Costs of arbitration are split between parties; each party bears its own legal costs

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.

Tribunal orders claimant to request court lifting of provisional measures granted to protect funds pending arbitral proceedings

Lacking parties’ agreement on interest rate, tribunal looks for guidance in contractual clauses; interest accrues from date of service of notice of default

No evidence of damages is needed to apply penalty clause; indemnification is reduced given claimant’s substantial performance of its contractual obligations

Failure to pay arbitration costs does not bar counterclaim, in light of need to uphold access to justice and equal treatment; statute of limitations is not applied due to uncertainty on start date

Respondent’s decision not to contest claimant’s credit implies acknowledgement of existence and amount of credit

Unable to determine each party’s exact contribution to delays, arbitrators equally allocate responsibility in accordance with Venezuelan Civil Code and calculate indemnification accordingly

Works conducted with notification to Ministry or under its direction entitle claimant to indemnification; failure to negotiate with Ministry or proceed with work despite its denial does not entitle claimant to indemnification

Failure to specify additional services performed and provide detailed calculation of costs led to dismissal of some claims

Respondent’s presentation of documentary evidence during arbitration proceedings constitutes opposition to claimant’s claims and must be part of arbitral record

Tribunal relies on claimant’s “assertive and well grounded” expert report to quantify claims

Claimant’s claims are governed by contractual clause allowing for variations of agreed fixed price if additional works are “absolutely necessary”; claimant bears high burden of proof to prove “absolute necessity”

Background: Disagreement over amounts due under agreed-upon fixed and non-reviewable contractual prices led to commercial arbitral proceedings

Background: Social protests against toll station lead to contract-based arbitration dispute

Tribunal applies modified costs-follow-the-event approach

Tribunal orders ongoing compensation, until the parties agree on a compensation mechanism

Majority finds that 2016 Memorandum did not modify the economic-financial equilibrium of the concession

Non-financial guarantee clause is valid

Arbitrators have jurisdiction over Lima’s counterclaim – but the counterclaim is rejected

Force majeure clause explicitly excluded suspension of tolls due to social unrest

Tribunal sees insufficient evidence of corruption in relation to the concession

Tribunal must assess possible acts of corruption on its own motion

Obligation to submit the concession to the Ministry of Economy and Finance is not a public order requirement

Arbitrators rule on seat and consolidation; the claimant’s original nominee resigns

Corrupt acts can be proved by preponderance of the evidence

Archives