Arbitration Comparative Analysis

INDEMNITY COSTS TO DETER DIALATORY TACTICS IN ARBITRATION, COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS.

INTRODUCTION:

Arbitration is a universal phenomena of dispute resolution and preferable due to simple, non expensive and speedy method as compare to civil litigation in which one has to wait for years for the redressal or enforcement of his rights. Delaying enforcement of an arbitral award by recoursing to apples and injunctions have plagued the arbitration mechanism across countries and institutions and this become an international phenomenon [1]. When a party who losses an arbitration award assumes a never-say-die attitude and drags the dispute through the courts system without an objectively reasonable belief it will prevail , the promise of arbitration is

21: Rules of High Court, (2011) Cap. 4A, O. 22 (H.K.), Available at http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_ind.nsf/CURALLENGDOC/E07CB071EA75BF17 4825758A000ACC34?OpenDocument. See also Rules of the District Court, (2000) Cap. 336H (H.K.), Available at http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_pdf.nsf/6799165D2FEE3FA94825755E0033E532/ A65E02C849A77A12482575EE006D84F2?OpenDocument&bt=0

22: Civil Justice Reform, An Overview by the Judiciary, http://www.rcul.judiciary.gov.hk/rc/download.jsp?FN=documents/eng/CJR_An_Over view_eng.pdf

23: For further details of the principles and mechanism of Sanctioned Offer/Payment, please refer to the Judiciary 's publication: How to Shorten Legal Proceedings: Sanctioned offers and Sanctioned Payments, CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM, http://www.civiljustice.gov.hk/cjr/download.jsp?FN=eng/documents/Leaflet_08_Eng. pdf.

24: Cited in Eric A. Schwartz, The ICC Arbitral Process, Part IV: The Cost of ICC Arbitration, 4 I.C.C .CT. BULL. (1993), Micha Buchler, Awarding costs in International Commercial Arbitration: An overview, 22 A.S.A. Bull, 261 (2004).

25: Supra note 23

26: ibid

27:

40: In several jurisdictions the rules of court specify that, without limiting the court 's discretion, the usual order will be that costs which follow the event: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (Qld) reg 42(1) (Austl.); Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 689; Supreme Court Rules 1987 (SA) r 101.02, Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 263(1); Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 66 r 1. See also Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Ltd. [1993] 46 FCR 225, 232 (Austl.)

41: Grouped Proceedings in the Federal Court (ALRC Report 46), LAW REFORM COMMISSION OF AUSTL. (Dec. 1988): "The principle of the 'heads I win, tails you lose ' approach to costs is unacceptable." See also P.J. Mause, Winner Takes All: A Re-examination of the Indemnity System, 55 IOWA L. REV. 26 (1960); G.D. Watson & P. Lantz, Bringing Fairness to the Costs System - An Indemnity Scheme for the Costs of Successful Appeals and Other Proceedings, 19OSGOODE HALL L.J. 447 (1981).

42: Thors v. Weekes (1989) 92 ALR 131, 152