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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll