FINAL ARBITRAL AWARD RENDERED IN 2006 IN SCC CASE 7/2005
(1) Jurisdiction under an arbitration clause not expressly referring to the SCC Institute
(2) Failure of respondent to appear (procedural default)
(3) Applicable substantive law
(4) No oral hearing
(5) Application sua sponte (ex officio) of contractual penalty provisions to claimant’s potential detriment
(6) Recovery of arbitration costs when claim partly withdrawn
(1) Sufficiently clear that the reference in the arbitration clause to the International Commercial Arbitration Court in Stockholm, Sweden, shall be understood as a reference to the SCC Institute.
(2) Respondent’s failure to appear did not prevent the arbitration from moving forward to an award on the merits. Despite the failure of the Respondent, the Arbitral Tribunal must examine whether or to what extent the Claimant’s claims are justified.
(3) The contracts underlying the dispute were silent on applicable substantive law. The Arbitral Tribunal did not determine the applicable substantive law.
(4) In the absence of a request from either party, the Arbitral Tribunal found it appropriate to render an award without an oral hearing on the basis of the submissions and the written evidence presented.
(5) Contractual penalty provisions to claimant’s potential detriment could not be applied by the Arbitral Tribunal of its own motion (sua sponte, ex officio).
(6) Only half of arbitration costs awarded to claimant because about half of original claim withdrawn late in the arbitration.