuring parties can respond.

Weight assigned to hearsay depends on source credibility, corroboration, and opportunity to challenge.

Singapore, SIAC, and international tribunals consistently follow this pragmatic, fairness-oriented approach.