Boutique by Design - International by Instinct

Home
/
/
/
Security for Costs in International Construction Arbitration

Security for Costs in International Construction Arbitration

Share
LinkedIn
Email

The December 2024 issue of the ASA Bulletin includes a paper on “Security for Costs in International Arbitration” authored by Hamish Lal, Brendan Casey, Gaurav Ramani, and Deren Taşan.

When will an applicant succeed in her Security for Costs application? Is it sufficient to argue that the opponent is short of funds? The authors say no, it is not. Security for Costs is an exceptional remedy for which a range of factors is generally considered. The authors advocate that the most important factor remains whether there has been a material change in business risk from the time of executing the contract/arbitration agreement.

Citation: Hamish Lal, Brendan Casey, et al., ‘Security for Costs in International Construction Arbitration’, in Matthias Scherer and Catherine A. Kunz (eds), ASA Bulletin, Volume 42, Issue 4 (2024), pp. 809 – 825 as available on Kluwer Arbitration.

Related Insights

/

  • Client Alerts

US “Circuit Split” – Law Applicable to Non-Signatories in US Seated Arbitration

The US Supreme Court has been asked to clarify the legal regime governing non-signatories to arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act. In particular, the Court is now asked to resolve whether state law principles of equitable estoppel apply to a claim to extend an arbitration agreement, or whether “federal common law” derived from a […]

/

  • Client Alerts

Tribunal’s Own Interpretation – Singapore Says No Breach of Natural Justice or Excess Jurisdiction

Arbitral awards are rarely set aside. In DWL v DWM,[1] the Singapore High Court dismissed an application to set-aside an arbitral award for excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice. Eminent judges have been clear “there is a difference between, on the one hand, a party having no opportunity to address a point or […]

/

  • Client Alerts

Bond Calls in London – Using Section 68 of the Arbitration Act

In JKD and anor v IKC,[1] the English High Court dismissed a challenge under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to an arbitral Order refusing to restrain a call on a bond. This is another important case because it reinforces the thinking that section 68 challenges apply only to Awards (not arbitral Orders) and […]

/

  • Client Alerts

Similarities between Two Arbitral Awards – Singapore says No Breach of Natural Justice

In DSS v DST,[1] the Singapore High Court found that an award, where 108 out of the 211 paragraphs were wholesale or substantial reproductions of excerpts from a related award, was not rendered in breach of natural justice. The Claimant said that the reproductions were not limited to reciting of uncontroversial procedural matters but “extend […]

/

  • Client Alerts

Bond Calls in London – the Latest Thinking

In TTSJV W.L.L and others v BapCo Refining B.S.C (TTSJV),[1] the English High Court dismissed an application for an injunction against a bond call. Applications to restrain bond calls are difficult, given the high threshold. London has reaffirmed the position that a call on an ‘on-demand’ bond can only be restrained in cases of fraud […]

/

  • Client Alerts

No Recovery of Third-Party Funding Costs in Singapore – Lessons from DTH v DTF

Third-Party Funding (TPF) comes up in international arbitration. Agreements typically require a successful party to reimburse the sums provided by the funder and pay an uplift. There is debate as to whether this uplift (TPF Costs) can be recovered in international arbitration from the unsuccessful party. Tribunals have discretion in costs allocation. The types of […]

© Copyright 2026 – Hamish Lal Partners