Originally posted by Teddyward
Before this heads too far down a rabbit hole it might be worth considering which set of rules the initial agreements were signed under and also if that has been updated or if it uses rules when arbitration was notified. All are different . Although arbitration centers may suggest a a particular arb clause is in contracts no one other than the parties knows what conditions or standstills apply.
This is especially relevant to ability of claiming compensation from a Indian subsiduary company and court recognition if part of country treaty at the time etc etc.
The more incorrect assumptions made the larger variance to possible result it's ability to be enforced . We are just not aware of what the parties originally agreed or agreed at the start of arbitration.
Security of costs - if costs are awarded and against POH they could be significant and exceed POH assets.
Hey
@Teddyward
Raised some valid considerations and as such I did a cursory check as per below which I feel may negate the jurisdiction concern hopefully. .
Basically, can't go to SIAC without a relevant Arb clause already in place. Kind of logical for POH - Agila doc to be based around a more local (Asia) region for Arbitration against, conversely, the MYL acquisition doc as follows:
MYL & Agila acquisition doc outlines MYL's preferred Arb is the LCIA & 3 Arbitrators and as such expect the SIAC & 1 will be something a little diff for them maybe? Not much obviously, but just a little. Snip below.
There is also a SIAC Rule (51) for Summary Procedure / Early Dismissal as per snip. The fact this has gone on for so long indicates there was at least "some" substance to POH claims - whether upheld or not, we'll see.
As for Arb / Tribunal costs - I have also pasted some info from a study this year: Costs and Duration: A Comparison of the HKIAC, LCIA, SCC and SIAC Studies. Credit to the authors - with link to article.
Lastly, expanded longer term chart for diff view & zoomed in. GLA
Key Takeaways
- Based on a comparison of the four studies, the costs and duration of arbitral proceedings are ostensibly most attractive when administered by SIAC.
- Unsurprisingly, in its recently released Annual Report 2017, SIAC announced a new record for the highest number of new case filings and administered cases in 2017, with 452 new cases filed by parties from 58 countries in 6 continents – a 32% increase from the number of cases filed in 2016.
- While other factors such as the scale of disputes before the respective tribunals may explain this difference, the analysis provides parties with a better idea of the time and expense that are likely to be incurred when using different arbitral institutions.
- With arbitral rules being amended to reflect evolving commercial realities – as is the case with the SCC and SIAC – the effect such amendments can have on the costs and duration of arbitrations should be closely monitored.
+This article may be cited as Wei Ming Tan, Shriram Jayakumar and Jolyn Khoo, “Costs and Duration: A Comparison of the HKIAC, LCIA, SCC and SIAC Studies” (13 March 2018) (https://singaporeinternationalarbitration.com/2018/03/13/costs-and-duration-a-comparison-of-the-hkiac-lcia-scc-and-siac-studies/)
Chart:
The green / red ribbons are multi EMA's from 5 - 90 days providing another way of looking at poss supp / resist areas & trend.
(20min delay)
