Costs in Arbitration differ to the usual detailed assessment proceedings pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, with the Arbitrator assessing costs pursuant to the Arbitration Act 1996 with varying level of guidance pursuant to the Arbitral Tribunal’s Rules.
Our team has extensive experience of advising on the recoverability of costs, preparing costs schedules and drafting costs submissions in the various different Arbitral Tribunals.
Who we act for
We regularly act in Arbitration Proceedings for the successful and unsuccessful parties and have assisted in both maximising recoverability and minimising costs liability for our clients. We work with Counsel, and independently, to draft extensive costs submissions both on the liability for costs in principle, and the quantum of recoverable costs.
Our skillset as both Costs Lawyers and Legal Project Practitioners gives us an insight and in-depth understanding to the various complexities that can arise in these matters and we can assist not only at conclusion of the case, but also in managing the legal spend and progression of your case from the outset.
Despite being a bedrock for the assessment of costs under the CPR, proportionality plays no part in the assessment of recoverable costs of the arbitration.
Pursuant to s.63 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the tribunal may determine the recoverable costs of the arbitration on such basis as it thinks fit and unless the tribunal or court determines otherwise, the recoverable costs shall be determined on the basis of reasonableness.
The recoverable costs pursuant to s.59 of the Arbitration Act 1996 are split into three categories:
- The arbitrators’ fees and expenses;
- The fees and expenses of any arbitral institution concerned, and
- The legal or other costs of the parties.
The latter is subject to the most disagreement between the parties if an agreement has not been reached between the parties as to the liability for costs (such agreement only being valid if made after the dispute in question has arisen).
We can provide advice on the likely recoverability of costs, merits on liability for costs as well as draft submissions and costs statements to maximise your costs recovery.
Dale Gibbons
Legal Director (Costs)
Charlotte Ioannou
Senior Associate
Daphne Pui Wai U
Associate (CILEx Lawyer)
Holly Shaw
Associate
Dean Robertson
Costs Draftperson
Latest blogs and news
Empowering beneficiaries to challenge costs: The Kenig v. Thomson Snell & Passmore case
Last month, The Court of Appeal delivered an important costs judgement which has the potential to significantly impact how beneficiaries can challenge solicitors’ fees in contentious trusts, probate, private wealth and estate proceedings.
Once upon a time in the Supreme Court
Michael Tyler discusses the decision of the UK Supreme Court in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) (Appellants) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others (Respondents) [2023] UKSC 28
It’s a fix! The Fixed Recoverable Costs regime and the impact on professional negligence claims
The 1 October 2023 saw the Fixed Recoverable Costs (“FRC”) regime extend beyond personal injury claims in the fast track to almost every area of civil litigation, including professional negligence, and sees the introduction of a new Intermediate Track.
We address in this article, the impact of the FRC regime on Professional Negligence claims, and how this affects the recoverability of costs.
Make 2023 the year hourly rates are recovered in full
Much has been said about the Guideline Hourly Rates (GHR) following Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd v LG Display Co. Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 466 and Athena Capital Fund v Secretariat of State for the Holy See [2022] EWCA Civ 1061. Paying parties rely on them and Judges at summary assessment feel bound to follow them, despite the potential damage they could do to the profession’s reputation in London given how the GHR compare to the market. However, there are positives and lessons to learn from these decisions.
Novak needs a Cost Expert: Costs in Appeal Hearings Explored
Being an avid tennis fan, in the small hours of 16th January 2022, I checked my phone to see if Novak Djokovic was going to be able to compete for his 21st Grand Slam title (surpassing Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal as the most decorated male tennis player in Grand Slam history) or whether his appeal would in fact be rejected leading to his deportation.
Claimants given costs boost in inheritance disputes – Hirachand v Hirachand
The Court of Appeal has recently handed down its judgment in the case of Hirachand v Hirachand, concerning an appeal against an order made in May 2020 in proceedings brought by Sheila Hirachand for provision from the estate of Navinchandra Hirachand, her late father, under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”).
Discounted CFAs – how do they work and are they too good to be true?
When both client and solicitor have equal skin in the game it can create a harmony that other funding methods cannot reproduce.
Could litigation funding be available for my claim?
We understand that litigation can be expensive and clients are sometimes anxious by how much it may cost to resolve their dispute. This is why we offer our clients a number of different funding options to suit their needs.
Are DBAs viable for funding commercial litigation?
A Damages-based Agreement (DBA), as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Damages- Based Agreements Regulations 2013, is a “private funding agreement between a representative and a client whereby the representative’s agreed fee (‘the payment’) is contingent upon the success of the case, and is determined as a percentage of the compensation received by the client.”
Funding defamation and privacy proceedings – are there still options?
We are now a year on from the abolishment of the recovery of success fees in Defamation and Privacy proceedings, which brought these distinct areas of law into line with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in MGN v UK.
Changing landscape for litigation funders - Arkin Cap lifted by Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal upheld a decision that the so-called ‘Arkin Cap’ is not a binding rule but ultimately at the Court’s discretion, in the recent case of ChapelGate Credit Opportunity Master Fund Ltd v Money & Ors.
Are ‘no win no fee’ arrangements suitable for inheritance claims under the 1975 Act?
When a client decides to pursue a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 for reasonable financial provision, one of the first discussions between lawyer and client is how the claim will be funded.