Arbitration Hearing Types : Internal Solution Operations

Summary

The following information covers the four different types of arbitration and the different approaches to each:

Single party instruction, ‘Party A’, as standard (usually the claimants so they have carriage of the documents) although can be two or more parties, who are building a draft bundle before the case progresses to the hearing phase.
The other side(s), Party B, should join at a later stage and must transition to multi-party (or single party) instruction in order to grant Judge / Tribunal access.
Documents will not be in the finalised bundle structures and usually grouped in categories for review. Users can apply tags and annotations etc from an early stage.

Generally, no Bundle/Tab values are assigned to the documents given that they will likely change but we can assign a draft reference or sort order values.
No pagination stamp in the bottom right will be assigned however we can apply a draft reference stamp if necessary.
Once the matter transitions to multiparty, the bundle structures will be finalised, Bundle/Tab references applied, and the stamp created.

Assuming single party instruction, only Party A needs to be in copy to instructional emails whilst in ESU phase (if more parties, the signing parties need to be in copy).
Once it transitions to multi-party, this will change accordingly.

Any documents being added the platform are classed as an upload, ‘Uploads (Early Stage Use)’, i.e. there are never any inserts, and hyperlinks are billed as, ‘Hyperlinks (XXX) (Early Stage Use)’ – this will ensure only 50% of the charges are billed to Party A and the remaining 50% will be billed to Party B upon transition to multi-party, provided the documents / hyperlinks are included in the shared bundle (those that do not form the shared bundle are left at 50% billed to Party A).
Other ESU tasks, i.e. replacements, metadata amendments etc, are billed 100% to Party A.
Once transitioned to multiparty, Party A would need to instruct us on how to restructure the documents into the shared hearing bundle (speak to the SOM about how to bill for the transition).
Future billing would be in line with the multiparty approach.
- EXAMPLE: Epicenter 20420A.

Single party instructions involve only one signing party, ‘Party A’, and the Tribunal, allowing full use of the platform.
It can either be i) single party for an initial period and then other side(s) join, transitioning to multi-party at a later date or ii) remain single party throughout the entire matter, where either other side(s) do not have access or other side(s) may be added but never sign up to our services, meaning Party A pay for their access etc.
Documents uploaded in their finalised bundle structures to be used straight away.

The hearing bundle would be built in the finalised structures from the outset, with the Bundle/Tab metadata applied as well as the finalised pagination stamp.

As it is a single party instruction, only Party A would need to send us the instruction.
If it transitions to multi-party, this will change accordingly.

All requests will be billed as standard, i.e. uploads, inserts, replacements, etc, being billable 100% to Party A.
- EXAMPLE: LV II 22026A.

Multi-party instruction used in the early stages of an arbitration where the parties are exchanging their memorial documents, meaning the default upload protocol is not suitable. In such instances, we offer the option of a Memorial Upload Protocol where each party has a party specific folder on the Master workspace with ACL to ensure it only syncs to the relevant party mirror.
Documents are uploaded to the relevant party specific folder first, and later moved into the shared Hearing bundle.

Bundle/Tab references can be applied to the documents in the party specific folders, with the pagination stamp and uploaded in their intended structures if requested.

Parties need to agree to the Memorial Upload Protocol from the outset (if this is not agreed, it is a standard multiparty instruction).
Uploads to party specific folders can be single party instructions.
Transitioning documents from the party specific folder into the shared hearing bundle, or uploads direct to the shared hearing bundle, needs to have all parties in copy.

More information on the Memorial Upload protocol can be found here.

Any documents uploaded to the party specific folders are billed as per the shared cost split as standard, i.e. uploads, inserts, hyperlinks, hyperlink testing etc. They should not be private workspace billing or ESU.
The transition from the party specific folder into the shared hearing bundle will be billed as a movement, with the costs shared between the parties.
Tasks can be party specific if they are not in relation to documents being later moved into the shared bundle, i.e. custom bundles, tags etc.
- EXAMPLE: ICC Arb 22053 10183M, Kiewit 12965A, Turkiye 21749A

Multi-party instruction involving multiple signing parties (can be a cost split of 100% billable tasks to one party but all of them sign a bundle proposal), and the Tribunal allowing full use of the platform.
Documents uploaded in their finalised bundle structures to be used straight away.

The hearing bundle would be built in the finalised structures from the outset, with the Bundle/Tab metadata applied as well as the finalised pagination stamp.

All instructions to make changes to the shared hearing bundle need to have all parties in copy.

All requests will be billed as standard, i.e. uploads, inserts, replacements, hyperlinks etc, being billable to the parties as per the shared cost split.
Tasks can be party specific if they are not in relation to documents in the shared bundle, i.e. custom bundles, prints, hyperlink testing etc.