How Expert Witnesses Influence International Telecom Litigation

Introduction: Why Expert Witnesses Decide Cross-Border Telecom Disputes

International telecom litigation rarely hinges on simple factual disputes. Instead, outcomes often turn on expert evidence that translates complex network architectures, regulatory frameworks, and commercial arrangements into findings that tribunals can act upon.

Whether before the ICC International Court of Arbitration, LCIA, ICSID, UNCITRAL tribunals, or national courts in London, New York, Singapore, Hong Kong, or the DIFC, expert witnesses serve as the critical bridge between highly technical telecommunications concepts and legal decision making. These are the professionals who explain why a 5G spectrum allocation was anticompetitive, how roaming traffic was throttled, or what caused an MVNO migration to fail catastrophically.

The stakes are substantial. International telecom disputes routinely involve claims ranging from US$50M to US$600M, with outcomes frequently determined by expert analysis of national roaming agreements, interconnect billing, infrastructure sharing, and spectrum interference. In one investment treaty arbitration before the ICC, claims reached approximately US$600M, with expert opinion on regulatory abuse and market pricing proving decisive to the tribunal’s reasoning.

For this article, an “expert witness” means an independent specialist retained to opine on technical, regulatory, or commercial telecom issues in cross border disputes. These are not academic commentators but practitioners with hands-on industry experience—former network engineers, regulatory directors, and commercial executives who now translate their expertise into testimony that shapes awards and judgments.

This guide is written from the perspective of professionals actively involved in large telecom disputes. The aim is practical: to show how expert witnesses influence international telecom litigation and to offer concrete guidance for legal teams navigating these complex matters.

Where International Telecom Litigation Arises

Cross-border telecom disputes emerge across multiple forums, each with distinct procedural rules and approaches to expert evidence.

Investment treaty cases under ICSID or UNCITRAL rules frequently involve state incumbents and allegations of discriminatory treatment, regulatory abuse, or expropriation of spectrum licences. These many international arbitrations often pit foreign investors against host states over mobile concessions or tower infrastructure.

Commercial arbitrations under ICC, LCIA, or SIAC rules typically involve disputes between operators, tower companies, MVNOs, and equipment vendors. Common triggers include:

• Wholesale roaming agreement breaches

• MVNO master services agreement failures

• Cell site sharing disputes

• Interconnect billing reconciliations

• Submarine cable capacity agreements

National court litigation in jurisdictions like the UK High Court, US federal courts, and Singapore High Court handles disputes where parties prefer litigation support from established judicial systems or where arbitration clauses are absent. US courts in particular apply Daubert standards to assess expert testimony, creating specific credibility thresholds.

Many disputes involve multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. A roaming dispute might implicate EU regulations (such as Roam-Like-At-Home rules introduced in 2017), local regulator decisions from Ofcom or the FCC, and international treaty protections—all requiring expert evidence to interpret how these frameworks interact.

Consider how the same technical facts play differently across forums. In international arbitral proceedings, experts typically submit detailed written reports followed by oral testimony and cross examination. In US courts, experts must survive Daubert challenges before presenting their opinions. The substantive law involved may differ, but the central role of expert witnesses in translating complex or technical matters remains constant.

Types of Expert Witnesses in International Telecom Disputes

Telecom litigation rarely relies on a single expert. High stakes litigation typically involves teams of multiple experts covering distinct disciplines, with tribunal members benefiting from complementary perspectives on technical, regulatory, and financial issues.

Technical Network Experts

These specialists address engineering questions spanning radio access networks, core network architectures, and transmission systems. Their expertise covers:

• 2G through 5G networks (including 5G NR features and massive MIMO)

• VoIP and OTT traffic routing

• IoT and M2M connectivity platforms

• Call quality metrics and dropped call analysis

• Mast structural engineering (including load calculations for guyed masts up to 100m)

Example: In a tower company dispute, technical experts modeled mast designs collaboratively with world-leading structural specialists, providing litigation-ready opinions on whether antenna and feeder additions exceeded design load capacities.

Regulatory and Competition Experts

These witnesses interpret national telecom licences, EU Electronic Communications Code provisions, ITU-T recommendations, and competition law frameworks. They address:

• Abuse of dominance in termination or roaming markets

• Margin squeeze allegations

• Regulatory compliance with licence conditions

• Spectrum auction procedures and obligations

Example: In a US$60M ICC arbitration over MVNO services, a regulatory expert benchmarked interconnect pricing against regional norms, demonstrating deviation from standard industry practice.

Commercial and Pricing Experts

These specialists analyse wholesale agreements, benchmark contract terms against international norms, and assess whether pricing reflects market standards. They handle:

• National and international numbering disputes

• Wholesale roaming rate benchmarking

• Traffic forecasting and demand modeling

Quantum and Damages Specialists

Financial experts model lost revenues, reconstruct traffic volumes, and calculate damages over contract lifecycles spanning 10-15 years. They work closely with technical experts to translate network capacity constraints into economic outcomes.

Example: In a S$600M dispute over national roaming and cell site sharing, combined technical and financial expert evidence narrowed damages substantially from initial claims by reconciling conflicting traffic records.

In disputes exceeding US$100M, parties rely on additional specialists covering cybersecurity, data privacy, or satellite communications. The precise expertise required depends on the dispute’s technical architecture.

Appointment Models: Party-Appointed vs Tribunal-Appointed Experts

How expert witnesses are appointed significantly shapes litigation strategy and the weight tribunals assign to their opinions.

Party-Appointed Experts in Cross-Border Telecom Cases

Under rules such as ICC 2021 and LCIA 2020, each side typically selects its own expert. In court litigation, party appointed experts similarly align with their instructing parties while owing duties of independence to the tribunal or court.

Legal teams shortlist experts based on several criteria:

• Prior testimony in ICC, ICSID, or major national court proceedings

• Sector experience (mobile termination, tower portfolios, roaming)

• Familiarity with relevant regulators (Ofcom, TRAI, FCC)

• Publications on 5G, interconnect, or spectrum economics

Early engagement matters. Experienced parties instruct experts before formal proceedings commence—often at the notice of dispute stage—to shape pleadings, guide disclosure strategy, and inform settlement negotiations. In complex telecom disputes, expert involvement spanning two or more years is common.

The expert evidence paradigm for party appointed experts involves:

1. Initial instructions and access to technical data

2. Main expert report

3. Review of opposing expert evidence presented

4. Rebuttal report

5. Joint expert statement narrowing issues

6. Oral testimony at the final hearing

Courtroom credibility depends on prior appearances, professional memberships (such as IEEE or the Chartered Institute of Engineering and Technology), and the ability to withstand rigorous cross examination. Tribunals have described certain telecommunications expert witness professionals as “very convincing” when their oral testimony demonstrates real-world application rather than theoretical abstraction.

Experts who previously worked at major operators, equipment vendors, or regulators often bring particular credibility. Their understanding of how networks actually operate—not just how they should operate in theory—resonates with tribunal members facing conflicting interests between the arbitrating parties.

Tribunal-Appointed and Single Joint Experts

Some disputes warrant tribunal appointed experts, particularly when party experts are diametrically opposed on fundamental engineering assessments. The presiding arbitrator or sole arbitrator may appoint an independent expert when:

• Dropped call rate analyses yield irreconcilable conclusions

• Spectrum concession valuations differ by orders of magnitude

• Traffic reconciliation requires neutral forensic review

Under typical ICC or ICSID practice, fees for tribunal appointed experts are shared between parties and treated as arbitration costs. The arbitral tribunal retains control over the expert’s mandate and reporting requirements.

In a roaming dispute where party experts disagreed fundamentally on network capacity, a tribunal-appointed expert was engaged to reconcile divergent radio planning opinions. The expert’s neutral analysis narrowed technical issues significantly, allowing the three person tribunal to focus on remaining commercial questions.

However, parties often remain reluctant to rely solely on joint experts in high-value disputes (US$50M+). Many retain shadow experts—specialists who critique the tribunal-appointed expert’s methodology internally without submitting formal reports. This hybrid approach preserves some adversarial tension while benefiting from neutral technical input.

How many arbitrators sit on the panel also affects expert dynamics. A three person panels may include members with some technical background, reducing reliance on external experts, while a sole arbitrator with purely legal training may weight expert evidence more heavily.

How Expert Witnesses Shape Technical and Regulatory Findings

Tribunal members typically lack telecommunications engineering backgrounds. Expert witnesses perform the essential function of translating GSM, LTE, 5G SA architectures, signalling protocols, and billing complexities into legally relevant findings.

Reconstructing Traffic and Usage

Many disputes turn on traffic reconstruction—determining how much data or voice traffic actually flowed through networks during disputed periods. Experts perform tasks including:

• Reconciling call detail records (CDRs) from home and visited networks in roaming disputes

• Modelling lost international voice traffic due to alleged blocking or throttling

• Verifying migration records for MVNO transitions between platforms

In one case involving a national roaming disagreement, experts reconciled conflicting traffic records from multiple switching systems, ultimately demonstrating that claimed traffic volumes exceeded physical network capacity—undermining the claimant’s damages calculation.

Regulatory Interpretation

Telecom disputes frequently require experts to explain how regulatory frameworks apply to specific facts:

• National telecom licences and associated coverage obligations

• Reference interconnect offers mandated by regulators

• EU regulations such as Regulation (EU) 531/2012 on roaming

• ITU and 3GPP standards incorporated into contracts by reference

Experts translate these instruments from regulatory abstraction into concrete operational requirements. When parties dispute whether a network met 95% population coverage obligations in a 2019 licence, expert testimony on drive test methodology and coverage measurement standards becomes dispositive.

Standards and Benchmarks

Expert opinion often relies on industry standards to establish what “reasonable practice” means:

Standard Source	Application
ITU-T QoS norms	Network availability and latency thresholds
GSMA roaming guidelines	Inter-operator settlement procedures
3GPP specifications	Protocol compliance and interoperability
Industry norms	Tower loading capacities, SLA benchmarks

These benchmarks provide tribunals with reference points for assessing whether conduct was reasonable or deviated from industry practice.

From Network Diagrams to Courtroom Narratives

Raw engineering artefacts—coverage maps, drive-test data, KPI dashboards, signalling traces—require transformation before tribunals can use them. Expert evidence presented effectively converts technical complexity into accessible narratives.

Consider a coverage dispute where the question is whether a rural area met licence obligations. The raw evidence might include:

• Drive test logs containing millions of measurement points

• Coverage prediction models based on propagation algorithms

• Population density databases

• Antenna configuration records

A skilled telecommunications expert witness converts this into:

• Annotated coverage maps showing compliant versus non-compliant areas

• Summary tables comparing predicted versus measured coverage

• Timeline charts showing rollout progression

• Simple explanatory diagrams of how propagation affects rural coverage

Visual aids matter. Tribunals consistently find annotated network diagrams, simplified traffic flows, and timeline charts more persuasive than raw data exports. Presenting expert evidence effectively means meeting arbitrators where they are—not where the technical evidence naturally sits.

Interpreting Regulatory and Market Behaviour

Competition and regulatory experts analyse alleged anticompetitive conduct in international connectivity markets. Their tasks include:

• Benchmarking interconnect or roaming rates against regional norms

• Reviewing regulatory decisions and enforcement precedents

• Opining on whether behaviour deviates from standard industry practice

• Assessing margin squeeze allegations in wholesale markets

In a US$60M ICC arbitration concerning wholesale roaming, an expert’s benchmarking analysis compared the respondent’s pricing against ten comparable markets. The analysis demonstrated pricing 40% above regional norms, shifting the tribunal’s view toward finding abuse of market power. The substantive law in that particular case drew on both EU competition principles (Articles 101/102 TFEU) and national telecommunications regulations.

Influence on Quantum: Traffic, Tariffs, and Damages

Economic outcomes in telecom litigation depend on detailed modelling of traffic volumes, tariffs, customer churn, and network investment costs. Expert witnesses—both technical and financial—drive these calculations.

Typical Quantum Issues

Damages analysis in telecom disputes commonly addresses:

• Traffic reconstruction: Rebuilding disputed minutes or data volumes from incomplete or conflicting CDRs

• Forward-looking forecasts: Projecting traffic for long-term contracts spanning 10-15 year horizons

• Lost business valuation: Quantifying revenue and profit losses from anticompetitive behaviour or regulatory breaches

• Investment write-offs: Assessing stranded network investment due to contract termination

Technical-Financial Collaboration

Technical and financial experts must work together closely. Engineers define feasible network capacity, quality constraints, and operational limitations. Economists translate these into revenue scenarios, applying discount rates and adjusting for market conditions.

In the S$600M regional dispute over roaming and cell-site sharing, combined technical and financial expert evidence narrowed quantum substantially. The technical expert demonstrated that claimed traffic volumes were physically impossible given network capacity, while the financial expert recalculated damages on the corrected traffic base.

Tribunals prefer transparent, conservative models that are well-explained over aggressive but opaque calculations. An expert opinion that acknowledges limitations and uncertainties typically carries more weight than one that appears designed solely to maximise damages.

Data Integrity and Forensic Telecom Analysis

Many disputes turn on whether underlying data is complete and reliable. Forensic analysis of CDRs, billing records, and OSS logs frequently proves decisive.

Expert tasks in this area include:

• Sampling records across multiple network switches for consistency

• Reconciling domestic and international gateway records

• Comparing operator data against clearing-house records

• Identifying gaps, manipulation, or systemic errors

In one case, forensic analysis revealed that a mediation platform had been misconfigured during 2016-2018, causing systematic under-recording of international traffic. This discovery undermined the respondent’s defence that traffic volumes were accurately captured, shifting liability toward the operator responsible for billing infrastructure.

Conversely, forensic review can reinforce a party’s position. When a claimant alleged deliberate traffic blocking, expert analysis of signalling records demonstrated that dropped connections resulted from standard network congestion management—not intentional interference. The arbitral institution’s award noted that expert testimony on normal network behaviour was determinative.

Procedural Tools: Expert Reports, Rebuttals, and Hot-Tubbing

Certain procedural rules govern how expert evidence flows through international proceedings. Understanding this lifecycle helps legal teams maximise expert influence.

The Expert Evidence Lifecycle

Stage	Description	Typical Timing
Initial instructions	Define scope, provide access to technical data	Pre-filing or early proceedings
Main report	Expert’s primary opinion on assigned issues	Per procedural order
Opposing review	Analyse other parties’ experts’ reports	After report exchange
Rebuttal report	Respond to opposing experts	Per procedural order
Joint statement	Narrow areas of agreement/disagreement	Pre-hearing
Oral testimony	Direct examination, cross examination, tribunal questions	Final hearing

Procedural orders (typically PO1 or PO2) establish scope and timelines for expert reports, often coordinating across technical, regulatory, and quantum disciplines to ensure consistency.

Witness Conferencing (Hot-Tubbing)

Witness conferencing—commonly called “hot-tubbing”—is increasingly adopted in ICC, LCIA, SIAC proceedings, and some court systems. This approach allows parties’ experts to answer tribunal questions side-by-side, enabling real-time comparison of rival explanations.

In complex telecom matters, hot-tubbing helps tribunals compare competing interpretations of the same traffic dataset, KPI logs, or regulatory clause. Rather than receiving reports sequentially and trying to reconcile conflicting conclusions from written materials alone, tribunal members can probe experts directly on specific disagreements.

Traditional testimony through sequential examination remains common, but hot-tubbing has proven particularly valuable when:

• Technical experts dispute interpretation of the same CDR dataset

• Regulatory experts disagree on licence obligation interpretation

• Quantum experts use different baseline assumptions

The format allows follow up questions that might not emerge through formal cross examination alone, often revealing which expert’s methodology is more robust or which assumptions are better supported.

Managing Complexity and Volume of Technical Evidence

Cross-border telecom cases routinely involve millions of CDRs and multi-year KPI histories. Litigation support from experts includes helping legal teams decide what to sample and how to present it effectively.

Practical approaches include:

• Statistical sampling: Selecting representative CDR samples for particular years or routes rather than analysing entire datasets

• Focus periods: Concentrating on representative time periods (e.g., peak holiday roaming months) that illustrate patterns

• Visual summaries: Replacing raw spreadsheets with charts and diagrams in hearing presentations

Tribunals expect proportionality. Experts who reduce noise and surface the most probative data are more influential than those who overwhelm panels with unprocessed evidence.

In one arbitration, an expert narrowed a massive CDR dataset covering five years of international roaming to a focused analysis of three representative routes during peak traffic periods. This approach demonstrated the claimant’s usage patterns while remaining accessible to the three person tribunal’s non-technical members.

Selecting the Right Telecom Expert for International Litigation

Choosing the right expert is among the most consequential decisions legal teams make in telecom disputes. The wrong choice can undermine otherwise strong positions.

Key Selection Criteria

Criterion	Why It Matters
Direct industry experience	Senior roles at operators, vendors, or regulators provide practical credibility
Prior expert testimony	Experience in ICC, ICSID, LCIA, or major national courts demonstrates hearing capability
Communication skills	Ability to explain complexity to non-engineers is essential
Independence	Track record of balanced opinions survives cross examination
Current technical knowledge	For 5G, NFV/SDN, or satellite disputes, up-to-date hands-on experience is essential

Basic qualifications matter, but practical experience matters more. A telecommunications expert with deep theoretical knowledge but no operational background may struggle against an opponent who has actually managed network deployments or regulatory negotiations.

Practical Vetting Steps

Before engaging an expert, parties counsel should:

1. Review previous awards or judgments citing the expert

2. Examine publications on relevant technologies (5G, interconnect, spectrum)

3. Obtain references from counsel who have worked with the expert

4. Request sample reports demonstrating analytical approach

5. Assess professional memberships (IEEE, IET, IIC) and basic qualifications

The Global Arbitration Review and similar publications occasionally reference expert witnesses in case commentaries, providing additional due diligence sources.

Early Engagement Benefits

The strategic benefit of involving experts early—at pre-action stage—cannot be overstated. Early engagement allows experts to:

• Stress-test claims or defences before committing to formal proceedings

• Identify technical pitfalls that might undermine positions

• Shape document preservation and disclosure requests

• Inform settlement negotiations with technical reality

In contrast, experts engaged late often inherit positions that are technically indefensible, limiting their ability to provide persuasive expert witness services.

Balancing Regional Knowledge and Global Standards

International telecom disputes often require experts who understand both local market realities and global standards. Either the arbitrating parties or their counsel must consider whether to prioritise:

• Jurisdictional familiarity: An expert from the same market understands local regulatory nuances, typical pricing, and operator behaviour

• External perspective: An expert from outside the jurisdiction may be perceived as more independent and can offer comparative market insight

Consider the contrast between EU and Asia-Pacific roaming disputes. EU disputes operate within harmonised frameworks (BEREC guidelines, roaming regulations, European Electronic Communications Code), where experts familiar with EU regulatory practice have natural advantages. Asia-Pacific disputes often involve bilateral agreements without overarching regulatory frameworks, requiring experts who understand market-by-market dynamics.

In one dispute involving Gulf regulatory frameworks, an expert’s familiarity with regional wholesale pricing norms significantly influenced the tribunal’s view of what constituted “reasonable industry practice”—a conclusion that might have differed with an expert lacking regional experience.

An international law firm white paper on telecom arbitration noted that expert credibility often depends on matching regional expertise to the dispute’s geographic focus while maintaining sufficient independence to be persuasive.

Emerging Trends: 5G, Cloud, and AI in Telecom Expert Evidence

The telecommunications landscape is evolving rapidly, generating new technology related issues that require specialised expert evidence.

5G and Network Slicing

The rollout of 5G (especially 5G standalone from around 2020 onward) is creating new dispute categories:

• SLA breaches related to latency guarantees for enterprise customers

• Network slicing allocation disputes between operators and enterprise clients

• Private network deployments and interference with public network operations

• Edge computing service level commitments

These new technology disputes require experts with hands-on 5G experience, not just theoretical familiarity with 3GPP specifications.

Cloud-Native Networks

The shift of core network functions to cloud platforms (AWS, Azure, private clouds) raises issues around:

• Data localisation requirements and cross-border traffic routing

• Security responsibilities between operators and cloud providers

• Service continuity during cloud platform outages

• Liability allocation for network functions virtualised across jurisdictions

Expert testimony in these disputes must address both telecommunications architecture and cloud infrastructure—a combination that requires either individual experts with hybrid backgrounds or coordinated teams.

IoT and M2M Services

Connected vehicles, smart meters, and industrial IoT applications are generating novel liability questions:

• Connectivity guarantees for safety-critical applications

• Roaming and coverage obligations for IoT devices

• Data handling responsibilities across multiple operators

Artificial Intelligence in Expert Work

AI is increasingly assisting expert work in telecom litigation:

• Document review: Machine learning tools help identify relevant technical documents in large disclosure sets

• Data analytics: AI-assisted pattern recognition in CDRs or KPI logs surfaces anomalies faster than manual review

• Traffic modelling: Predictive models incorporate more variables than traditional spreadsheet analysis

However, AI requires human oversight for methodology validation, reasoned judgment on assumptions, and courtroom presentation. Tribunals evaluate expert credibility based on the expert’s own approach and reasoning, not algorithmic outputs. A dedicated engagement team supporting the expert may use AI tools, but the expert must understand and defend the methodology.

Cybersecurity, Data Privacy, and Cross-Border Data Flows

As networks virtualise, telecom litigation increasingly involves cybersecurity breaches, lawful intercept capabilities, and data protection regimes.

Expert roles in these areas include:

• Security assessments: Evaluating whether operators met industry-standard security controls at the time of a breach

• Cross-border data analysis: Analysing subscriber data transfers in roaming and OTT services under GDPR, UK GDPR, or CCPA

• Lawful intercept: Explaining lawful intercept capabilities and logs in criminal or regulatory proceedings

Example scenario: In a dispute arising from a network security breach, a cybersecurity expert analysed whether the operator’s security architecture met industry standards at the time of the incident. The expert’s testimony on technical experts’ standards and regulatory impacts of non-compliance proved central to liability findings.

Example scenario: In a cross-border roaming dispute, a data protection expert addressed whether subscriber location data transfers between EU and non-EU networks complied with GDPR transfer mechanisms. The analysis of cross border disputes involving data flows required expertise spanning both telecommunications and privacy law.

These emerging trends suggest that telecom expert evidence will only grow more specialised as networks become more complex.

Case Examples Illustrating Expert Influence

The following anonymised examples illustrate how expert evidence altered outcomes in international telecom arbitration.

Mast Overloading: US$50M ICC Arbitration

Background: A tower company disputed a mobile operator’s claim that structural modifications had rendered masts unsafe, seeking damages for remediation costs.

Expert disciplines: Structural engineering, radio planning, regulatory compliance.

Key issues: Whether antenna and feeder additions exceeded mast design load capacities; whether the operator provided accurate loading specifications.

Expert influence: Technical experts modeled mast designs using finite element analysis, demonstrating that certain sites exceeded safety margins while others remained within specifications. The expert’s essentially final conclusion on which sites required remediation—rather than blanket replacement—narrowed the quantum significantly. The tribunal’s reasoned judgment cited the expert’s structural analysis extensively.

Wholesale Roaming: US$60M Commercial Arbitration

Background: An MVNO alleged that an incumbent operator charged excessive wholesale roaming rates, constituting abuse of dominant position.

Expert disciplines: Regulatory/competition economics, wholesale pricing analysis.

Key issues: Whether wholesale rates exceeded competitive benchmarks; whether margin squeeze existed.

Expert influence: The expert benchmarked wholesale roaming rates against ten comparable markets, demonstrating pricing 40% above regional norms. The tribunal accepted the benchmarking methodology and found the incumbent’s pricing anticompetitive. Verbal testimony during cross examined sessions reinforced the written analysis, with the expert defending methodology under sustained questioning.

Traffic Reconciliation: S$600M Regional Dispute

Background: A dispute between mobile operators over national roaming, cell site sharing, and international traffic involved competing claims about traffic volumes over multiple years.

Expert disciplines: Network engineering, traffic analysis, financial quantum.

Key issues: Reconciling conflicting CDRs from home and visited networks; determining accurate traffic volumes for damages calculation.

Expert influence: Combined technical and financial expert evidence demonstrated that claimed traffic volumes exceeded physical network capacity. The tribunal narrowed quantum substantially from initial claims based on expert reconciliation of traffic records. The parties’ experts ultimately agreed on methodology through joint statements, with remaining disputes resolved through witness conferencing.

Best Practices for Counsel Working with Telecom Experts

Maximising expert influence requires thoughtful engagement from legal teams throughout the dispute lifecycle.

Engage Early, Instruct Clearly

Involve experts at the earliest stage—ideally before formal proceedings commence. Early engagement allows experts to:

• Shape issue identification and pleading strategy

• Guide document preservation and disclosure requests

• Identify technical weaknesses in opposing positions

• Support settlement negotiations with informed technical analysis

Provide experts with structured, complete technical data. Specify assumptions explicitly. Experts cannot produce persuasive opinions from incomplete information.

Maintain Independence

Instruct experts to give balanced opinions, including limitations and uncertainties. An expert who acknowledges weaknesses in a position is more credible than one who presents unrealistically one-sided conclusions.

Independence is widely enforceable as a professional obligation. Expert witnesses who appear as advocates rather than neutral specialists suffer credibility damage under cross examination that undermines their entire testimony.

Coordinate Expert Teams

In disputes involving multiple experts (technical, regulatory, quantum), ensure consistent assumptions across reports. Conflicting bases—such as different traffic volume assumptions in technical versus financial reports—create vulnerabilities that opposing counsel will exploit.

Prepare for Oral Testimony

Rehearse clear, non-jargon explanations for hearings. Experts should practice explaining complex concepts to non-specialists and prepare for follow up questions that probe methodology.

Cautionary Tales

Late engagement: In one dispute, counsel retained a technical expert only after submitting initial pleadings. The expert identified fundamental technical errors in the pleaded position that could not be corrected without damaging credibility. Earlier engagement would have prevented this.

Incomplete data: An expert submitted a report based on CDRs provided by the client, only to discover during cross examination that the dataset was incomplete. The gap undermined the entire traffic analysis, contributing to an adverse award.

Treat your own expert as a strategic partner. Their effectiveness depends on the quality of engagement they receive.

Conclusion: Expert Evidence as the Pivot of International Telecom Litigation

In cross-border telecom disputes, expert testimony often carries more weight than witness recollections. Outcomes hinge on technical performance, regulatory duties, and quantified losses—technical matters that require specialist translation for tribunals to understand and apply.

Expert witnesses perform three essential functions: translating complex network architectures and protocols into accessible findings; interpreting regulatory frameworks and industry practice to establish standards of conduct; and building credible damages models from telecommunications data that can withstand scrutiny.

As technologies evolve—5G and emerging 6G networks, virtualised cores, satellite-backed connectivity, AI-assisted operations—reliance on specialised, independent telecom experts will only increase. The New York Convention makes arbitral awards widely enforceable across jurisdictions, but the awards themselves depend on sound technical foundations that only qualified experts can provide.

For in-house counsel and external lawyers facing telecom disputes, the message is clear: treat your own arbitrator selection and expert selection with equal seriousness. Engage telecom experts as strategic partners throughout the dispute lifecycle—from pre-action assessment through final hearing—not merely as late-stage witnesses producing reports on demand. The influence they wield in shaping outcomes justifies no less.