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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll