1. The Tribunal has considered the Parties’ four submissions regarding the Respondent’s application for bifurcation under the Tribunal’s First Procedural Order (as revised): namely (i) the Respondent’s Part IV of its Counter-Memorial dated 14 December 2012, paragraphs 391-402 (pp. 198-204); (ii) the Claimants’ Opposition to Bifurcation dated 28 December 2012; (iii) the Respondent’s Reply on Bifurcation dated 10 January 2013; and (iv) the Claimants’ Rejoinder on Bifurcation dated 16 January 2013.
2. These written submissions exceeded 100 pages, without counting the appended materials, which were sufficient for the Tribunal to make a decision within the short time permitted under the existing procedural time-table under paragraph 14.2.6 of the First Procedural Order. Accordingly, the Tribunal decided that it was unnecessary to hear the Parties’ legal representatives further on these bifurcation issues; and the Tribunal therefore cancelled the procedural meeting by telephone conference-call tentatively fixed for 22 January 2013.
3. In summary, the Respondent requests the Tribunal to decide its jurisdictional objections as a preliminary matter on grounds of economy, efficiency and fairness. In summary, the Claimants oppose that application on different grounds of efficiency, economy and fairness. By separate application, on similar grounds, the Claimants also request the Tribunal to re-consider its existing decision (by order of 29 October 2012 and the First Procedural Order), bifurcating the merits as to liability and damages, which is opposed by the Respondent.