Tim Hart at Credibility International has an impressive record as an independent expert. Some of his most notable cases include:

An ICSID tribunal adopts Hart’s methodology in awarding a Czech bank US$867 million.

An UNCITRAL tribunal awards Hart’s US$10 million figure in an investment treaty case involving a gold mine in Uzbekistan with a claim of US$1.4 billion.

In an ICC case involving telecommunications in India where claimant asked for over US$400 million, tribunal awards an exact figure of US$18 million presented by Hart.

In an ICSID case with claims of US$130 million involving the textile industry in Uzbekistan, the tribunal ruled they did not have jurisdiction due to bribery in a case where Hart offered opinions about the transactions that were found to be corrupt.

In an ICSID case involving duty free Eastern Europe with Hart instructed by the respondent, the tribunal awarded less than 4% of the US$80 million claim.

In an ICC case involving a business in Asia where Hart’s opinion on damages equaled 1.3% of the claim, the tribunal adopted Hart’s methodology and awarded just 1.7% of the claimed amount.

In an ICSID case, the tribunal ruled there to be no liability due to lack of financial feasibility where Hart issued an opinion of zero damages.

In an ICC case with claims of over US$300 million, the tribunal finds one claim of liability yet rules that no award of damages is warranted or had been proven in a case where Hart had an opinion of no damages.

In a major UK trial lasting over 100 days in court, the judge calls Hart an “impressive witness”.

In an ICC case with claims of over US$100 million, the tribunal rules no liability and that neither damages or causation had been proven in a case where Hart had an opinion of no damages.

In an ICSID case where Hart had an opinion of zero damages, the claimant abandoned the case in which they claimed damages in excess of US$250 million right before the hearing and the tribunal subsequently terminated the proceeding.