The following Arbitration guidance note Produced in partnership with Stephenson Harwood provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
The English court has no power to order security for costs during the arbitral proceedings; such power is vested exclusively in the tribunal.
This has not always been the case. The House of Lords in Coppée-Lavalin v Ken-Ren Chemicals and Fertilizers; Voest-Alpine v Ken-Ren Chemicals and Fertilizers, looking at the court’s powers under section 12(6)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1950, confirmed that it was not to be precluded from making an order for security of costs in an international arbitration, with the House agreeing with the general approach to the operation of this discretion as set out by Lord Mustill. However, the House was split as regards the ultimate application of the court’s discretion, finding by a majority decision that an order for security for costs should be granted in an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration taking place in London. Lords Keith, Slynn and Woolf found that there was a real risk that the applicant would not be able to recover its costs as the other party was not only insolvent but also had third-party funding from the Kenyan government.
The case attracted much criticism on the basis that the House of Lords was seen to be interfering in international arbitrations. This was addressed in the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
0330 161 1234