BirthME, Doulas

Proof and justification of alleged costs and the role of the in-house counsel seem to be important to tribunals. ICC tribunals generally began by mentioning the discretion they are allowed under the ICC Rules. For example, a national court reviewing a decision on costs in arbitration observed as follows (emphasis added): In addition, for arbitrations where the amount in dispute ranged from GBP 1 million to GBP 10 million, approximately one-quarter of disputes generated less than GBP 250,000 in costs.The full CIArb Costs of International Arbitration Survey 2011 is shown below.The arbitration resources on this website are brought to you by The tribunal deducted the legal fees of the US law firm from the reimbursement of costs claimed by the respondent. 36. • the fact that even though the claimants prevailed on jurisdiction and damages and were awarded an immense sum in damages, 'at the end of the day … the damages awarded to Claimants were reduced significantly [by 25%] by the Tribunal from the claims advanced by them'; and These tribunals indicated that they would allocate costs on the basis of a combination of factors and criteria. While the claimants had prevailed on most of the grounds in favour of jurisdiction, the grounds on which the respondent prevailed led the tribunal to decline jurisdiction over more than two thirds of the claimants. In some cases a portion of the legal costs claimed was deducted to reflect the degree of success of the winning party.

As indicated above, some arbitration rules, including those of UNCITRAL, the LCIA and the PCA, contain a presumption that the successful party is entitled to recover its reasonable costs. When confidential cases are used as examples, information that would allow the cases to be identified has been excluded. Therefore, the 'costs follow the event' principle clearly reflects general arbitral practice and arbitrators acting under the DIS Rules depart from it only reluctantly.

As most HKIAC arbitrations are seated in Hong Kong, the primary statutory basis for the arbitral tribunal to allocate costs in these arbitrations is section 74 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. a) Parties' contribution to dispute resolution in the pre-arbitration phase 223. For example, in one case where the claimant succeeded but did not win the entire amount it had claimed, the respondent bore all the arbitration costs and its own legal costs but only a portion of the claimant's legal/party costs.
In domestic court proceedings there are generally little or no court, judge or counsel costs as they are invariably local. This trend emerged even more clearly in the awards rendered under the 2012 Rules. Nevertheless, the tribunal decided to split the costs equally because in the pre-arbitration phase the respondent had strictly refused even partly to recognize the claim, which turned out to be legitimate. Given that few parties keep detailed reports of time spent and costs incurred internally for an arbitration, tribunals may find it useful to discuss with them at the outset of the proceedings the potential recoverability of internal costs. Specifically, if the unaccepted offer is the same as or higher than the judgment sum, some national courts will not permit recovery by the party that rejected the offer of any costs incurred after the date of the offer. c) Allocation of costs specifically provided for by special agreement This may happen where the claimant largely succeeds on jurisdiction and merits, while the respondent largely succeeds on damages. The tribunal differentiated between the time from commencement of the arbitration and the date on which the respondent raised its jurisdictional objections.

21. ICC provides a costs calculator for this purpose.

• Review of awards rendered under the 1998 ICC Rules in 2008, 2009 and 2011. In one case the tribunal specifically noted that it would not award the costs of a party's success fee because this was a matter between the party and its lawyers. The DIS provided an analysis containing examples of cases administered under the 1998 DIS Arbitration Rules (the 'DIS Rules') in which arbitrators gave special consideration to specific situations concerning the allocation of costs. (v) better able to assess cost benefit and risk analysis when considering whether to undertake various interim or tactical steps in the proceedings, or even whether to pursue the proceedings as a whole. As a preliminary remark and as made clear by the Commission in its report,
The tribunal held that the costs were relevant and transparent, but found that costs representing 10% of the amount in dispute would be reasonable and therefore allowed only USD 30,000 to be recovered. bank borrowing specifically for the costs of the arbitration or loss of use of the funds, may be recoverable. In one case, the tribunal expressly noted the relevance of such negotiations to the party's claim, and the costs incurred in unsuccessful settlement negotiations were considered part of its preparation of the litigation.