Quick Answer: Israeli arbitration has no automatic discovery or document disclosure — the arbitrator controls the process and sets whatever evidence rules the parties have not agreed on. For domestic arbitration under the Arbitration Law 5728-1968, document production happens through a combination of voluntary disclosure and court-assisted subpoenas under Section 37. For international arbitration seated in Israel, the International Commercial Arbitration Law 5784-2024 gives tribunals broad powers under Articles 28 and 36 and supports adoption of the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence. A foreign party expecting US-style discovery or English disclosure will find Israeli arbitration leaner and faster — but also less transparent about the other side's documents unless the tribunal is pushed to order production.

A European manufacturer brings an arbitration in Tel Aviv against its Israeli distributor over unpaid invoices and a disputed termination clause. The manufacturer wants the distributor's internal sales reports, email chains with sub-distributors, and bank records to show that product was sold and the money pocketed. The distributor's Israeli counsel says there is no obligation to hand any of that over. Who is right?

Both parties could be right, depending on what the arbitration agreement says. Israeli arbitration has no background rule that forces either side to hand over documents it would rather keep. The International Commercial Arbitration Law 5784-2024 and the IBA Rules have pushed international practice somewhat closer to what foreign parties know from common-law jurisdictions, but the gap is real and the time to close it is before the procedural order is signed.

1. How Evidence Works in Israeli Arbitration

The starting point in any Israeli arbitration is party autonomy. The tribunal runs the evidence process on whatever rules the parties have agreed to, supplemented by whatever the arbitrator decides in the absence of agreement. There is no equivalent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the English Civil Procedure Rules automatically applying to the process.

In practice, most Israeli domestic arbitrations follow a procedure modelled loosely on Israeli civil court practice: each side submits written witness statements and expert reports, the other side cross-examines at a hearing, and documents go in as exhibits attached to the statements or identified by reference. The key difference from litigation is that the arbitrator — not a rules system — decides whether a document must be produced, how long cross-examination runs, and whether additional rounds of written submissions are allowed.

An experienced arbitrator runs the process efficiently and can reach an award years before the same dispute would clear an Israeli court. A passive one lets it accumulate the formalism that arbitration was meant to avoid. Either way, the arbitration agreement and the first procedural order determine almost everything about how evidence will actually flow, and fixing problems in those two documents costs far less than fixing them later.

  • No automatic disclosure: Unlike English litigation, there is no default obligation on either party to list all relevant documents in their possession. Documents appear only when a party chooses to rely on them or the tribunal orders production.
  • Tribunal initiative: An Israeli arbitrator may request documents sua sponte. In practice, most wait for a party application.
  • Admissibility is flexible: Hebrew evidentiary rules from the Evidence Ordinance (New Version) 5731-1971 do not bind arbitrators. A tribunal may admit hearsay, unsigned documents, and secondary evidence at its discretion.
  • Language: The default language of arbitration is Hebrew unless the parties agree otherwise. Evidence in foreign languages generally needs a certified Hebrew translation, though tribunals routinely waive this for commercial documents where the context is clear.
In Practice: The procedural order issued at the first case-management meeting typically sets the timeline for document production, witness statements, expert reports, and hearing dates. Request that this order include an explicit document production round — even a narrow one — before the statement of case stage closes. Once each side has committed its case to writing, the incentive to produce damaging internal documents drops sharply. Israeli arbitrators will include such a round when asked at the outset; they are far less likely to revisit the structure mid-proceeding after positions have hardened. The Israel Centre for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) procedural rules contain model procedural order templates that address this expressly and can be adopted by reference.
Advertisement

2. Document Disclosure Under the 1968 Arbitration Law

The Arbitration Law 5728-1968 says almost nothing specific about document production. Section 20 gives the arbitrator broad procedural powers, including the power to determine the procedure, conduct hearings, receive evidence, and grant any relief that an Israeli court could grant as ancillary to the arbitral proceedings. Section 37 provides the mechanism for court assistance when evidence-gathering needs judicial tools — more on that below.

Within the arbitration itself, document production rests on these mechanisms:

Voluntary production. Each party submits the documents it chooses to rely on as exhibits to its statement of case or witness statements. This is universal and creates no controversy.

Requests to produce. A party may ask the tribunal to order the other side to produce specific documents. The request must identify the documents with reasonable specificity and explain their relevance. A request for "all internal communications regarding this agreement" without dates, names, or subject matter will generally fail. A request for "emails between [named employee] and any sub-distributor between [dates] referencing the Exclusivity Clause" has a realistic chance of success.

Adverse inference. Where a party refuses to produce documents the tribunal has ordered to be disclosed, the arbitrator may draw an adverse inference — concluding that the withheld documents would have supported the requesting party's case. Israeli arbitrators use this power, but they use it carefully and it is not a substitute for the documents themselves.

Third-party documents. An arbitral tribunal has no inherent power to compel a non-party to produce documents. That requires court intervention under Section 37 of the Arbitration Law, using the witness-summons mechanism adapted for document production.

In Practice: When drafting the arbitration agreement, insert a document production provision modelled on the IBA Rules Article 3: each party identifies the categories of documents it requests, the other side produces or objects, and the tribunal rules on contested requests. Israeli arbitrators recognise and apply this structure. Without it, the scope of production is entirely at the tribunal's discretion and the typical outcome is narrower than what a foreign party from a common-law jurisdiction would expect. A clause of four to six sentences at the contract stage removes months of procedural argument at the arbitration stage and costs nothing extra.

3. The ICA Law 2024 and International Evidence Rules

The International Commercial Arbitration Law 5784-2024 modernised the framework for cross-border arbitration seated in Israel. It implements the UNCITRAL Model Law as revised in 2006 and introduces two provisions of direct relevance to evidence.

Article 28 — Procedural rules. The tribunal may conduct the arbitration in the manner it considers appropriate, subject to what the parties have agreed. This broad grant includes the power to set evidence procedures. The tribunal may order a party to produce documents, set a document production timetable, and direct how witnesses are to be heard. There is no exhaustive list of what the tribunal may or may not do on evidence — the parties' agreement and the Model Law principles of equal treatment and reasonable opportunity to present a case are the outer limits.

Article 36 — Court assistance in taking evidence. The tribunal or a party with the tribunal's approval may request the Israeli District Court to assist in taking evidence. The court may order witnesses to appear, compel production of documents, and appoint experts. This is the bridge between the private arbitral process and the coercive powers that only a state court holds. A subpoena issued by the court under this route carries the same contempt sanctions as a subpoena in civil litigation — failure to comply is enforceable.

Article 36 fills a genuine gap in international arbitration: the tribunal can order a party to produce documents, but it cannot compel a recalcitrant party or a third party the way a court can. Where a key document sits with a bank, a government agency, or a company that is not party to the arbitration, Article 36 is the route to compulsory production.

In Practice: An Article 36 application for court assistance is filed in the District Court (beit mishpat mechozi) sitting in the district where the evidence is located. If the target is a bank with a Tel Aviv branch, file in the Tel Aviv District Court. The application requires a tribunal resolution authorising the request, a description of the documents or witnesses sought, and a statement of why the material is relevant to a fact in dispute. Budget NIS 5,000 to NIS 15,000 in attorney fees for an uncontested application and NIS 30,000 to NIS 60,000 if the production order is opposed and argued. Court processing time in an uncontested application runs six to ten weeks. Start the application the moment the tribunal authorises it — waiting for the hearing date to approach first loses significant time.
Advertisement

4. IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence

The International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, last revised in 2020, are the most widely used supplementary evidence framework in Israeli international arbitration. They sit between US-style broad discovery and the civil-law norm where each side produces only what it wants to rely on — structured enough to reach the other side's documents, narrow enough to avoid the cost of full disclosure.

Under the IBA Rules, document production works through a structured request-and-response cycle:

  1. A party submits a Redfern Schedule — a table listing each category of documents requested, the factual issue each category is said to address, the responding party's objection, and the tribunal's ruling.
  2. The responding party objects on one of the permitted grounds: the documents are not sufficiently identified, they are not relevant or material, production would be unreasonably burdensome, they are legally privileged, or there are grounds of confidentiality that outweigh the need for disclosure.
  3. The tribunal rules on contested items, granting or refusing production, and may order production subject to a confidentiality protocol.

The IBA Rules also cover witness evidence (Article 4), party-appointed experts (Article 5), tribunal-appointed experts (Article 6), inspection of property (Article 7), and evidentiary hearings (Article 8). They do not apply automatically — the parties must agree to them, either in the arbitration agreement or at the first procedural conference.

Israeli arbitrators are familiar with the IBA Rules and generally apply them sensibly. In practice, the Redfern Schedule format survives even in cases where the rules are not formally adopted — it is simply the clearest way to present disputed document requests to a tribunal and get a ruling.

In Practice: The IBA Rules 2020 introduced a specific provision (Article 9.2(g)) allowing tribunals to exclude evidence obtained illegally. This matters in Israeli arbitration where one party might seek to rely on WhatsApp messages, recorded phone calls, or documents obtained from a shared work environment. Israel's Prohibition on Eavesdropping Law 5739-1979 and the Protection of Privacy Law 5741-1981 classify certain interceptions as criminal offences regardless of what the content shows. Raise the illegality objection as soon as the evidence is relied upon — tribunals will not review documents spontaneously, and the exclusion window can close if the objection is delayed until closing submissions. Present the objection as a written application so the ruling is recorded.

5. Court Assistance in Taking Evidence

Both the 1968 Arbitration Law and the ICA Law 2024 allow a party to obtain Israeli court assistance for evidence that cannot be compelled through the arbitral process alone. The two statutes use slightly different procedures, but the practical outcomes are similar.

Under the 1968 law — Section 37. A party applies to the court that would have had jurisdiction over the underlying dispute for a subpoena (*hazmanah leeidut*) or a production order (*tzav giluiy meismachim*). The court applies the same standards it would use in civil litigation: the documents must be identified with reasonable specificity, must be relevant to a fact in issue, and must not be privileged. Third parties receive notice and can object. The court may attach conditions, including a confidentiality order protecting commercially sensitive material that is produced.

Under the ICA Law 2024 — Article 36. The procedure is similar but explicitly authorised by the Model Law framework. A tribunal resolution is needed first, which keeps the arbitrator in control of what evidence is actually gathered. The District Court applies the Model Law standards rather than domestic litigation rules when evaluating the request.

One underused tool is the preservation order. Where a party fears that documents will be destroyed before a production order can be obtained — because the counterparty has announced it is winding down, changing management systems, or migrating servers — an urgent application to the District Court can freeze the relevant documents in place. Under the Civil Procedure Regulations 5744-1984, a court can issue an interim order within 24 to 48 hours in genuine emergency situations. The application must show urgency, a real risk of destruction, and a reasonable prospect that the evidence is relevant.

In Practice: Before applying for court assistance to obtain documents from an Israeli bank, obtain the tribunal's written authorisation and check that the bank is served within the jurisdiction. Israeli banks — Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi, Mizrahi-Tefahot, Bank Discount, and the major foreign bank branches — all have a registered address for service of process and will respond to a properly served court order within the timeframe the court sets, typically 30 to 45 days. Requests for records more than seven years old should confirm the bank's document retention policy first — Israeli banks are required under the Banking Supervision Directive to retain most account records for seven years, and older records may no longer exist in accessible form.

6. Witness Evidence: Statements, Cross-Examination, and Subpoenas

Written witness statements go in first and stand as the witness's direct evidence. Cross-examination happens at the oral hearing, and re-examination on new matters raised in cross is usually permitted. So far, this matches what most foreign practitioners expect. What catches them off guard is below.

Witness statements in Hebrew. There is no formal requirement that witness statements be in Hebrew in domestic arbitration, but hearings are often conducted in Hebrew and cross-examination may require simultaneous interpretation. In international arbitration, agree at the first procedural conference whether the language of the proceedings includes English, and confirm this in the procedural order so the record is clear.

Compulsory witness attendance. A witness who refuses to appear at an arbitral hearing cannot be compelled by the tribunal. Compulsion requires a court subpoena under Section 37 of the Arbitration Law or Article 36 of the ICA Law 2024. The process takes several weeks and the witness's refusal to cooperate can itself become relevant — a tribunal may draw adverse inferences when a party-connected witness refuses to appear despite being available.

Documentary witnesses vs. factual witnesses. In Israeli arbitration, it is common to call a witness primarily to authenticate documents rather than to give narrative evidence. These appearances are brief and can often be handled by written confirmation or a short agreed statement rather than live cross-examination, which saves hearing time for the substantive disputes.

Witness immunity. Witnesses in Israeli arbitration proceedings are not automatically protected from civil suit based on what they say in evidence. There is no blanket testimonial immunity equivalent to what exists in court proceedings. Parties who are also witnesses — as is common in commercial arbitrations — should be advised of this before making statements that touch on matters that could generate separate liability.

In Practice: If a key witness is abroad and the other party disputes whether that witness will appear, get a written commitment at the case-management stage and build it into the procedural order. Under Section 37 of the Arbitration Law, a subpoena can only compel a person physically present in Israel. A witness in London or New York cannot be subpoenaed through the Israeli court system. Where the evidence of an overseas witness is critical and their cooperation is uncertain, consider using a written statement with an offer to answer written questions or conduct a video hearing — most Israeli arbitrators will accept this for a witness who is genuinely unable to attend in person. The alternative, applying for letters rogatory through the Hague Evidence Convention, takes six to twelve months and is usually reserved for situations where the evidence is unavailable any other way.

7. Expert Witnesses in Israeli Arbitration

Expert evidence in Israeli arbitration follows the international norm of party-appointed experts submitting written reports, followed by concurrent or sequential cross-examination at the hearing. There is no requirement to use Israeli-licensed experts unless the subject matter specifically demands local credentials — a damage quantification expert from London or New York is routinely accepted.

Party-appointed experts. Each party selects and retains its own expert, who prepares an independent report. The expert's duty is to the tribunal, not to the party paying the fees — Israeli arbitrators will discount an expert report that reads as advocacy rather than analysis, and an expert who visibly understates weaknesses in their own assumptions loses credibility quickly.

Tribunal-appointed experts. Under Article 26 of the ICA Law 2024 and the general discretion under the 1968 law, the tribunal may appoint its own expert. This is used in specialised fields — construction defects, accounting fraud, valuation disputes — where the parties' competing experts are so far apart that the tribunal needs independent technical assistance. The parties can examine the tribunal's expert at the hearing. Costs are typically shared equally and can run NIS 50,000 to NIS 200,000 depending on the complexity of the technical question.

Hot-tubbing. Concurrent expert evidence — where both party experts and the tribunal's expert sit together and answer questions simultaneously — is increasingly common in Israeli international arbitration. It narrows the issues faster than sequential cross-examination and helps the tribunal identify where the experts genuinely disagree on methodology versus where they are simply talking past each other. It is not automatic; request it at the first case-management conference if you think the expert issues are substantive and the gap between the experts is likely to be narrow on the real questions.

Qualified valuation experts in Israel. For disputes involving Israeli real estate, pension funds, or Israeli-listed company shares, Israeli law or practice may require an expert with specific local qualifications — a licensed appraiser (*shan'ai moosmach*) for real property, or a CPA licensed by the Institute of Certified Public Accountants in Israel for financial statements. Confirm the qualification requirements with Israeli counsel before commissioning the report, because an unqualified expert opinion on a matter requiring a licensed professional may be given no weight by the tribunal.

In Practice: Under the IBA Rules Article 5.2, party-appointed expert reports must include a statement that the expert understands and accepts the duty to provide independent and impartial opinions. Include this declaration in any expert report submitted in Israeli international arbitration, even when the IBA Rules are not formally adopted — Israeli arbitrators expect it and will ask for it if it is missing. For damages experts, require the report to include a worked numerical model in a spreadsheet that the other side's expert can interrogate directly, rather than a narrative summary alone. This discipline forces both experts to expose their assumptions and speeds the hot-tubbing process by giving the tribunal a concrete framework to test.