Tribunal majority could validly examine BIT’s drafting history to confirm its interpretation under Article 31 VCLT

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.

Arbitration clause should be interpreted neither extensively, nor restrictively

New expert report on Chinese law is only admissible insofar as it reinforces claimants’ legal arguments

Dissenting opinion is of limited legal relevance at set-aside stage

Background: Singaporean investors file for set-aside of award in which tribunal majority found they lacked jurisdiction to rule on existence of expropriation

South Sudan is ordered to pay costs

Invocation of 2012 Economic Agreement and ministerial decree did not violate the state’s right to be heard

Sole arbitrator could validly find that South Sudan succeeded to the license agreement and arbitration clause

Federal Tribunal finds that the license agreement and amendments were initially valid, stressing that a state may not rely on an alleged lack of authority to avoid an arbitration clause

Waiver of parties’ right to file for set-aside is valid, but the court may nevertheless verify whether South Sudan was bound by this agreement

South Sudan is ordered to pay security for costs

Background: South Sudan files for set-aside of partial award that found violations of license agreement issued before the state came into existence

Federal Tribunal also find no violation of the parties’ right to be heard, noting that the tribunal had asked the parties to comment on unforeseeable circumstances

Court sees no violation of res judicata principle, since the two arbitrations dealt with different subject matters

Awards may be set aside due to violation of principle of res judicata or of the parties’ right to be heard

Additional claims raised in the proceedings are disregarded

Request for partial set-aside is admissible

Court recalls limited scope of set-aside proceedings

Investment gives rise to two arbitrations, and several awards and set-aside decisions

Background: Public-private casino venture implemented with support of Palestine Authority comes to a halt after Second Intifada

India is ordered to pay costs

India cannot argue that the Supreme Court decision is new evidence for revision purposes, since it was issued after the Final Award

India had knowledge of alleged new facts before the Supreme Court decision was issued, therefore its request for revision is time-barred

90-day limitation period for revision requests starts to run when party obtains “sufficiently certain knowledge” of a new fact or evidence

Since the Interim Award was already subject to set-aside proceedings, India could only ask for revision of the set-aside judgment – but not of the underlying award

Archives