Arbitration Fee & Respondent Funding 2017-05-05T12:35:31+00:00

Arbitration Fee & Respondent Funding

The case of Essar v Norscot [2016] EWHC 2361 (Comm) was one of the most high-profile international arbitration cases of 2016. Woodsford’s successful funding of this landmark case has driven the development of a range of specialist international arbitration finance solutions.

Read more about Essar v Norscot here

Respondent’s failure to pay

Upfront fees payable to arbitral institutions and the deposit for the tribunal’s costs are usually shared by the parties in international arbitrations. These costs can be significant – in some cases in excess of $100,000 – and if respondents fail to pay their share, claimants are forced to pay.

Seeking third party funding for this unexpected liability is a good option in many cases. As the respondent’s conduct in such circumstances is demonstrably unreasonable, the claimant will, based on the finding in Essar v Norscot, have a good argument that the respondent should be held liable for the third party funding costs.

Woodsford has designed a ‘sliding scale’ product that will allow claimants in this situation to return the pressure to the respondent through the threat of costs sanctions.

Respondent funding

With the decision in Essar v Norscot opening up a new avenue of respondent funding, we now deliver Respondent Funding solutions, particularly if the respondent is also a counterclaimant.

Respondent Funding supports respondents who, faced with unmeritorious claims from well-resourced claimants, may find it difficult to fund a defence from their own resources. In due course, the respondent’s funding costs could potentially be recovered from the claimant.

For further information contact Charlie Morris

There are three key factors we look at when we assess a case.
MORE>

Woodsford offers finance on a case by case basis for high value international arbitrations, where the claimant lacks the resources or risk appetite to proceed without financial support. Our funding is non-recourse, with Woodsford’s return payable only upon success.  The terms of investment and of our return are tailored for each individual case.
MORE>

Woodsford offers portfolio funding arrangements for claimants and lawyers on whom we have been able to carry out enhanced due diligence, for example through previously financed cases.
MORE>

A successful arbitral award is often not the end of the arbitration process: rather, it can be a staging post along the way to successful recovery.
MORE>

The case of Essar v Norscot [2016] EWHC 2361 (Comm) was one of the most high-profile international arbitration cases of 2016. Woodsford’s successful funding of this landmark case has driven the development of a range of specialist international arbitration finance solutions.
MORE>

Following arbitration action, cash flow can become a major issue for law firms and claimants alike as they face further delays in the realisation of any award.
MORE>

Is Your Case Right for Arbitration Funding

Is Your Case Right for
Arbitration Funding?

There are three key factors we look at when we assess a case: First, we look for a case with strong merits. Thanks to our deep experience in this area of law, we’re comfortable funding international arbitrations across a number of jurisdictions.

FIND OUT MORE >

Litigation Funding

Litigation Funding

We provide a range of litigation funding solutions to support your pursuit of justice at every stage of your case. We can bear as much of the cost and risk as you need to allow your action to go-ahead.

FIND OUT MORE >

Law Firm Finance

Law Firm Finance

Increasingly we work with leading law firms who are looking at innovative ways to finance their business growth and support their clients quickly, while effectively managing and mitigating risk.

FIND OUT MORE >