header-logo header-logo

Assess now or pay later

28 March 2013 / James Harrison
Issue: 7554 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

How do courts deal with the question of costs where an arbitration award is being challenged? James Harrison reports

The usual rule in dispute resolution, whether court-based litigation or arbitration, is that the losing party pays a substantial proportion of the winning party’s legal costs. Arbitrations and arbitration clauses have been enthusiastically embraced because their consensual nature affords parties greater flexibility as to how they manage their costs.

However, even with this advantage of flexibility, the costs of commencing or defending arbitration will be foremost in a party’s mind when considering their options. It is commercially critical to prevent the costs of litigating a dispute from becoming disproportionate to the claim in question. If you add an unscrupulous opponent which has hidden its assets, then a party is faced with a perfect storm with very little prospect of recovering any of its costs. Therefore, a key consideration in any form of dispute resolution is the question of costs and how to manage and obtain security for them throughout a dispute.

This

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll