ASAB 29-3 Thomas Rohner Michael Lazopoulos - Pestalozzi ...

ARTICLES
advance payment made on behalf of the defaulting respondent. 50 This amount
creates a debt of the defaulting respondent towards the claimant. This legal
consequence is explicitly stated in article 24(3) LCIA Rules and also
confirmed in ICC Case 13853 51 :
“The Tribunal considers that payment should be made direct to
the Claimants rather than to the ICC. The Claimants’ submission
that this is a contract debt is accepted. That debt is owed to the
Claimants and if it is they, not the ICC, who should receive payment.”
(emphasis added).
It is irrelevant for the determination of the amount of damage that the
final allocation of the arbitration costs between the parties will be fixed in the
final award at the end of the arbitration. It is the parties’ mutual obligation
under the arbitration agreement to pay their respective shares of the advance
on costs in due time. This is different from their mutual obligation to
reimburse each other for the costs of the arbitration, which has to be
determined by the arbitral tribunal in the final award. The first obligation is
independent of the outcome of the arbitral proceedings and owed upon the
arbitral tribunal’s (or the arbitral institution’s) request to make such payment,
while the latter obligation generally depends on the extent to which each
party prevails in its claims and is owed once the final award is rendered (see
p. 557 above).
In this regard, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court held in a 2003
decision 52 that a partial award ordering the defaulting respondent to reimburse
the claimant for the substituted advance on costs does not prejudge the
outcome of the arbitral proceedings which has to be decided in the final award:
“[…] Cette condamnation à payer une avance de frais de
24’000 US$ ne vise que la part des frais d’arbitrage incombant à la
recourante, que celle-ci n’a pas payée mais qui a été avancée par les
intimées pour permettre le déroulement de la procédure arbitrale.
Dans la mesure où l’autorité arbitrale a ordonné en cours de
procédure le remboursement de cette avance faite par la partie
adverse, et non pas le paiement de l’intégralité de la provision pour
frais d’arbitrage, soit 48’000 US$, la sentence partielle du 2 mai
50
51
52
Dissenting MICHA BÜHLER, supra note 5, at 298 with reference to ICC Case 12491, publ. in: ASA
Bull. (2006), at 281 et seq., who considers that it is difficult to argue that “the claimant’s substitute
payment of the advance immediately results in damages in the same amount or that damages are
independent from the out-come of the final cost decision.”
Partial award in ICC Case 13853 (unreported), cited in: MICHAEL BÜHLER/THOMAS WEBSTER, supra
note 27, at 436; PETER TURNER/REZA MOHTASHAMI, supra note 9, at 216.
Decision 4P.173/2003 of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court dated 8 December 2003, para. 4.2.
560 29 ASA BULLETIN 3/2011 (SEPTEMBER)