An Overview of the Inaugural Maxwell Summit
 (19 November 2025)

 Setting the Stage: Objectives and Imperative

The Maxwell Summit marked the first in a continuing series of conversations recognising that, despite substantial efforts by institutions, professional bodies, and practitioners, familiar challenges continue to trouble international arbitration. As the caseload has expanded, these difficulties have naturally grown: a larger and more diverse community of participants brings varied expectations and practices, and the stakes for users are higher than ever. These pressures have amplified longstanding concerns: rising procedural complexity; an often inefficient approach to case management by both counsel and arbitrators that increases costs, prolongs timelines, and erodes user satisfaction; and occasional conduct by a minority of practitioners that undermines confidence in the arbitral process.

These issues are persistent, and meaningful accountability will require sustained, collective engagement. While they have been the subject of extensive discussion in the field, with several leading stakeholders offering thoughtful proposals to enhance efficiency, the core challenges remain unresolved: these proposals have had limited practical impact, leaving the gap between policy debate and actual practice regrettably largely unbridged.

But the scale and prevalence of these challenges should not deter practical action. The Summit therefore seeks not simply to revisit familiar debates, but to refresh efforts to refine guidance, clarify expectations, and develop practical tools that institutions, tribunals, counsel and parties can apply and action immediately. Its longer-term aspiration, through continued engagement with thought leaders in the field, is to upgrade arbitration’s accountability architecture, preserve its appeal as the preferred mechanism for resolving cross-border disputes, and reinforce public confidence in its integrity.

The Convenors are mindful that discussions on these issues have often been shaped by voices from the traditional arbitral hubs. For international arbitration to retain its attractiveness globally and enhance its legitimacy, perspectives from the Global South and other under-represented constituencies, such as users, must be fully integrated. Only by broadening participation and ensuring genuine inclusion can the field develop an arbitral culture that is both representative and forward-looking. This is a key guiding principle of the Summit. 

To that end, the Summit convened a focused and diverse group of users, counsel, arbitrators, experts, and institutional representatives with a shared objective: to steer the discussion from identifying problems to implementing practical solutions. Participants emphasised the importance of clarity, proportionality, and disciplined case management grounded in fairness. Discussions were held under the Chatham House Rule to encourage candid and constructive engagement. The Convenors also affirmed a commitment to sustained and consultative work that draws on perspectives beyond the traditional arbitral centres. This first Summit was intended as the first step in an ongoing collaborative process.

For the inaugural meeting, attention was directed to two areas where global consensus has long remained elusive and where practical guidance is urgently needed:

• the approach to witness evidence and witness preparation; and
• the application of design thinking to improve case management.

The Discussions

Topic 1 – Witness Preparation: Achieving Coherence and Consistency

Participants agreed that witness evidence should be admitted and weighed only where it assists the tribunal in determining disputed, decision‑relevant facts. In document‑heavy cases, precision and restraint are essential. Statements should be succinct, confined to the witness’s personal knowledge, and expressed in their own words. PD57AC‑style principles (the English Business & Property Courts’ Practice Direction 57AC on trial witness statements) could be adverted to as guidance rather than rigid prescription: short, factual, non‑argumentative statements; no commentary on documents; and, where helpful, a brief description of the preparation process to assist reliability assessments. Counsel may assist with structure and clarity, but the evidence must remain the witness’s own. Clear ground rules in Procedural Order No. 1 are essential. Practical measures include encouraging increased transparency on witness preparations, inviting clarity on contested issues requiring witness evidence, greater scrutiny on the need and justification for witnesses, coupled with proportionate page or issue limits, and—where suitable—addressing foreign‑law questions through submissions by qualified counsel rather than expert reports.

There was broad acceptance that tribunals must take firm control of expert processes as early as practicable. Tribunals and/or counsel should ensure that experts confer early on defined questions and prepare joint statements that record agreements and disagreements in their own words, with minimal counsel intervention. Tribunal‑led expert meetings, targeted concurrent evidence where appropriate, and regular, short case management conferences (CMCs) enable the tribunal to refine scope, test assumptions and methodologies, and ensure transparency if experts or instructions change.

Topic 2 – Design Thinking: Customising the Blueprint                     

Participants emphasised that sound case management ought to begin before the first CMC. Several participants noted that substantial time is routinely lost between the parties’ initial submissions (the Request for Arbitration and Answer, or their equivalents) and the formal constitution of the tribunal, followed by further delay before the structure and organisation of the arbitration is agreed or directed through PO1. This period often spans months rather than weeks.

A proposal that attracted strong support from the participants was for each party to include submissions or proposals on process and timelines together with its initial filings. This would enable tribunals to better appreciate the procedural landscape and provide earlier guidance upon constitution—through a pre-PO1 “Maxwell Agenda”—thereby getting a headstart and more effectively setting the tone at the outset of the case.

A pre‑PO1 “Maxwell Agenda” can operate as a disciplined roadmap, identifying the broader scope of matters parties must address when shaping procedure: submissions format; scope and methodology of expert evidence; staging of factual and expert testimony; document‑production expectations and limitations; identification of preliminary issues; explicit consideration of the utility of mediation in resolving less intractable issues; platform and technology use; ethical and behavioural expectations; and record‑organisation conventions. A letter addressing aspects of the Maxwell Agenda may be issued by the tribunal (or, where appropriate, by an institution). A pre‑CMC meet‑and‑confer could complement the letter so the first CMC proceeds on an informed, focused basis.

The first CMC is pivotal. It should be a substantive working session whereby Tribunals can interrogate the factual matrix, identify the priority issues in dispute and select the most efficient procedural pathway—choosing between submission formats, issue phasing, scoping and sequencing witnesses and experts, and defining the nature and extent of document production. Addressed upfront, these choices promote principled, proportionate procedure, avoid drift and give parties a coherent roadmap. Participants observed that this opportunity is often under‑used and encouraged tribunals to treat the first CMC as the best opportunity to set the tone and architecture of the proceedings.

Once that foundation is set, regular CMCs can help narrow issues as the record develops, address new facts, curate witnesses, refine expert scope and test methodologies. They can also allow the tribunal to consider whether certain issues should be determined first—but only where doing so advances efficiency without increasing cost or compromising fairness. Decision‑tree techniques, issue‑narrowing protocols, mid‑stream conferences and joint repositories help maintain focus and efficiency. For expert processes, participants supported early clarity on disciplines, scope, assumptions and methodology; limited counsel involvement in joint memoranda; early expert meetings where appropriate; and transparency around any changes to experts or instructions. For document production and the development of the evidentiary record, the group stressed targeted and proportionate requests and early organisational decisions, including stable exhibit identifiers, a structured and hyperlinked master exhibit list, consistent pagination and proportionate use of searchable hearing platforms.

Outputs agreed in principle

The Summit agreed in principle to develop—and to consult the community on—a suite of practical tools:

• a pre‑PO1 Maxwell Agenda supported by a meet‑and‑confer protocol;
• an optional PO1 provision providing appropriate transparency on witness‑statement preparation;
• concise guidance on what assists tribunals in assessing factual evidence;
• an expert‑evidence management toolkit;
• a document‑production and record‑management playbook;
• case‑structuring guidance incorporating a bifurcation‑necessity lens and, where helpful, decision‑tree exemplars; and
• crafting a Users’ Charter to articulate user expectations and facilitate structured feedback.

These tools, associated input and related resources, will be published and updated on the Maxwell Chambers website to engage the community in this conversation and improve global access to practical resources.

The Summit’s objectives are ambitious. Iterative and long-term, they are underpinned by a commitment to work with as many stakeholders as possible, to catalyse meaningful, practical change. If these aims resonate with you, we would welcome your support. We also invite you to share your ideas on how this collective effort can be strengthened and carried forward. Please send your suggestions to [email protected].