Rule 44 prevents tribunal from ruling on costs in an award

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

Claimant is ordered to bear full costs of the arbitration

Tribunal applies Rule 28(1) of the 2006 ICSID Arbitration Rules, and it decides that claimant’s procedural conduct warrants allocation of costs upon the investor

Background: Claim over investment in water treatment and purification venture was withdrawn within 10 months from the request for arbitration; claimant fails to make advance payment

Costs are split

Both parties are ordered to pay compensation, plus simple interest

Tribunal majority decides that illegal acts committed by the project sponsors, rather than Peru’s reluctance to surrender the project, explained the claimant’s inability to secure project financing

Peru breached its obligation to surrender control over the project, but this breach was not intentional

Claimant breached representations and warranties clause by failing to disclose Odebrecht’s corrupt practices – warranting termination of the contract

Previous discussions by the parties related to the same dispute, meaning that negotiation requirement was fulfilled

While proof of corruption tainting the Chavimochic contract is lacking, broad corruption scandal involving the claimant’s sponsors can be considered as relevant context

Tribunal majority dismisses reconsideration request, expressing concern that leakage of information may be aimed at exercising “undue pressure” on the tribunal or the parties’ representatives

Tribunal dismisses further request for suspension, citing the need to protect the integrity of the arbitration proceedings, but adding that the Award would be issued only to a limited number of representatives to facilitate negotiations

Tribunal initially grants parties’ request for suspension made right before the Award is scheduled to be issued, but it expresses concern about the timing of the request, and the context and terms of the proposed settlement agreement

ICSID declines to register the case; two arbitrators resign and are replaced; proceedings are repeatedly suspended

Background: dispute over construction project triggers contract-based arbitration

Tribunal highlights that the parties have “unfinished business”, in hope of a negotiated solution

Unnamed arbitrator disagrees with majority as claimant is ordered to partially cover Peru’s costs

Peru questions claimant’s authority to act, but tribunal finds claim admissible

No faulting of MML’s conduct

Lidercon’s claims are not disguised contractual claims

Tribunal clarifies meaning of denial of justice, and sees no due process violation by Peru’s courts

Investment protection does not insulate from competition

Conduct of Peru’s competition authority was neither arbitrary nor inconsistent

Tribunal clarifies relevant legal standards, and sees no umbrella clause in Spain-Peru BIT

Archives