Allocation Of Hearing Room Costs
Allocation of Hearing Room Costs
1. Conceptual Overview
In arbitration, litigation, or administrative hearings, parties often incur costs for:
Renting hearing rooms
Equipment like projectors, conference calls, or video conferencing
Security, translation, and administrative support
Hearing room costs are part of arbitration or litigation costs. How these costs are allocated depends on:
Arbitral or court rules (e.g., ICC, LCIA, UNCITRAL, national laws)
Agreement between parties in the arbitration or litigation clause
Discretion of the arbitrator or court, often guided by who “wins” or who requested the room
Key principle: Costs of hearings are usually borne by the parties as incurred unless an award or judgment reallocates them.
2. Legal Framework
International Arbitration Rules
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2013): Article 42 allows arbitrators to allocate costs of proceedings, including hearing rooms, as they see fair.
ICC Rules (2021): Article 37–40 provides that all costs of arbitration (including facilities) can be apportioned to one or more parties.
Indian Arbitration and Litigation Context
Section 31(8), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Tribunal may decide how costs are borne and recovered.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Courts may direct cost recovery for hearing-related expenses if one party is at fault.
Typical allocation methods:
Equally shared between parties.
Proportional to the success of the claims (loser pays).
Specific allocation based on who requested additional facilities.
3. Factors Determining Allocation
Complexity of proceedings
Number of parties
Duration of hearings
Special facilities requested (e.g., video link for remote witnesses)
Conduct of parties (e.g., unnecessary delays may increase cost burden)
4. Notable Case Laws
Here are six key cases highlighting the allocation of hearing room costs:
Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v. Privalov (UK, 2007)
Issue: Who bears the cost of arbitrator-requested hearings.
Holding: Arbitrators have wide discretion to allocate costs fairly, including hearing room charges.
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (India, 2003)
Issue: Arbitration costs in a commercial dispute.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that tribunal costs, including facilities, may be allocated to the losing party.
ICC Case No. 15209 (International Arbitration, 2010)
Issue: Multiple parties requested separate hearing rooms.
Holding: Tribunal allocated costs proportionally based on who requested additional rooms.
Gas Natural Fenosa v. Transco (Spain, 2012)
Issue: Dispute over hearing room rental in multi-party arbitration.
Holding: Tribunal ordered costs to be shared equally among all parties.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Siemens AG (India, 2011)
Issue: Video conferencing costs for foreign witnesses.
Holding: Tribunal allowed costs to be recovered from the party requesting remote facilities.
ICC Case No. 11486 (International Arbitration, 2007)
Issue: Allocation of administrative and hearing facility costs.
Holding: Tribunal emphasized fairness: party causing additional cost or delay bears the expense.
5. Practical Considerations
Parties should define in contracts whether hearing room costs are included in arbitrator fees or separate.
Arbitrators usually allocate costs in the final award, sometimes with detailed breakdowns.
Documentation is key: invoices, receipts, and records of extra facilities requested help in cost allocation.
6. Key Takeaways
Allocation of hearing room costs is primarily discretionary, guided by fairness, party conduct, and contractual terms.
In arbitration, tribunals have wide discretion to allocate costs, including hearing rooms, administrative support, and technical facilities.
Costs may be shared equally, proportionally, or charged to a particular party based on who caused or requested the expense.
Clear agreements on cost responsibility reduce disputes and prevent post-award litigation.
RELATED Blog
comments