Security for costs in international arbitration
Page 135
Index
Page 135
- Abuse of process
- Access to justice
- American costs rule
- Appeal in arbitration
- Applications for security for costs
- Arbitration agreements
- Arbitration’s expansionism 7.4
- Arbitrator appointment
- constraints on 8.22
- arguments against security for costs
- English idiosyncrasy 8.43
- creditors, unfair to 8.73
- denies procedural fairness 8.26-8.37
- inappropriate to ICC arbitration 8.44-8.51
- inhibits trade 8.39
- nature of arbitration, contrary to 8.38-8.51
- party autonomy, contrary to 8.2-8.25
- party consent, contrary to 7.1-7.8
- prejudges substantive merits 8.30-8.36
- respondent assumed the risk 7.9-7.46
- summarised 1.14
- transnationalisation, contrary to 8.40-8.42
- tribunals’ power to stay arbitration 8.59-8.71
- unnecessary 8.52-8.38
- aristotle
- equal, not identical, treatment 9.25
- assumption of risk
- as a factor 5.53-5.54
- assumes unlikely knowledge 7.21
- presents binary choice 7.45-7.46
- consent to transaction vs risk 7.19-7.20
- contrary to good faith 7.29
- freedom of choice 7.32-7.33
- freedom of contract 7.14-7.18
- ICC approach to 4.10
- ignores subtleties 7.44
- international trade risks 7.30-7.31
- involves non-sequitur 7.22-7.26
- proposition and responses 7.9-7.46
- third party funding and 7.27-7.28
- undermines security for costs 7.42-7.43
- unevenly applied 7.40-7.41
- awards, review of
- Burden of proof
- Cautio judicatum solvi
- disappearance in France 2.1
- Clausula rebus sic stantibus
- Competitive institutionalisation 7.4
- consequences of security
- Coppée-Lavalin v Ken-Ren
- corporate responsibility
- changes to 7.11
-
corporationsPage 136
- cost and delay
- costs
- American rule 2.5
- applications for security, of 6.13-6.16
- courts’ ability to award 2.2
- enforcement of awards 9.6
- English rule 2.5
- general rule 6.21
- interest on costs 6.21
- internal costs 6.21
- need for proportionality 9.18
- pre-commencement costs 6.21
- reason for non-payment 9.9
- tribunals’ concern for 9.18 n 40
- costs follow the event
- meaning 2.5
- costs shifting
- Creditor protection
- cross-undertakings
- rare 6.17
- Departmental Advisory Committee
- discretion to grant security
- due process paranoia
- enforcement of awards
- history and relevance 2.7
- enforcement issues
- English costs rule
- purpose 2.5
- equal treatment
- ethics
- European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
- exceptional circumstances
- expeditious determination
- compared to security for costs 8.68
- factors in discretion
- ability and willingness to pay costs 5.1
- abuse of process etc 5.34-5.38
- against security 5.47-5.68
- agreement as to costs 5.26
- categories - financial, liability, conduct and fairness 5.2
- claimant in fact respondent 5.47-5.48
- condition of indulgence 5.46
- conduct factors 5.39-5.46
- corporate claimant 5.9
- corporate liquidation 5.10
- counterclaim 5.13-5.17
- delay 5.41-5.45
- dissipation of assets 5.21-5.22
- enforcement difficulties 5.24
- fairness 5.1
- financial factors 5.5-5.24
- impecuniosity 5.6
- intrinsic persuasiveness of 2.38
- liability factors 5.25-5.38
- means to pay 5.8
- mixed natural and corporate claimants 5.66
- no costs shifting 5.27-5.28
- nominal claimant 5.11
- non-compliance with orders 5.20
- not closed 5.1
- offers or admissions 5.64
- oppression 5.55-5.61
- outstanding costs or debts 5.19
- poor substantive merits 5.29-5.33
- prejudice from delay 5.41-5.45
- public importance 5.62-5.63
- quantum of costs 5.12
- residence abroad 5.5
- respondent assumed the risk 5.53-5.54
- respondent caused claimant’s impecuniosity 5.49-5.22
- respondent has security 5.67
- small vs large company 5.61
- special relationship 5.65
- subject to source of power 5.3
- third party funding 5.23
- unclean hands 5.68
- unreasonable conduct 5.39-5.40
- weight of factors 2.38
- fairness
- finality
- form of security
- Freeman, R Edward
- stakeholder model 7.17
- Friedman, Milton
- shareholder model 7.17
- fundamental change in circumstances
- Guerrilla tactics
- Hague Conventions 1905, 1954 4.18
- ICC approach to security
- improper conduct Guerilla tactics
- institutions
- International investment arbitration
- access to justice 10.34
- assumption of the risk 10.35
- costs of applications for security 10.42
- costs shifting 10.34
- court rules, relevance of 10.15
- exceptional circumstances, history of 10.2
- exceptional circumstances, relevance of 10.32
- factors 10.38
- form of security 10.41
- ICSID approach 10.9, 10.25
- institutional rules 10.13
- interim measures, increase of 10.34
- international commercial arbitration, cf 10.37
- juridical basis 10.6
- natural person claimants 10.33
- need for security 10.4
- orders, form of 10.40
- power to order security 10.7-10.15
- public international law elements 10.34
- quantum of security 10.40
- stifling principle 10.34
- UNCITRAL approach 10.12, 10.18
- interim measures
- liability for costs and damages 9.31
- International commercial courts
- effect on arbitration 7.4
- Judicialisation of arbitration 8.42, 9.37-9.39
- Juridical basis of security for costs
- LCIA tribunals
- legal profession
- emergence of paid 2.2
- legislation Annexure 1A
- legitimacy of international commercial arbitration
- merits of claim
-
New York ConventionPage 138
- opportunity to present case
- Orders
- party autonomy
- party consent
- poverty of claimant
- insufficent alone as factor 2.8
- power to order security
- procedural fairness
- purpose of security for costs
- quantum of security
- broad brush estimate 6.19
- discounting - settlement and vicissitudes 6.25
- for costs of enforcement 6.39
- including instiution and tribunal fees 6.32
- just and reasonable 6.20
- liability factors relevant 6.24
- no discounting where staged 6.25
- pre-commencement costs included 6.26-6.27
- protection vs oppression 6.20
- residence abroad
- Rules Annexure 1B
- seats
- security for costs
- settlement facilitation
- parties’ desire for assistance 9.40
- standard of proof for security
- balance of probabilities 3.12
- low threshold 3.15
- no established standard 3.11
- past vs future events, estanlishment of 3.15
- possible standards 3.11
- pragmatic approach 3.16
- prima facie plausibility 3.12
- ‘reasonable possibility’ of success 3.14
- ‘reasonable probability’ of harm 3.12
- ‘satisfy’ the tribunal 3.14
- ‘some likelihood’ of no risk 3.12
- UNCITRAL Model Law 3.13
- stay of arbitration
- stifling principle
- summary disposition 9.10-9.14
- Swiss approach
- tests for security
- exceptional, special and total circumstances 1.11
- Treaty of Rome
- article 6 2.1
- tribunals
-
UK courts 1934-1997Page 139
- UNCITRAL Model Law
- unmeritorious claims
- utility of security
- attractiveness and competitiveness 9.45-9.46
- control mechanism 9.10
- control mechanism - cost and delay 9.18-9.20
- control mechanism - improper conduct 9.15-9.16
- control mechanism - unmeritorius claims 9.11-9.14
- correct injustice 9.35-9.36
- counterbalance judicialisation 9.37-9.39
- enforcement 9.2-9.9
- enhance access to justice 9.34
- enhance equal treatment 9.24-9.31
- enhance opportunity to present case 9.32-9.33
- enhance procedural fairness 9.21-9.33
- facilitate settlement 9.40
- for instution of arbitration 9.41-9.47
- for parties 9.2-9.40
- harmonisation arbitration and litigation 9.47
- jurisprudence and guidance 9.42-9.43
- reduce transaction costs 9.47
- uniformity 9.44