Insights

What happens when a witness changes language mid‑testimony

International arbitration hearings are usually planned well in advance, with language arrangements forming part of that preparation. Occasionally, those arrangements change once witness evidence has begun. When they do, the implications extend beyond the practicalities of interpretation and may give rise to procedural issues during the hearing.

This arose during a multi‑day final hearing, conducted in a hybrid format across several jurisdictions, with simultaneous interpretation arranged between Ukrainian and English, agreed well in advance. A two‑person interpreting team prepared accordingly – working through an extensive documentary record, complex technical, financial, and legal terminology, the institutions and legal framework involved, and voluminous witness bundles once these became available, to build a shared glossary ahead of the hearing.

Partway through the evidence, a witness asked to testify in Russian rather than Ukrainian. Both languages were part of the witness’s everyday environment, but it was the one in which they felt able to express themselves with the greatest precision. The request was understandable, and it illustrated why language arrangements should not be treated as a purely logistical matter. However, interpreters prepare against an agreed language pair; a change during the hearing can affect not only delivery but the linguistic preparation underpinning it. Where witness evidence is likely to be examined closely, any proposed change needs to be considered transparently, with the knowledge of those instructing the interpreters, the parties, and the tribunal.

The solution preserved both objectives: the witness was permitted to testify in either language, with the same interpreting team providing simultaneous interpretation from both Ukrainian and Russian into English throughout, once the tribunal had approved the revised arrangements and all parties had been informed.

For practitioners, the broader point is straightforward.

Language should be considered part of procedural planning, not merely an operational detail.

Counsel instructing interpreters may wish to build contingency for language changes into procedural orders from the outset – addressed early and with the same transparency as other procedural matters, this preserves both the quality of the evidence and the orderly conduct of proceedings.

International arbitration hearings - London

When the technology fails

A multilingual discussion as part of a conference in Brussels was due to be supported by simultaneous interpreting using a Tour Guide system. As participants were arriving, my colleague and I discovered that the equipment was not functioning properly. No technical support was immediately available, and the session was about to begin. Cancelling interpretation would have prevented one participant from taking part fully in the discussion.

Rather than treating the situation as a technical issue, we approached it as a communication problem. As only one participant required interpretation, a simpler arrangement was possible. Before the discussion began, we explained the revised format, confirmed that everyone was comfortable with the arrangements, and ensured that everyone understood what to expect.

The planned simultaneous set‑up was replaced with whispered interpreting into Ukrainian, consecutive interpretation from that participant, and interpreter changes at regular intervals. The discussion continued for more than an hour and a half using the revised arrangements – and concluded without further incident.

Technology can fail. What matters is preserving communication with a solution that is proportionate, practical, and understood by everyone involved.

Conference of Mayors - Brussels

When a translator’s note has its place

One assignment arose during a passport application following the client’s naturalisation as a British citizen. HM Passport Office had identified an apparent inconsistency in the spelling of the client’s surname across several official documents. The client approached me for advice.

To preserve the client’s anonymity, the surname used below has been changed. The circumstances and linguistic issues are otherwise faithfully represented.

The client’s Ukrainian domestic passport recorded the surname as Соєнко. Elsewhere, official documents referred to the same surname as Soienko, Soyenko and Sojenko. Although different in appearance, these spellings reflected alternative transliterations of the same Ukrainian surname rather than different surnames.

Reviewing the documents made it clear that the issue was linguistic rather than factual. The certified translation itself presented no difficulty. The more interesting question was whether the intended user of the translation would recognise why three different Latin‑script spellings of Соєнко could legitimately exist. A literal translation alone could not provide that context.

I therefore included a detailed translator’s note explaining that Soienko, Soyenko and Sojenko represented alternative transliterations of the same Ukrainian surname. The note remained strictly linguistic, explaining the language rather than commenting on identity or the relationship between the documents.

The client later confirmed that the certified translation was accepted by HM Passport Office and that no further translation or explanation was required.

The assignment reinforced an important aspect of certified translation. The challenge is not always the translation itself.

Professional judgement lies in recognising that an apparent discrepancy is linguistic rather than factual — and in providing sufficient context without stepping beyond the translator’s professional remit.

British passport application — HM Passport Office