Annulment costs follow the event

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.

No ground to annul tribunal’s award of costs if award is upheld in full

Tribunal cannot be faulted for failing to reconsider findings if claimant did not request such reconsideration

Tribunal did address claim, and thus did not fail to state reasons

Claimant’s right to be heard was not breached, since tribunal addressed alleged key evidence but simply found it irrelevant

Alleged violation of “common sense” cannot ground a manifest excess of powers

No contradiction in preferring claimant’s evidence but ultimately finding that claimant did not meet burden of proof

Evidence cited by claimant was considered, if not endorsed, by the tribunal, but arbitrators were entitled to ultimately find that claimants had not carried their burden of proof

Tribunal did not contradict local courts’ decision, since these courts did not deal with same issue

No presumption of award’s validity, committee holds

Applicant can post advance on costs in instalments

Stay of enforcement is terminated

Background: Tribunal hearing aviation dispute with Lebano finds one discrete treaty breach, but only awards a fraction of the damages claimed

Background: USA seeks summary dismissal of arbitration stemming from asset forfeiture proceedings linked to PrivatBank investigations

Invocation of principles of prescriptive jurisdiction and adjudicatory committee touches on novel issues not appropriate for resolution in Rule 41(5) proceedings

Objection that dispute is not ripe for resolution requires further submissions

Waiting period objection requires examination of facts and legal arguments

Brevity is virtue in Rule 41(5) decisions

Committee orders claimant to bear all costs

Committee fails to find any annullable failure to state reasons

Failure to state reasons requires award to provide reasons that cannot be followed

Committee fails to find any breach of fundamental procedural rules in exclusion of evidence

Determination of breach of fundamental rule of procedure requires two-step analysis

Committee fails to find manifest excess of powers in decision that Settlement Committee was not a judicial body

Tribunal’s decision on effective means standard and majority’s decision on compensation are not manifestly erroneous

Archives