Costs

Costs in arbitration under the AA 1996 in England and Wales

This Practice Note considers how costs are dealt with under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) including the tribunal’s powers in respect of costs and how costs are dealt with in an arbitral award. The Practice Note also covers the extent to which costs awards can be appealed and provides practical tips on dealing with costs in arbitration. It also considers conditional fee arrangements in arbitration. For more information, see Practice Note: AA 1996—costs.

Security for costs granted by the tribunal under the AA 1996 in England and Wales

This Practice Note considers the arbitral tribunal’s power to order the claimant to pay security for costs under AA 1996 and the approach taken by arbitrators when faced with an application for security for costs by a defendant (or defendant to a counter-claim). For more information, see Practice Note: AA 1996—security for costs—the tribunal.

Security for costs granted by the courts under the AA 1996 in England and Wales (s 70(6))

This Practice Note sets out the court’s powers to order

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Drawing the line—court review of arbitral institutions’ administrative decisions in Brazil (Vale v B3 & others)

Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents