Case Study: Norjal Vs. Hyundai Case

In the Norjal vs Hyundai case (from here Norjal case), the parties concluded a contract for the building of a drilling rig which also provided for arbitration in the event of a dispute. Nothing was agreed upon concerning the arbitrator 's fees. Once a dispute had arisen, the parties appointed their arbitrators who in turn appointed the third arbitrator. The plaintiffs ' solicitors in 1990 requested the arbitrators to fix a period of 12 weeks in the summer of 1992 for the hearing. The third arbitrator replied that, in order to proceed in that period, the parties should consider the fees which were likely to be incurred, including a non-refundable commitment fee. The plaintiffs ' solicitors submitted a revised proposal which the arbitrators found satisfactory. However, they asked for an assurance that the defendants ' solicitors had no objection to make with regards to the payments proposed. The defendants ' solicitors argued that the two arbitrators had no entitlement to demand advance fees. Therefore, they sought an order removing those arbitrators on the ground of misconduct on the account of their making and persisting in certain requirements in respect of fees to which they were not entitled. At the first instance,

ICT (from here Sea), the parties entered into separate contracts for the construction and delivery of four catamarans which also contained an arbitration clause. A dispute between the parties arose concerning alleged defects in the catamarans. In accordance with the Clause 7 of these contracts each party appointed one arbitrator, who in turn chose a chairman. The parties agreed that each arbitrator would be charged $3,000 per day. On the contrary, nothing was agreed upon concerning the payment of a cancellation fee. “The seed from which discord between the parties and the arbitrators grew” was that the arbitrators, after being appointed, requested inter alia the entitlement to the payment of that fee if the hearing was