Can third party funding in arbitration diminish the menace of the unfunded claimant, asks James Clanchy
When I was registrar of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), one of the challenges I had to deal with from time to time was the behaviour of the frustrated claimant unable to pay for the continuation of an arbitration which it had commenced.
I remember a general counsel who bombarded me with e-mails alleging that I had violated his human rights. He threatened to denounce me to Interpol. This was his reaction to a decision reached by the arbitral tribunal and the LCIA that his company’s claim should be treated as withdrawn for failure to pay a deposit. The decision had been made, in accordance with the LCIA Arbitration Rules, after much deliberation and patience (too much patience in the respondent’s clearly expressed view).
Mutual funding: an old solution to an old problem
Arbitration is an expensive business. It can be difficult for parties involved in international commerce to budget for disputes which might arise during the
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=2c3eca9_1)
