Cost Allocation in International Arbitration
Introduction
Cost allocation in international arbitration is a significant concern for the parties of the dispute, as well as a debated topic among the practitioners and the scholars. The costs associated with arbitration may be grouped as procedural and parties’ costs[1]. While procedural costs may be illustrated as fees and expenses of the arbitrators, in addition to the administrative expenses of the arbitration institution, the party costs consist of fees and expenses incurred due to a party’s presentation of its case before the arbitral tribunal[2].
The Methods for Allocation of Costs
In terms of cost allocation, international arbitration practice has broad flexibility. There is no uniform approach towards the division of costs among the parties of the dispute; hence, the discretion of arbitral tribunals is remarkably divergent in this field. Although this variance appears to create obscurity in costs allocation at first glance, there are three approaches that are commonly used by the practitioners, which are: the Costs Follow the Event; the Apportionment of Costs and the American Rule.
Costs Follow the Event
This outcome-based approach that refers to “Loser Pays All,” and the losing party is assessed the costs of the arbitration[3]. Thus, the successful party of the dispute gets full indemnification of the legal costs incurred[4]. This approach, which was developed in the English court system, has spread to many other common law jurisdictions, with the notable exemption of the United States of America[5].
According to a survey on the preferred practices in the arbitral process (“Survey”), in 50% of the awards examined, the arbitral tribunals applied the Costs Follow the Event method for cost allocation[6]. The Costs Follow the Event appears to be the most preferred method amongst the arbitral tribunals, especially in ICC arbitrations[7]. Nevertheless, it shall be noted that in the last few years, the arbitral tribunals have been taking into consideration factors, such as the relative success and conduct of the parties in the proceedings and have a tendency to move towards other methods, such as the Apportionment of Costs.
Apportionment of Costs
Another outcome-based approach that allocates costs in line with the award is the Apportionment of Costs / Proportional Allocation method. According to this method, the parties bear the costs in line with the actual success they have gained on the merits.
According to the Survey, the arbitral tribunals applied the Apportionment of Costs method in 30% of the arbitrations reviewed; hence, it rose to the level of the second-favored cost allocation method amongst the three.
By taking into consideration the relative success of the parties, this method is claimed to provide more equitable results. Since it is not always possible to detect “the actual winner” at the end of the arbitration, proportional allocation enables the tribunal to rule for parties to bear the costs on each individual claim or defense raised. It is emphasized that it is not equitable to count a claimant who failed on a complex, lengthily argued dispute, or a defendant who successfully dismissed the majority of a claim, to be noted as the “loser.”[8]
The followers of this approach underline that in the event that the monetary results do not reflect the actual balance of the merits, the Apportionment of Costs appears to be more practical[9]. To the contrary, this method is criticized where it is applied with a strict mathematical approach, as it fails the fairness test in cases where the parties claim unreasonable legal costs with significant discrepancy[10].
American Rule
The last approach towards the allocation of costs is the American Rule, which prescribes equal share as to the procedural costs, while the remaining costs are borne by the one who incurred the cost, unless a statute or an agreement regulates the opposite. Hence, unlike the above-mentioned methods, the American Rule is outcome-neutral.
The American Rule, which stems from English Common Law has been maintained in the American legal system, while England has moved towards to the Costs Follow the Event method, over time[11].
The followers of this approach state that it encourages promising claims and lowers the barriers to arbitrate, since the parties bear the risk of the costs they have incurred, in contrast to the higher risks that may be faced upon the application of the outcome-based methods[12].
Conclusion
Although cost efficiency has been one of the major factors leading parties to choose arbitration as a method for dispute resolution, the parties sometimes face unreasonable costs by the end of the arbitration.
Since there is broad flexibility in terms of cost allocation, the methods applied by the arbitral tribunals have vitality for the parties willing to resolve their dispute through arbitration. The Costs Follow the Event, which basically rules that the loser bears the costs, appears to be the most popular method. While the American Rule reduces the cost-related concerns of the parties willing to arbitrate, the Apportionment of Costs method provides a better answer to the question of “Who is the actual winner?”
[1] For further details on costs in arbitration, please see: Ezgi Babur von Schwander, “Costs and Reduction of Costs in Arbitration”, Erdem & Erdem Newsletter July 2017, available at: http://www.erdem-erdem.av.tr/publications/newsletter/costs-and-reduction-of-costs-in-arbitration/.
[2] Micha Bühler, “Awarding Costs in International Commercial Arbitration: an Overview”, ASA Bulletin, Association Suisse de l"Arbitrage; Kluwer Law International 2004, Volume 22, Issue 2, p. 249.
[3] Gustav Flecke-Giammarco, “The Allocation of Costs by Arbitral Tribunals in International Commercial Arbitration”, in Jorge A. Huerta-Goldman , Antoine Romanetti , et al. (eds), WTO Litigation, Investment Arbitration, and Commercial Arbitration, Global Trade Law Series, Volume 43, Kluwer Law International 2013, p. 412, available at: http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/document/KLI-Huerta-Ch13a.
[4] Jenny Power / Christian W. Konrad, “The Award - Costs in International Commercial Arbitration–A Comparative Overview of Civil and Common Law Doctrines”, in Christian Klausegger, Peter Klein , et al. (eds), Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration, Volume 2007, Manz’sche Verlags- und Universitätsbuchhandlung 2007, 263, available at: http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/document/kli-ka-1006-212?q=%22The%20Award%20-%20Costs%20in%20International%20Commercial%20Arbitration%20%E2%80%93%20A%20Comparative%20Overview%20of%20Civil%20and%20Common%20Law%20Doctrines%22.
[5] Christopher Koch, “Is There a Default Principle of Cost Allocation in International Arbitration? – The Importance of the Applicable Provisions and Legal Traditions”, Journal of International Arbitration, Kluwer Law International 2014, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp. 492, available at: http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/document/kli-ka-joia-310404?q=%22%27Is%20There%20a%20Default%20Principle%20of%20Cost%20Allocation%20in%20International%20Arbitration%22.
[6] Queen Mary University and White & Case, “2012 International Arbitration Survey: Current and Preferred Practices in the Arbitral Process”, p. 40-41, available at: http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/docs/164483.pdf.
[7] Flecke-Giammarco, p.412.
[8] Richard H. Kreindler, “Final Rulings on Costs: Loser Pays All?”, ASA Special Series, No. 26, p.11, available at: www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=1505.
[9] Robert H. Smit, & Tyler B. Robinson, “Cost Awards in International Commercial Arbitration: Proposed Guidelines for Promoting Time and Cost Efficiency”, The American Review of International Arbitration vol. 20, no. 3 (2010): 267–283; Flecke-Giammarco, p.413.
[10] Koch, p. 493.
[11] Koch, p. 489.
[12] Kreindler, p.4.
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
For arbitral awards rendered in international commercial arbitration to produce legal effects in foreign jurisdictions, they must be subjected to proceedings for “recognition” and “enforcement.” This process is governed by the New York Convention as well as by the provisions of the Law on Private International Law...
Arbitrability, the determination of whether a specific subject matter can be resolved through arbitration, constitutes a fundamental aspect of arbitration within the scope of international commercial dispute resolution. This concept draws a delicate balance between party autonomy—a fundamental principle of arbitration...
The recognition, enforcement, and annulment of foreign court and arbitral awards in Türkiye are processes in which public policy emerges as one of the most critical criteria for review, both in theory and in practice. The Court of Cassation decisions determine the direction of case law regarding the scope and...
As is well known, the action for annulment of objection is a special type of lawsuit regulated under Article 67 of the Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (“EBL”). The primary objective of this action is to nullify a debtor’s objection to execution proceedings. Despite its procedural function of facilitating...
On 16 December 2024, the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) released its third batch of challenge decisions covering the period from 22 July 2017 to 31 December 2022. The LCIA has also issued a detailed commentary that identifies key legal themes and analytical trends, offering practitioners...
The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has published its report on the dispute resolution statistics for 2023 (“Report”) , shedding light on the evolving landscape of international arbitration...
Syndicated loans undoubtedly hold a significant position among global financing models. In 2023 alone, 3,655 syndicated loans were provided to companies in the US, with their total value reaching USD 2.4 trillion...
Preliminary attachment refers to the temporary seizure of a debtor's assets to secure a creditor's claim. While it serves as a vital instrument for safeguarding the rights of creditors, it is subject to specific and stringent conditions under Turkish law to prevent any potential misuse...
One of the most important reasons for parties to choose arbitration is the opportunity to freely choose their arbitrators. This freedom granted to the parties also distinguishes arbitration from proceedings before state courts, where the parties are deprived of the power to determine the judges who will conduct the...
The 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled on October 12, 2022, that national courts have jurisdiction over objections to provisional measures in international arbitration disputes...
The declaration of intent to resolve disputes through arbitration is the fundamental constituent element of an arbitration agreement. To speak of a valid arbitration agreement, the parties' intention to arbitrate must emerge in a way that leaves no room for dispute...
In the wake of the evolving dynamics of commercial transactions, the Netherlands Arbitration Institute Foundation (NAI) announced new arbitration rules . 2024 NAI Arbitration Rules are in force as of 1 March 2024 and will be applicable on proceedings filed on or after this date...
With the global shift to online activities, domain names play a crucial role in identifying businesses. It is more common than ever for a domain name to be registered that is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark...
The ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR (“Commission”) published a new guide and report with the aim to increase awareness on alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) mechanisms to prevent disputes and strengthen the relationship between all stakeholders.The Guide on Effective Conflict Management...
Mergers and Acquisitions (“M&A”) are restructuring of companies or assets through various types of financial transactions, such as mergers, acquisitions, purchase of assets, or management acquisitions. This Newsletter article covers M&A disputes being solved before arbitral tribunals.
In the context of arbitration practice, the principle of revision au fond means that the courts can not examine the merits of a dispute when reviewing an arbitral award. This principle is most commonly encountered in set aside and enforcement proceedings. An arbitral award is evidence of the parties’ willingness...
Under Turkish law, parties may agree on the settlement of disputes that have arisen or may arise, regarding the rights that they can freely dispose of, by arbitration. However, disputes which are not subject to the will of parties, such as the disputes relating to in rem rights of immovables, bankruptcy law...
On 4 September 2020, a research project “Does a Right to a Physical Hearing Exist in International Arbitration?” was launched by an International Council for Commercial Arbitration (“ICCA”) taskforce. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many arbitration hearings were held online. Many institutional rules...
Dubai International Arbitration Center amended its Arbitration Rules on 25 February 2022. The 2022 Arbitration Rules were published on 2 March 2022 and came into effect on 21 March 2022. The Rules will be applied to arbitrations that are filed after 21 March 2022; unless parties agree otherwise...
In the aftermath of the Achmea decision, controversies on intra-EU arbitrations continue. Most recently, the Paris Court of Appeal has annulled two arbitral awards rendered against Poland. Meanwhile, the Higher Regional Court of Berlin has refused to declare that an Irish investor’s ICSID claim...
Under Turkish law, the legal remedy that can be applied against arbitral awards is an annulment action. Law on International Arbitration No. 4686 (“IAL”) finds its application area in arbitration proceedings where Turkey is the place of arbitration...
It is well known that following a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, problems arose related to arbitration of intra-EU disputes, and particularly arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty...
Arbitration in corporate law contains controversial elements in many respects, especially the issue of arbitrability. Even in legal systems where these disputes are considered to be arbitrable, uncertainties remain on whether an arbitration clause can be included in the articles of...
Arbitration has benifited from a great increase in the use of technology which has directly effected the conduct of proceedings. More particularly, with digitalization, the way that we conduct arbitration proceedings has been changed to reflect the current needs of parties, with an aim of increasing time...