Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Compensation and Restitution in Investor-State ArbitrationPrinciples and Practice$

Borzu Sabahi

Print publication date: 2011

Print ISBN-13: 9780199601189

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2011

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601189.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 25 February 2017

(p.216) Annex 3

(p.216) Annex 3

Source:
Compensation and Restitution in Investor-State Arbitration
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

Costs Table

Costs

Arbitration

Legal costs

Proceedings costs

Nova Scotia Power Incorporated v Venezuela,Award on Costs, Ad hoc-UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, IIC 459 (2010)

Claimant to pay US$850,179 of respondent’s costs1

Claimant to pay 100%

Astaldi SpA v Honduras,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/32; IIC 454 (2010)

Respondent to pay US$757,5482 of claimant’s

Respondent to pay US$205,026 of claimant’s

Alpha Projektholding GMBH v Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16; IIC 464 (2010)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft v Hungary, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22; IIC 455 (2010)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Quadrant Pacific Growth Fund LP and Canasco Holdings Inc v Costa Rica,Order of the Tribunal taking note of the Discontinuance of the Proceeding and Allocation of Costs, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/08/1; IIC 461 (2010)

Claimant to pay US$730,000 of respondent’s costs

Alpha Projektholding GMBH v Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16; IIC 464 (2010)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd v Czech Republic, Final Award, PCA—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 465 (2010)

Each party to bear own

Claimant to bear 100% plus approved respondent’s witness costs

Foresti and ors v South Africa, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/1; IIC 445 (2010)

Claimant to bear €400,000 of respondent’s costs3

Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal SA v Argentina, Decision on Argentina's Request for Annulment of the Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3; IIC 446 (2010)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Howard and ors v Canada,Order for the Termination of Proceedings and Award on Costs, PCA Case No. 2009–21; IIC 448 (2010)

Claimant to pay CAN4,6684

Claimant to bear 100%

Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentina, Decision on Application for Annulment, ICSID Case No. ARB/0 one-third; IIC 441 (2010)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Sempra Energy International v Argentina, Decision on Argentina’s Application for Annulment of the Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16; IIC 438 (2010)

Each party to bear own

Claimant (losing party in annulment) to pay 100%

Helnan International Hotels AS v Egypt, Decision on the Application for Annulment, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/19; IIC 440 (2010)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v Jordan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/2; IIC 430 (2010)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Anderson and ors v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/3; IIC 437 (2010)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Merrill & Ring Forestry LP v Canada, Award, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 427 (2010)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Rumeli Telekom AS and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri AS v Kazakhstan, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment, (2010) ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16; IIC 420 (2010)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Romak SA v Uzbekistan, Award, PCA Case No. AA280; IIC 400 (2009)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Pey Casado and Presidente Allende Foundation v Chile, Revision Decision, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2; IIC 399 (2009)

No award made

Claimant (losing party) to pay 100%

MCI Power Group LC and New Turbine Inc v Ecuador, Decision on Annulment, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6; IIC 396 (2009)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Austrian Airlines v Slovakia,Final Award, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 434 (2009)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

EDF (Services) Ltd v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, IIC 392 (2009)

Claimant to pay US$6 million of respondent's costs5

50%/50%

Cementownia ‘Nowa Huta’ SA v Turkey, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/06/2; IIC 390 (2009)

Claimant to pay legal costs of both parties (US$4.9 million of respondent's costs)6

Claimant to pay 100% (approximately US$400,000)

Azpetrol International Holdings BV and ors v Azerbaijan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/15; IIC 389 (2009)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Azurix Corp v Argentina, Decision on Application for Annulment, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12; IIC 388 (2009)

Each party to bear own

Respondent to pay 100%7

Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret ve Sanayi A Ş v Pakistan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29; IIC 387 (2009)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Europe Cement Investment & Trade SA v Turkey, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/2); IIC 385 (2009)

Claimant to pay all respondent's costs (US$3.9 million) + 5% simple interest on8

Claimant to pay 100% (US$259,480) + 5% simple interest on

Pantechniki SA Contractors and Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21; IIC 383 (2009)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

TCW Group, Inc and Dominion Energy Holdings, LP v Dominican Republic, Consent Award, PCA—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 407 (2009)

Each party to bear own9

50%/50%10

Walter Bau AG v Thailand, Award, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 429 (2009)

Claimant to pay one-half of respondent’s legal costs and arbitration fees and respondent to pay one-half of claimant’s11

Saipem SpA v Bangladesh, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/7; IIC 378 (2009)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Empresa Eléctrica del Ecuador Inc v Ecuador, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/9; IIC 376 (2009)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Glamis Gold Ltd v United States, Award, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 380 (2009)

Each party to bear own

Claimant two-thirds; respondent one-third12

Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15; IIC 374 (2009)

Respondent to pay reasonable costs of claimant (US$6 million)13

Respondent to pay 100%

Bernardus Henricus Funnekotter and ors v Zimbabwe, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/6, IIC 370 (2009)

Each party to bear own

Respondent to pay 100%14

Phoenix Action Ltd v Czech Republic, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5; IIC 367 (2009)

Claimant to bear 100% of respondent's costs15

Claimant to pay 100%

RSM Production Corporation v Grenada, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/14; IIC 363 (2009)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Trans-Global Petroleum Inc v Jordan, Consent Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/25, IIC 371 (2009)

Each party to bear own16

50%/50%17

Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn Bhd v Malaysia, Decision on the Application for Annulment, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10; IIC 372 (2009)

Each party to bear own

Respondent to pay 100%18

TSA Spectrum de Argentina SA v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/5; IIC 358 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Aguaytia Energy LLC v Peru, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/13; IIC 359 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Wintershall Aktiengesellschaft v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/14; IIC 357 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

LESI SpA and ASTALDI SpA v Algeria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3; IIC 354 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

National Grid PLC v Argentina, Award, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; Case 1:09-cv-00248-RBW; IIC 361 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Jan de Nul NV and Dredging International NV v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13; IIC 356 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Continental Casualty Co v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9; IIC 336 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Plama Consortium Ltd v Bulgaria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24; IIC 338 (2008)

Claimant to pay US$7 million of respondent's costs19

Claimant to pay 100%

Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil SA v Ecuador, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19; IIC 333 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Duke Energy International Peru Investments No. 1, Ltd v Peru, Award and Partial Dissenting Opinions; ICSID Case No. ARB/03/28; IIC 334 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%20

African Holding Company of America Inc (AHL) and the African Society of Construction in Congo (SARL) v Congo, the Democratic Republic of the,Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/21; IIC 332 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Rumeli Telekom AS and Telsim Mobil Telekomikasyon Hizmetleri AS v Kazakhstan, Award; ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16; IIC 344 (2008)

Respondent to pay 50% of claimant's costs21

50%/50%

Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd v Tanzania, Award and Concurring & Dissenting Opinion, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22; IIC 330 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

LG&E Energy Corp and ors v Argentina, Decision on Claimants’ Request for Supplementary Decision, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/01; IIC 341 (2008)

Each party to bear own

Claimant to pay all costs22

Helnan International Hotels AS v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/19; IIC 340 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Metalpar SA and Buen Aire SA v Argentina, Award on the Merits, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/5; IIC 326 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Pey Casado and Président Allende Foundation v Chile, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, IIC 324 (2008)

Respondent to pay US 2$ million of claimant's costs23

Claimant one-quarter respondent three-quarters

AMTO LLC v Ukraine, Final Award, SCC Case No. 080/2005; IIC 346 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Desert Line Projects LLC v Yemen, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB05/17; IIC 319 (2008)

Respondent to pay US $400,000 of claimant's costs24

Claimant 30% respondent 70%

Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade v United States, Award on jurisdiction, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, IIC 316 (2008)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

BG Group plc v Argentina, Final Award, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 321 (2007)

Respondent to pay 70% of claimant’s costs25

Claimant 30% respondent 70%

Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc v Mexico, Award and Separate Opinion, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/05; IIC 329 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Sempra Energy International v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16; IIC 304 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Sociedad Anónima Eduardo Vieira v Chile, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/7, IIC 301 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentina,Decision on Application for Annulment, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8; IIC 303 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal SA v Argentina,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, IIC 307 (2007)

Respondent to pay claimant’s legal costs for jurisdictional phase, claimant to bear own legal costs for substantive phase26

50%/50%

Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v Philippines, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25; IIC 299 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, Award on jurisdiction and merits, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8; IIC 302 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Indústria Nacional de Alimentos SA and Indalsa Perú v Peru, Decision on Annulment, ICSID Case No. ARB/0 three-quarters; IIC 300 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

MCI Power Group LC and New Turbine Inc v Ecuador,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6; IIC 296 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

LG&E Energy Corp and ors v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, IIC 295 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Tokios Tokelės v Ukraine,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18; IIC 331 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Bayview Irrigation District No. 11 and ors v Mexico,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/05/1; IIC 290 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Soufraki v United Arab Emirates, Decision on the Application for Annulment and Separate Opinion, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7; IIC 297 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

United Parcel Service of America Inc v Canada, Award and separate opinion, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, IIC 306 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, LP v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/0 one-third; IIC 292 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn Bhd v Malaysia, Award on jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10; IIC 289 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Eastern Sugar BV v Czech Republic, Partial award and partial dissenting opinion, SCC Case No. 088/2004; IIC 310 (2007)

Claimant to pay 70% of respondent’s legal costs, respondent to pay 30% of claimant’s

No decision on arbitration fees

MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile SA v Chile,Decision on Annulment, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, IIC 177 (2007)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Siemens AG v Argentina,Award and Separate Opinion, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8; IIC 227 (2007)

Each party to bear own

Claimant 25%, respondent 75%27

PSEG Global Inc and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Ltd Širketi v Turkey,Award and Annex, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5; IIC 198 (2007)

Respondent to pay 65%, claimant to pay 35%

Respondent to pay 65%, claimant to pay 35%28

Repsol YPF Ecuador SA v Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador),Decision on annulment, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/10; IIC 201 (2007)

Respondent to bear 50% of claimant’s costs

Respondent to bear 100%29

Mitchell v Congo, the Democratic Republic of the,Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7; IIC 172 (2006)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Champion Trading Company and Ameritrade International Inc v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/9; IIC 57 (2006)

Claimant to pay 50% of respondent’s costs30

Claimant to bear 100%

Zeevi Holdings v Bulgaria and The Privatization Agency of Bulgaria, Final award, UNCITRAL Case No. UNC 39/DK; IIC 360 (2006)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

ADC Affiliate Ltd and ADC & ADMC Management Ltd v Hungary, Final award on jurisdiction, merits and damages, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16, IIC 1 (2006)

Respondent to bear 100%31

Respondent to bear 100%

World Duty Free Company Ltd v Kenya, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7; IIC 277 (2006)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Inceysa Vallisoletane, SL v El Salvador, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26; IIC 134 (2006)

Each party to bear own

Claimant to bear 100%32

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v Mexico, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/02/01; IIC 291 (2006)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Azurix Corp v Argentina,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12; IIC 24 (2006)

Each party to bear own

Respondent to bear, except for US$34,496 to be borne by claimant

Telenor Mobile Communications AS v Hungary, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/15; IIC 248 (2006)

Claimant to bear respondent’s costs

Claimant to bear 100%

Noble Ventures Inc v Romania, Rectification of Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11; IIC 180 (2006)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Berschader and Berschader v Russian Federation, Award and Correction, SCC Case No. 080/2004, IIC 314 (2006)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

F-W Oil Interests Inc v Trinidad and Tobago, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/14; IIC 395 (2006)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

EnCana Corporation v Ecuador, Award and Partial Dissenting Opinion, LCIA Case No. UN3481, IIC 91 (2006)

Each party to bear own

Respondent to bear 100%

Salini Costruttori SpA and Italstrade SpA v Jordan,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/13; IIC 208 (2006)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v Mexico, Award, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, IIC 136 (2006)

Claimant to bear three-quarters, respondent to bear one-quarter33

Claimant to bear three-quarters, respondent to bear one-quarter

Wena Hotels Ltd v Egypt,Decision on the Application by Wena Hotels Ltd For Interpretation of the Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4; IIC 275 (2005)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Noble Ventures Inc v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11; IIC 179 (2005)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Bogdanov and ors v Moldova,Award, Ad hoc—SCC Arbitration Rules; IIC 33 (2005); Stockholm International Arbitration Review (SIAR), No. 2006:3

Each party to bear own

Respondent to bear 100%34

Methanex Corporation v United States, Final Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 167 (2005)

Respondent (losing party) to bear 100%

Respondent (losing party) to bear 100%

CDC Group plc v Seychelles,Annulment Decision, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/14, IIC 48 (2005)

Respondent (losing party) to bear 100%35

Respondent (losing party) to bear 100%

Capital India Power Mauritius I and Energy Enterprizes (Mauritius) Company v India, Award, ICC Case No. 12913/MS, IIC 43 (2005)

Respondent (losing party) to pay 100% of claimant’s legal costs (including costs incurred in court to compel arbitration)

Respondent (losing party) to bear 100%

CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, IIC 65 (2005)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Petrobart Ltd v Kyrgyzstan,Award, SCC Case No. 126/2003, IIC 184 (2005)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Empresas Lucchetti SA and Lucchetti Peru SA v Peru,Jurisdiction award, ICSID Case No. ARB/0 three-quarters; IIC 88 (2005)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka AS v Slovakia, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4; IIC 51 (2004)

Respondent to pay US$10 million of claimant’s legal costs and arbitration fees

Consorzio Groupement LESI-DIPENTA v Algeria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/08; IIC 149 (2005)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

GAMI Investments, Inc v Mexico, Final Award, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 109 (2004)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Loewen Group Inc and Loewen v United States,Decision on Respondent's Request for a Supplementary Decision, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3; IIC 255 (2004); 10 ICSID Rep 443; (2005) 128 ILR 420; (2005) 44 ILM 836

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Joy Mining Machinery Ltd v Egypt, Award on jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11; IIC 147 (2004); 19 ICSID Rev—Foreign Investment L J 486 (2004)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Soufraki v United Arab Emirates, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7, IIC 131 (2004)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Ecuador, Award, LCIA Case No. UN 3,467, IIC 202 (2004)

Each party to bear own

Respondent 55% / claimant 45%

MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile SA v Chile,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7; IIC 174 (2004)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Waste Management Inc v Mexico, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3; IIC 270 (2004)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Consortium RFCC v Morocco,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6; IIC 76 (2003)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

CDC Group plc v Seychelles, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/14; IIC 47 (2003)

Respondent to pay £100,00036 of claimant’s

Respondent to pay US$40,000 of claimant’s

Nykomb Synergetics Technology Holding AB v Latvia, Award, SCC Case No. 118/2001, IIC 182 (2003)

Respondent to pay SEK2 million37 of claimant’s legal costs and arbitration fees

Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela CA (Aucoven) v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/5; IIC 20 (2003)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Generation Ukraine, Inc v Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9; IIC 116 (2003)

Claimant to pay US$100,000 of respondent’s38

Claimant to bear 100%

Loewen Group Inc and Loewen v United States,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, IIC 254 (2003)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Feldman Karpa v Mexico,Correction and interpretation of the award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1; IIC 158 (2003)

Each party to bear own

Claimant one-quarter, respondent three-quarters39

Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed SA v Mexico, Award, ARB(AF)/00/2; IIC 247 (2003); 10 ICSID Rep 130

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal SA v Argentina,Decision on request for supplementation and rectification of decision concerning annulment of the award, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3; IIC 71 (2003)

Each party to bear own

Respondent to bear 100%40

Yaung Chi Oo Trading Pte Ltd v Myanmar, Award,ASEAN Case No. ARB/01/1; IIC 278 (2003); (2003) 42 ILM 540

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic, Final Award and Separate Opinion, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, IIC 62 (2003)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

ADF Group Inc v United States, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/1; IIC 2 (2003)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

SD Myers Inc v Canada, Final Award and Dissenting Opinion, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, IIC 251 (2002)

Respondent to pay CAN$500,00041 of Claimant’s costs plus interest at Canadian prime rate + 1%

Respondent to pay CAN$350,00042 of Claimant’s costs plus interest at Canadian prime rate + 1%

Feldman Karpa v Mexico,Award and separate opinion, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1; IIC 157 (2002); (2003) 18 ICSID Rev—FILJ 488; (2003) 42 ILM 625

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Pope & Talbot Inc v Canada,Award on Costs, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, IIC 196 (2002)

Each party to bear own

Respondent to pay US$120,000 of claimant’s costs plus 5% compound interest

Mondev International Ltd v United States, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2; IIC 173 (2002)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal SA v Argentina,Decision on Annulment, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, IIC 70 (2002)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Link–Trading Joint Stock Company v Moldova,Final Award, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 154 (2002)

Claimant to pay US$22,000

50%/50%

Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co SA v Egypt,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/6; IIC 169 (2002)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Genin and ors v Estonia, Decision on Request for Supplementary Decisions and Rectification, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2; IIC 11 (2002)

Claimant (losing party) to bear 100% of respondent’s costs

Claimant to bear 100%

Mihaly International Corporation v Sri Lanka,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2; IIC 170 (2002); (2002) ICSID Rev—Foreign Investment L J 142

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Wena Hotels Ltd v Egypt,Decision on annulment application, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4; IIC 274 (2002); (2002) 41 ILM 933; (2004) 6 ICSID Rep 129; (2003) 130 Journal du Droit International Clunet 167

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

CME Czech Republic BV v Czech Republic, Partial Award and Separate Opinion, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, IIC 61 (2001)

Respondent to bear US$750,000 of claimant’s costs43

Respondent two-thirds, claimant one-third

Lauder v Czech Republic,Final Award, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 205 (2001)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Olguín’—Olguín v Paraguay,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/5; IIC 97 (2001)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Genin and ors v Estonia,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, IIC 10 (2001)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited v Independent Power Tanzania Limited, Final Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/8, IIC 239 (2001)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Maffezini v Spain,Rectification of the Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, IIC 87 (2001)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Bridas SAPIC and ors v Turkmenistan, Final Award and Dissent, ICC Case No. 9,058/FMS/KGA; IIC 38 (2001)

Respondent (losing party) to pay US$3,000,000 of claimant’s44

50%/50%, plus claimant to bear 75% and respondent 25% of Tribunal-ordered audit45

Wena Hotels Ltd v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4; IIC 273 (2000); (2002) 41 ILM 896

Respondent to bear claimant’s costs for merits phase of arbitration; each party to bear own costs for jurisdictional phase

Respondent to bear claimant’s costs for merits phase of arbitration; each party to bear own costs for jurisdictional phase

Gruslin v Malaysia, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/3; IIC 129 (2000)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Compagnie Générale des Eaux v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3; IIC 68 (2000); (2001) 16 ICSID Rev—FILJ 641; (2001) 40 ILM 426; (2004) 125 ILR 1

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Maffezini v Spain, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, IIC 86 (2000)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

SwemBalt AB v Latvia,Award, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 237 (2000)

Respondent to pay US$140,283 of claimant’s legal costs

Respondent to bear 100%

Metalclad Corp v Mexico,Award, Ad hoc—ICSID Additional Facility Rules; ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1; IIC 161 (2000)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Compañía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena SA v Costa Rica,Rectification of Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1, IIC 74 (2000)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Waste Management Inc v Mexico, Award and dissent, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/2; IIC 271 (2000)

Each party to bear own

Claimant (losing party) to bear 100%

Joseph C Lemire v Ukraine, Award, Ad hoc—ICSID Additional Facility Rules; ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/1; IIC 145 (2000)

Each party to bear own46

50%/50%47

Compañía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena SA v Costa Rica,Final Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1, IIC 73 (2000)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Azinian and ors v Mexico,Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/2; IIC 22 (1999)

Each party to bear own48

50%/50%

Tradex Hellas SA v Albania,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/94/2; IIC 263 (1999)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Goetz and ors v Burundi,Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/95/3; IIC 16 (1999); 6 ICSID Rep 3; 15 ICSID Rev 457; 26 YB Com Arb 26

Each party to bear own49

50%/50%50

Sedelmayer v Russian Federation, Award; Ad hoc arbitration rules; IIC 106 (1998)

Each party to bear own

Each party to bear 100% of the fees of their appointed arbitrator and 50% of the remaining fees

Ethyl Corporation v Canada,Decision on jurisdiction, Ad hoc—UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules; IIC 95 (1998); (1998) 38 ILM 708

Claimant to bear the respondent’s costs arising from the claimant’s failure to observe pre-submission requirements51

Claimant to bear the respondent’s costs arising from the claimant’s failure to observe pre-submission requirements52

Fedax NV v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3; IIC 102 (1998)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

American Manufacturing & Trading, Inc v Zaire, Award and separate opinion, ICSID Case No. ARB/93/1; IIC 14 (1997)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Vacuum Salt Products Ltd. v Republic of Ghana, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/92/1; 9 ICSID Rev.—FILJ 72 (1994); 9 Int’l Arb. Rep., No. 4, at Sec. B (Apr. 1994)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Asian Agricultural Products Ltd v Sri Lanka, Final award on merits and damages, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3; IIC 18 (1990); 4 ICSID Rep 246; (1990) 30 ILM 580

Respondent to bear two-thirds of claimant’s costs

Respondent 60%, claimant 40%

Maritime International Nominees Establishment v Republic of Guinea, Ad hoc Committee Decision, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/4; 5 ICSID Rev.—FILJ 95 (1990); 4 ICSID Rep. 79 (1997)

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v Arab Republic of Egypt, Award and Dissenting Opinion, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3; 8 ICSID Rev.—FILJ 328 (1993); 32 ILM 933 (1993)

Respondent (losing party) to bear 100%

Respondent (losing party) to bear 100%

Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others v United Republic of Cameroon and Société Camerounaize des Engrais, Decision on Annulment, ICSID Case No. ARB/8one-half; 1 ICSID Rev.—FILJ 89 (1986), 2 ICSID Rep.95 (1994); (1999) 114 ILR 243

Each party to bear own

50%/50%

(1) To ‘reflect[…] the principle that the losing party should contribute to the reasonable costs of the winning party.’ Nova Scotia, para 38.

(2) Honduras Lps 2,212,694 plus US$637,952.

(3) The claimant had ultimately sought a discontinuance of the proceedings, but the Tribunal held the claimant had continued the arbitration even when it could have averted some of the respondent’s costs. Foresti, para 131.

(4) US$4,536.

(5) The Tribunal stated a preference for the principle that ‘the losing party pays’, (here the claimant) but, as the claim was brought in good faith with ‘many difficult and close issues of fact and law,’ tempered this to having the claimant ‘contribute’ to the respondent’s costs. EDF, para 329. Additionally, the Tribunal took note of the great difference in the costs claimed by each party (US$2.7 million for the claimant, US$18.6 for the respondent) in awarding only a contribution rather than full payment. Id., paras 321, 329.

(6) The Tribunal held that the claimant had filed a fraudulent claim, failed on all requests for relief, delayed the arbitration, refused to follow orders issued by the Tribunal and the ICSID Secretariat, and attempted to dispossess its assets to become judgment proof. Cementownia, para 177.

(7) The respondent brought the annulment proceeding and was wholly unsuccessful. Azurix, paras 378–9.

(8) The Tribunal concluded that the claimant had brought a claim based on possibly fraudulent ownership and failed to comply with the Tribunal’s orders. Europe Cement, paras 184–5.

(9) Per settlement agreement.

(10) Per settlement agreement.

(11) The difference in legal costs resulting in respondent paying €1,806,560 (US$2,546,527) to claimant.

(12) The Tribunal stated that under UNCITRAL rules the costs of the arbitration should be borne by the claimant, as it was unsuccessful in all its claims. But as the claimant ‘raised difficult and complicated claims based in at least one area of unsettled law,’ the Tribunal ordered the respondent to bear part of the costs. Glamis Gold, para 833.

(13) The claimant was successful on the merits, and the Tribunal stated that the respondent failed in ‘repeated and belated re-formulated’ arguments. Siag & Vecchi, para 621.

(14) The Tribunal stated the normal rule in international arbitration that successful party (here the claimants) should recover legal costs. However, the Tribunal took note of the situation in Zimbabwe at the time of the expropriation, and ordered the claimant to bear its own legal costs. Funnekotter, para 147.

(15) The Tribunal held that the claimant’s investment was fraudulent and the claim was an abuse of the international investment protection regime; as well as that the claimant’s request for provisional measures was wholly rejected but added to the cost of the arbitration. Phoenix Action, paras 151–2.

(16) Per settlement agreement.

(17) Per settlement agreement.

(18) The claimant was successful in having the award annulled; and the Tribunal stated that forcing claimants to bear their own legal costs and also the proceedings costs could effectively bar financially small claims, which was not the intent of the ICSID convention. Malaysian Salvors Annulment, para 82.

(19) As the Tribunal held the claimant had fraudulently misrepresented its investment and had added to the costs of the arbitration through its actions, the claimant was ordered to pay all costs plus the respondent’s ‘reasonable legal fees’ (here US$7 million of US$13 million claimed by the respondent). Plama, paras 317–24.

(20) Per previous agreement of the parties. Duke v Peru, para 497.

(21) The claimant was the prevailing party in the dispute but had failed in some allegations brought and some damages claimed; so the Tribunal held it fair to award only 50% of the costs incurred. Rumeli Telekom, para 819.

(22) The claimant had unsuccessfully sought the supplementary decision. See LG&E, paras 17–18.

(23) The Tribunal noted that the claimant had only been successful on a small percentage of the damages claimed, but the respondent had considerably increased the costs of the proceeding by making multiple, sometimes incompatible, objections and motions. The Tribunal fixed the claimant’s reasonable costs at US$2 million. Pey Casado, paras 728–30.

(24) The Tribunal considered that the respondent had been held in breach of the BIT, had been unsuccessful in its challenge to jurisdiction, and had ‘insufficiently cooperated’ in providing evidence; but that the claimant had failed in some of its claims. Desert Line, para 304.

(25) Tribunal found 70% reasonable as claimant had succeeded on 78% of its claimed damages. BG Group, paras 458–60.

(26) The Tribunal found the respondent’s jurisdictional objections were unfounded and raised inappropriately. Vivendi, para 10.2.3.

(27) As the claimant had not succeeded on all its claims.

(28) The Tribunal noted that the claimant failed on a majority of its claims, but that it had to bring the arbitration to recover on the claims that were recognized. PSEG, para 352.

(29) The Tribunal took note of the respondent’s delay in making the first payment to ICSID and following refusal to make any payments. Repsol, para 88.

(30) The Tribunal held that the costs should follow the event, but noted that the respondent had failed on its objects to jurisdiction.

(31) The Tribunal was critical of a number of the respondent’s actions which added to the time and cost of the arbitration. ADC, para 536-539.

(32) Due to the time and expense to the respondent to show the wrongful acts of the claimant in making the investment.

(33) The Tribunal chose to follow the loser pays principle, but noted that the respondent had lost on jurisdictional issues if not on the merits. Thunderbird para 219–21.

(34) The Tribunal noted the respondent’s ‘uncooperative attitude’. Bogdanov para 92.

(35) The Tribunal also held that any reasonable observer would not have believed the respondent’s arguments could be successful. CDC Annulment, para 89.

(36) US$176,150.

(37) US$272,944.

(38) The Tribunal held that the claimant’s case was ‘convoluted, repetitive, and legally incoherent.’ Generation Ukraine, para 24.2.

(39) Based on the number of issues raised. Feldman Karpa, Correction and interpretation of the award, para 15.

(40) The Tribunal held that the majority of the respondent’s claims were ‘not only unfounded but inappropriate’. Vivendi, Request for supplementation and rectification of annulment, para 43.

(41) US$316,616.

(42) US$221,631.

(43) The respondent was the losing party, but the Tribunal noted that the claimant had brought a parallel arbitration in Lauder v Czech Republic under UNCITRAL arbitration rules, increasing the respondent’s costs by litigating the dispute in two forums, so did not order the respondent to bear all the claimant’s costs. CME, Partial Award, para 621.

(44) This amount was awarded in the Third Partial Award and Dissent. As costs and fees were awarded at multiple stages of the arbitration, they are summed up under the final award.

(45) See Bridas, First Partial Award and Dissent, IIC 35 (1999), para 380.

(46) Per the settlement agreement. Lemire, para 14.

(47) Per the settlement agreement. Id., para 14.

(48) The Tribunal stated that it was not awarding costs against the claimant despite the claimant’s failure in its claims. Azinian, paras 125–7.

(49) Per the settlement agreement.

(50) Per the settlement agreement.

(51) Ethyl, paras 88, 92.

(52) Id., paras 88, 92.

(p.217) (p.218) (p.219) (p.220) (p.221) (p.222) (p.223) (p.224) (p.225) (p.226) (p.227) (p.228) (p.229) (p.230) (p.231) (p.232) (p.233) (p.234)