International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)

Here’s a couple of links


 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Love
Reactions: 7 users
09/07/2023
Cruiser posted

LEGISLATION: The shadow of the IGF and Alingete hangs over Zijin at Dathcom Mining​

July 3, 2023 Abel
Jules-Alingete.jpg


Jin Cheng (Zijin) Further Postpones the Hearing of His ICC Arbitration Case Against AVZ International
By means
of a press release, a copy of which reached the media including Mining News Magazine, AVZ Minerals Limited referred to the evolution of the CCI action brought against its subsidiary AVZ International Pty Ltd by Jin Cheng Mining Company (Jin Cheng) , a subsidiary of Zijin Mining Group Company Limited (Zijin), regarding a 15% stake that Jin Cheng allegedly acquired from La Congolaise d'Exploitation Minière (Cominière) in Dathcom Mining SA (Dathcom).

As noted in the company's April 17, 2023 announcement, the matter of the jurisdictional challenge of the arbitral tribunal hearing was scheduled to be heard in July 2023 after being postponed from its original date in April 2023.

Unfortunately, Jin Cheng (Zijin) argued that they need to postpone the hearing dates again, mainly because they require more time to respond to the allegations raised in the IGF report dated 30 November 2022 ( “Conclusions de l'Inspection générale des finances de la RDC contre Cominière et Dathomir” dated December 6, 2022) which was referred to in the company's submission to the ICC dated May 5, 2023.

The Sole Arbitrator determined that a short extension was appropriate, strictly limited to addressing the issues raised in the IGF report, and that the parties should discuss and agree to a "narrow" procedural timeline in bearing in mind that a hearing should be held in September and at the latest at the beginning of October.

Australian company AVZ Minerals is surprised and disappointed by plaintiff Jin Cheng's (Zijin) continued delaying tactics, but remains confident that her court challenge will be successful, confirming that Jin Cheng has no right to bring the ICC arbitration proceedings against AVZI because it is not a shareholder of Dathcom.

It was through an announcement authorized for publication by the board of directors of AVZ Minerals Limited that the Australian company informed the public on June 21, 2023.

Furthermore, considering that AVZ Minerals violated the joint venture agreements (Dathcom JVA), COMINIERE and ZIJIN seized the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris (ICC) to claim damages, provisionally estimated at US$850 million for Jin Cheng . (ZIJIN) and US$566 million for COMINIERE , for a total of US$1,416,000,000, on a value of the Manono lithium project which they estimated at US$5.66 billion.

The two groups are asking the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris (ICC) for an order declaring the termination of the Dathcom joint venture.

''How and by what magic can COMINIERE include the Chinese group ZIJIN in the joint venture DATHCOM, if the sale of 15% of COMINIERE has not yet been validated, since the case is still in court? And if Zijin is in Dathcom to claim damages jointly with Cominière, why then are the two looking to saw off the board they're sitting on or kill their common golden-egg hen?

The Chinese group ZIJIN, which had paid a sum of 33 million $US for the 15% in the illegal purchase, is now asking for 850 million $US for the same shares, so the Chinese group should make profits of more or less 817 million US dollars with this transaction?


Isn't this a kind of plunder from the Congolese people, ask Kiki Kitenge and Kongopress?

''It appears at first glance that the amount of the damages claims is based on the fact that Jin Cheng holds a 15% stake and COMINIERE a 10% equity stake in DATHCOM, which suggests that the claimants assess the entire ownership of DATHCOM's Manono project, at US$5.66 billion ,” reads a press release from the AVZ Minerals group.

By Perfect Barack and The Editor.


And the US$5.66 billion is based on prior new drilling results and updated DFS information!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
My understanding is that ICC will not go ahead.
 
11/07/2023
Sam Posted


NEWSECONOMY

Manono lithium: Here are the law firms of ZIJIN and COMINIERE who requested a postponement from the ICC for their own complaint​

July 11, 2023
Kiki Kienge

COMINIERE and ZIJIN had seized the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris (CCI) to claim damages from AVZ MINERALS, US$850 million for Jin Cheng (ZIJIN) and US$566 million for COMINIERE, for a total of US$1,416,000,000, notably requesting the termination of the DATHCOM joint venture.

QUID: How did the ZIJIN group feel aggrieved by AVZ MINERALS in DATHCOM if the 15% purchased from COMINIERE was deemed illegal by the IGF, the financial inspection body of the Presidency of the Republic in DR Congo?

Now the Chinese group ZIJIN "in partnership with COMINIERE" associated in the complaint, has just requested a new postponement in the arbitration in Paris requested by themselves.

The reason would be, according to the Chinese mining giant, a necessary need for time to prepare to properly respond to the allegations of the IGF report which accuses it of having violated Congolese law by its attempt to buy 15% of the shares. de la COMINIERE at a price of US$33,400,000 than US$150,000,000 of its market value.
Some reactions on social networks:

Cybelle Kamba Kabasu ;
“The exploitation of #Lithium has been delayed enough because of the bad faith of the CominiereS, it is however urgent to end the arbitration and make Manono benefit from this new start…. »

August V. Cohen ;
“That's not realistic, Mrs. Cybelle.
This postponement request will be refused because no extenuating circumstances authorize a new postponement. The referees will see this as a delaying tactic and will dismiss the request. Zijin then risks losing and Cominière will receive a very large fine. Once this is done, AVZ will file a lawsuit in federal court in Washington DC against Cominiere. The Paris court allows the plaintiffs to sue in US courts to demand payment of the fine. Given the evidence, he will likely lose the case in America as well…
It is time for the DRC government to reach an agreement with the Chinese and the Austrians to solve this problem because AVZ is now on the warpath and will not give up. »

THE LAWYERS
For ZIJIN:
De Gaulle Fleurance & Associés law firms.
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin
For COMINIERE:
The Congolese firm Muamba Mukengeshayi & Associés.

The procedure had been launched jointly before the International Chamber of Commerce of Paris (ICC) between COMINIERE and the ZIJIN group.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
11/07/2023
Xerof Posted


Re the prior post

Kiki does a great job, but he's years behind the eight ball on that Zijin news release. We have discussed that article every groundhog day since it was published, and determined:

Firstly, we observed that Zijin were reluctant to specify EXACTLY which tenements they "purchased shares from COMINIERE" in. Of course it was 13359, and they knew it was illegal. They only started mentioning it when they were outed

Secondly, they made a typo when mentioning the Cooperation Agreement signed with COMINIERE and wrote 13427 instead of 13247. This was never corrected. I think that was a genuine error

Some of you here held shares in Force I think. Do any of you know how they lost those tenements? I seem to recall they just walked away, saying there was nothing of interest found, but would be happy for Kiki to uncover more dodgy manoeuvres between those two

Cohen seems to also be confused saying the request for an extension by ICC will be refused, as in fact it has already been agreed to - now September/October, as announced by AVZ a couple of weeks ago. But I agree with his sentiment - they are running scared, delaying and will lose badly
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
24/08/2023
Carlos Posted

Is this new information? @Carlos Danger
https://x.com/franckfwamba/status/1694361559370252390?s=12
Big Liars, STOP LYING. FACTS
1. Legal case N. RP14944 by Dathomir vs Dathcom (JV of AVZ, Cominiere and Dathomir) not AVZ. Legal Procedure not yet exhausted
2. Commercial Court appointed Eugene Mbomb as Special Rep to gather Dathcom's partners & decide. Zijin lost then went to ICC
Click to expand...

RP14944 has been talked about in a few media articles. It's also cited in the full letter (see below) by the green goblin where she tries to rat fuck us on ceding the 10% pro rata that Cominiere are obligated to transfer in full to the DRC government.

It's the case where Dathomir sought to have the action certificates and register of Dathcom associates dated 31 August and 1 September 2021 obtained from the Chief Registrar of the Unique Enterprise Creation Guichet, Antentenna of Lubumbashi confirming that AVZ owns 75% of Dathcom from the completion of the SPA's with Dathomir annulled and Graeme Johnson was sentenced to 3 years.

I'm not sure what part 2 is referring to and was unaware that Zijin's decision to take AVZ to the ICC was based on decision against them by the commercial court. My understanding was that they brought the case because we as the controlling party of the JV wouldn't recognise them in Dathcom. I don't have any documentation from these court cases mentioned.

1692834549757.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
03/09/2023
Carlos Posted


According to AVZ whether the sale of the 15% from Cominiere to Jin Cheng was effective will need to be determined in separate proceedings. What that looks like I'm not 100% sure but my guess is we would need to initiate a dispute under Article 11 of the Dathcom JVA at the ICC about whether Article 9 of the JVA was followed during the purported sale. We did begin proceedings to have the sale reversed within the DRC but withdrew our action because it was taking too long.

We have probably been prevented from filing our own claim on this matter at the ICC so far because of the Jin Cheng vs AVZI case. Although the precedent from the current case will make any future hearings on this matter a slam dunk if it goes in our favour especially considering the court is looking at factors like the IGF report.

20230816_231422.jpg

20230509_094639.jpg

20230509_094659.jpg

20230417_204227.jpg

20230417_204307.jpg

20230309_152459.jpg

20230309_152521.jpg

20230309_152538.jpg

20230309_152620.jpg

1678337805919.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
04/09/2023

9cardomaha Posted


View attachment 43848

Just a quick update from my parent's basement - hearing on jurisdiction (JCM v AVZ) is full steam ahead for the 'early October' timing. Most recent ZJ delay tactic employed was rejected by the arbitrator, guess the brown paper bags werent enough to drag this out indefinitely (depreciation of the CNY probably...)

Adding that it'll be first week of October for hearing, but learning that deliberations could come 1 month after.........
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
22/09/2023
Doc Posted



Carlos Replied

Another thing. Article 11.1 (c) of the Dathcom JVA clearly states that any dispute among parties to the JVA must be settled by 3 arbitrators at the ICC. The fact that Zijin sought only 1 arbitrator and the ICC agreed is already an admission by Zijin and the ICC that Jin Cheng are not a party of Dathcom imo
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
22/09/2024

Jin Cheng Mining v. AVZ International
Jin Cheng Mining Company v. AVZ International Pty Ltd

Nature of the procedure: International
Type of case: Commercial arbitration
Industries:

Mining

Mining support service activities
Date of introduction: May 1, 2022
Status of the case: Pending

Investor's country of origin: China

Country of origin of the defendant: Singapore

Institution: CCI (International Chamber of Commerce)

Rules of arbitration:
ICC Arbitration Rules 2021

Documents of the case​

See all other documents

Collected and published by Jus Mundi. ICC has not contributed to this publication.

Lawyers, other representatives, expert(s), court secretary​



ASX ANNOUNCEMENT​

22 March 2023

Arbitration Proceedings Update and Interim Financial Report Clarification​

AVZ Minerals Limited (ASX: AVZ, OTC: AZZVF) (AVZ or Company) provides an update regarding the arbitration proceedings before the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris (ICC), with respect to the Company's legal rights to a 75% interest in Dathcom Mining SA (Dathcom), the entity under which the Manono Project is held, and its preemptive rights over 15% out of Cominiere's 25% interest, whilst also clarifying a typographical error that appeared in its Interim Financial Report which was released as an ASX Announcement on 16 March 2023.

ICC Proceedings​

The Company has considered the cases before the ICC in detail and considers them to be spurious in nature, without merit, containing fundamental and material errors, and having no substance or foundation in fact or law.

The Company believes it is under besiegement by non-state actors who intend to unlawfully acquire, for themselves and/or other third parties, an interest in the Manono Project and continues to take all necessary actions to resist these vexatious and meritless claims and to protect its and Dathcom's interests.

Jin Cheng Dispute​

The Company currently defends a case in the ICC brought against its subsidiary AVZ International Pty Ltd ("AVZI") by Jin Cheng Mining Company (Jin Cheng), a subsidiary of Zijin Mining Group Company Limited (Zijin) regarding a 15% interest Jin Cheng purportedly acquired from La Congolaise d'Exploitation Miniere (Cominiere) in Dathcom.

The status of the Jin Cheng proceedings is as follows:
  • • on 5 October 2022, the sole arbitrator upheld AVZI's application to bifurcate proceedings, noting that the document production phase was completed on 22 February 2023;
  • • on 9 December 2022, Jin Cheng submitted its Statement on Jurisdiction and AVZI submitted its Reply on Jurisdiction on 10 March 2023;
  • • Jin Cheng will submit a rejoinder on jurisdiction on 22 March 2023; and
  • • the hearing on jurisdiction will take place on 19 - 20 April 2023.
AVZI remains of the view that its jurisdictional challenge will be successful, which will affirm that Jin Cheng does not have the right to instigate the ICC arbitration proceedings against AVZI under the Dathcom Joint Venture Agreement (JVA), since it is not a party to the Dathcom JVA. An award on jurisdiction can reasonably be expected to be handed down mid-2023.

It should be noted that this does not finally determine whether the sale of shares from Cominiere to Jin Cheng was effective, which will remain to be determined in separate proceedings.

AVZ Minerals Limited
Level 2, 1 Walker Avenue West Perth, WA 6005
Australia
T: + 61 8 6117 9397
F: + 61 8 6118 2106
E: admin@avzminerals.com.au
W: www.avzminerals.com.au
ABN 81 125 176 703

Directors
Non-Executive Chairman: John Clarke
Managing Director: Nigel Ferguson Technical Director: Graeme Johnston Non-Executive Director: Rhett Brans
ASX Code: AVZ
OTC Code: AZZVF

Dathomir Dispute​

The Company and AVZI lodged claims against Dathomir Mining SARL (Dathomir) with the ICC to affirm AVZ's acquisition in August 2021 of a 15% interest in Dathcom from Dathomir under the Dathomir SPAs and to put an end, once and for all, to Dathomir's claims and to recover losses sustained from them.

The status of the Dathomir proceedings is as follows:
  • • Dathomir has filed its Answer and Counterclaims in respect of both proceedings on 18 January and 27 February 2023;
  • • AVZI filed its Reply to Dathomir's counterclaims on 24 February 2023 in ICC Case No. 27401 (re. SPA 2020) and is expected to file its Reply on 30 March 2023 in ICC Case No. 27425/SP (re. SPA 2019);
  • • Dathomir has withdrawn its nomination of Jackson Francis Ngie Kamga in both proceedings and nominated instead Caroline DeClercq (ICC Case No. 27401) and Marc Henry as coarbitrator (ICC Case No. 27425/SP);
  • • On 8 February 2023, Dathomir filed an application for early dismissal of ICC Case No. 27425/SP (re SPA 2019) on grounds of a prima facie test of lack of jurisdiction. AVZI will comment on and object to the application once the ICC Secretariat has decided whether to refer the matter to the ICC Court or the Arbitral Tribunal (at which time it will invite AVZI to comment); and
  • • On 27 February 2023, Dathomir objected to the confirmation of the co-arbitrator designated by AVZI in the ICC case No. 27425/SP. AVZI is preparing a reply to this objection.
AVZI remains of the view that it will be successful in the Dathomir proceedings, with an award in both proceedings unlikely to occur before September 2024.

Clarification - Interim Financial Report 31 December 2022​

As previously advised by the Company, the award of the Mining Licence is not subject to the conclusion of the ICC proceedings with Jin Cheng and Dathomir and the Company continues its discussions with the DRC Government which at the date of this announcement remain incomplete.

The Company notes that the Interim Financial Report 31 December 2022 released to the market on 16 March 2023 contained a typographical error on page 7, which states:

"The Company is confident of a positive outcome in relation to the award of the Mining Licence pending resolution of the ICC arbitrations"

The statement should have read:

"The Company is confident of a positive outcome in relation to the award of the Mining Licence and pending resolution of the ICC arbitrations"

Voluntary suspension​

The Company confirms that this announcement is not intended to end the voluntary suspension.

This announcement was authorised for release by the Board of Directors of AVZ Minerals Limited.

For further information, visitwww.avzminerals.com.au or contact:

Mr. Jan de Jager or Mr. Ben Cohen​

Media Enquiries:
Mr. Peter Harris
Peter Harris & Associates
Phone: +61 (0)412 124 833

Joint Company Secretary AVZ Minerals Limited
Phone: +61 8 6117 9397
Email: admin@avzminerals.com.au

FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION
This announcement contains certain forward-looking statements and comments about future events, Forward looking statements can generally be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as 'expect', 'anticipate', 'likely', 'intend', 'should', 'could', 'may', 'predict', 'plan', 'propose', 'will', 'believe', 'forecast', 'estimate', 'target' and other similar expressions within the meaning of securities laws of applicable jurisdictions. Indications of, and guidance on, future earnings or financial position or performance are also forward-looking statements.

Forward looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties, both general and specific, and there is a risk that such predictions, forecasts, projections and other forward-looking statements will not be achieved. Forward looking statements are provided as a general guide only and should not be relied on as an indication or guarantee of future performance. Forward looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainty and other factors which can cause the Company's actual results to differ materially from the plans, objectives, expectations, estimates and intentions expressed in such forward looking statements and many of these factors are outside the control of the Company. As such, undue reliance should not be placed on any forward-looking statement. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance and no representation or warranty is made by any person as to the likelihood of achievement or reasonableness of any forward-looking statements, forecast financial information or other forecast. Nothing contained in this announcement nor any information made available to you is, or shall be relied upon as, a promise, representation, warranty or guarantee as to the past, present or the future performance of the Company.

Except as required by law or the ASX Listing Rules, the Company assumes no obligation to provide any additional or updated information or to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or results, or otherwise.
3 | Page

Jin Cheng Mining v. AVZ International

Subsequent citations of this document in its entirety:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
26/09/2028
Cruiser Posted

Jin Cheng Mining c. AVZ International​

Jin Cheng Mining Company c. AVZ International Pty Ltd
Nature of the procedure: International
From Jus Mundi website:

Type of business: Commercial arbitration
Industries:
Mining
Mining support service activities
Date of introduction: May 1, 2022
Case Status: Pendant
Country of origin of the investor: China
Country of origin of the defendant: Singapore
Institution: ICC (International Chamber of Commerce)
Rules of arbitration:
ICC Arbitration Rules 2021

Case documents​

See all other documents
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
26/09/2023
Carlos Posted

Is this a joke from ICC? 05/10/2022
Given there's 2 files listed here in 2023, you'd have to assume a Typo.
Seems to be a haunting for AVZ, typos.

It's correct. Bifurcation refers to the splitting of the case into AVZ's jurisdictional challenge before dealing, if necessary, with the merits of the case as outlined in the below 20/10/22 announcement.

Obviously the decision to split the case was made on 5/10/22. Jus Mundi claim to have the document confirming this on their website but it's not available to the public.

1695726970636.jpeg
1695726970636.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
04/10/2023
Carlos Posted


No main trial, or no main trial at the ICC? If that's the case, then why did AVZ in their earlier ASX announcement state that there would need to be seperate proceedings to rule on the merits of the sale to JC, should this jurisdictional challenge succeed? This one stumped me a little
It did me at first too. But it was explained in the announcement last week. That question is part of our case at the ICC with Cominiere who are the party within Dathcom responsible for the breach of our preemptive right.
20231004_132942.jpg

20231004_133022.jpg


It did me at first too. But it was explained in the announcement last week. That question is part of our case at the ICC with Cominiere who are the party within Dathcom responsible for the breach of our preemptive right.
View attachment 46240
View attachment 46241
The fact that the ICC refused to merge these cases plus the damages case brought by Zijin and Cominiere against AVZ is bad news bears for Zijin imo
20231003_101822.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
04/10/2023
Carlos Posted


The fact that the ICC refused to merge these cases plus the damages case brought by Zijin and Cominiere against AVZ is bad news bears for Zijin imo
View attachment 46244
It's been a long road to get here so here is a recap of how we arrived at this point for those unsure of the facts of the case

It all started back on October 2 2019 when AVZ approached the former MoP (not the green lady) about his opinion on us purchasing the 15% of Dathcom from Cominiere. Note this offer was made before the DFS so the market value was unknown at the time.

IMG_20230108_122640.jpg



This was his response on February 18 2020. Note his reference to the DFS being completed before the sale and the DRC government's intent to hold a working session to determine this matter.

20230411_114940.jpg



Fast forward to July 21 2021 and AVZ are contacted by Cominiere about giving an opinion on an offer they have received from Zijin for the 15%. They also ask us for an advance on dividends which can only be described as batshit insane. Crucially no price for the proposed acquisition is given by Cominiere despite market value now being known from the DFS which was released in April 2020.

20230510_144120.jpg


20230510_144139.jpg



Here is AVZ's response through our lawyers on August 4th 2021 to Cominiere's request for an opinion on Zijin buying 15% of Dathcom. Note the reference to the MoP letter from February 2020. Crucially this was sent to Cominiere within the 40 day window outlined in Article 9.1 (b) of the Dathcom JVA. Cominiere never responded to this letter.

20230510_144159.jpg


20230510_144217.jpg


20230510_144236.jpg


20230509_094639.jpg


20230509_094659.jpg



After the 40 days expired the purported acquisition by Jin Cheng was approved and registered in the RCCM. AVZ was never given the opportunity to execute it's pre-emptive right. AVZ submitted its offer to the DRC government for the 15% after the 40 days had expired. This was done at the market value established in the DFS.

Finally in mid 2022 the DRC's financial watchdog completed its investigation into the purported sale. This was released to the public in December 2022. The findings were damning for Zijin, Cominiere and the new MoP. Most egregious was the price of 33.4m USD which was below the market value established in the DFS which resulted in a loss of revenue for the DRC of 120.7m USD. in early 2023 an audio was released of Zijin and CKK discussing extra personal payments to facilitate this sale.

20230507_133236.jpg



Patriotism 101 is don't rat fuck your own people by taking a bribe from foreigners for personal gain. This is also being considered by the ICC as the original hearing in July was pushed back to this week so Zijin could have time to respond to AVZ allegations in court that the purported sale from Cominiere to Zijin was also tainted by corruption.

I'm no big city fancy lawyer but my opinion is that Zijin are completely fucked
 
Last edited:
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
04/10/2023

Lets see if I understand this correctly.

The merging of the 3 cases was just another last ditch delaying tactic which was rejected.

The first ICC case is to even see if Jin Cheng is even part of the JV . If found in our favour, the next 2 cases get thrown out ??

Edit: I'll just go back and read your post Carlos.
Click to expand...

Carlos Posted

The Cominiere case brought by AVZ would still remain. But the Zijin case to be recognised in Dathcom would not proceed and the damages claim by Zijin and Cominiere would not have any basis to continue as a dual action. But it's possible Zijin could withdraw and leave Cominiere seeking damages alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
04/10/2034

And the Addendum to that is only $6M has been physically paid by Zijin.
TC.

Carlos Posted
I thought I had a copy of the original offer from Zijin to Cominiere but I can't find it. From memory it contained a clause for the remainder after the deposit to be paid within 12 months of the completion of the sale. The IGF report was written before this 12 months expired but contains the below summary of how Cominiere used funds received. I'm unsure if the remainder was paid or not but it's possible it was within the time period outlined in the contract.

Also possible Zijin are waiting for completion to be confirmed through the ICC but that would leave them on very shaky ground legally.

20231004_144523.jpg

20230515_221749.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
08/10/2023
Bin59 Posted


Logo ACERIS LAW Cabinet d'arbitrage international
ACERIS LAW
The International Arbitration Law Firm

Witness Statements in International Arbitration​

16/01/2021 BY ACERIS LAW LLC
It is common to use witness statements in international arbitration. The witness can typically be any person including officers, representatives or employees of the party for which he/she is to provide testimony.[1] The reasons to use witnesses in international arbitration are multiple: to reinforce evidence already presented in support of a party’s claim(s), to “fill” an evidentiary gap when other evidence is insufficient or ambiguous, or to rebut evidence presented by the other party.
The intervention of witnesses is commonly done through the submission of written witness statements, which are often submitted along with the parties’ written submissions. If one party submits a witness statement with its written submission, the other party will have an opportunity to comment upon it in its subsequent submission or to present a rebuttal witness statement. Having a witness statement submitted along with written submissions will allow the arbitral tribunal, as well as the parties, to prepare for the evidentiary hearing during which, if called, the witnesses are to be examined and questioned regarding the content of their statements.

In some cases, the appearance of a witness can also be ordered directly by the arbitral tribunal.[2]

Structure of Witness Statements in International Arbitration

Although there are no mandatory requirements as to what form a witness statement should take, guidance is often sought in the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (“IBA Rules”). Pursuant to these rules, witness statements usually follow a common structure divided into several parts. We will discuss these parts in the sections below.

Introduction of the Witness

Article 4(5)(a) of the IBA Rulesprovides that the introduction of a witness shall contain:
“the full name and address of the witness, a statement regarding his or her present and past relationship (if any) with any of the Parties, and a description of his or her background, qualifications, training and experience, if such a description may be relevant to the dispute or to the contents of the statement.”

The introductory part permits identification of the witness, his/her educational or professional background, as well as his/her ties to the parties. If the relationship of the witness and the party who relies on his/her testimony is not apparent, it is recommended to clarify the matter in order to diminish surprises which can occur during the examination of the witness at a hearing. In fact, “not disclosing an existing or prior relationship between the witness and a party may appear as an attempt to conceal potential sources of bias”.[3] To complete identification and background, the witness’s résumé is usually attached to his/her first witness statement.

Statement of Facts

Article 4(5)(b) of the IBA Rulesprovides that a witness statement shall contain “a full and detailed description of the facts, and the source of the witness’s information as to those facts, sufficient to serve as that witness evidence in the matter in dispute. Documents on which the witness relies that have not already been submitted shall be provided.

The full and detailed description of facts represents the core of the witness statement. In this part, the witness will provide his or her recollection of certain facts. Although the IBA Rules use the term “full and detailed”, no indication is given as to the extent to which a presentation of facts is to be regarded as full and detailed. As pointed out by Ragnar Harbst, discrepancies in the length and detail of witness statements submitted by the parties can be problematic and undermine a level playing field. He stresses that “f only one side offers detailed witness statement, only the other side can prepare. On the other hand, the party offering only a short and superficial witness statement also runs a risk. A strict arbitral tribunal may only grant limited room for the witness to add further facts and details during the hearing.[4] Therefore, although providing short and perfunctory witness statements can be appealing from a strategic standpoint, one should bear in mind that such a strategy can backfire since the witness, or the party for which the witness is giving testimony, may be prevented to rely on further evidence at subsequent stages of the procedure.

Sometimes indications as to the length and detail of witness statements are given by the arbitral tribunal itself. For example, in Appendix IV of the 2021 ICC Arbitration Rules, several case management techniques to control time and costs are envisaged. For instance, the arbitral tribunal can limit “the length and scope of written submissions and written and oral witness evidence (both fact witnesses and experts) so as to avoid repetition and maintain a focus on key issues.

Statement as to the Language

Article 4(5)(c) of the IBA Rules provides that a witness statement shall include “a statement as to the language in which the Witness Statement was originally prepared and the language in which the witness anticipates giving testimony at the Evidentiary Hearing.

This is particularly important in arbitrations which are held in a specific language, e.g., often English, but involve parties or witnesses who are not fluent or native in that language. Therefore, it is recommended to clarify this matter in the witness statement, so that an interpreter can be secured for the final hearing in case of need.

Affirmation of Truth and Signature

Article 4(5)(d) of the IBA Rulesspecifies that a witness statement shall contain “an affirmation of the truth of the Witness Statement”. In turn, Article 4(5)(e) requires a witness statement to include “the signature of the witness and its date and place.”
There is no imposed form regarding the affirmation of truth. It can consist of simple declarations; such as: “I, [name of the witness], hereby affirm that the contents of this Witness Statement are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief” or “I, [name of the witness], believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Witness Statement Drafting

There are several tips to write a credible and comprehensible witness statement:
  • A witness statement is a personal declaration of its author containing his/her recollection of the facts. Therefore, it should be written in the first person singular.
  • Unless the witness is a lawyer or has a legal background, he/she should abstain from using legalese. Several examples of legalese were helpfully summarized by Ragnar Harbst in his treatise on Witness Preparation in International Arbitration as follows:[5]
Witness Statements in International Arbitration


  • The content of a witness statement should be clear, precise and structured under proper headings. Such headings can be divided, for instance, chronologically or subject-matter wise.

To What Extent Can a Lawyer Intervene in Drafting Witness Statements in International Arbitration?

To this thorny question, Article 4(3) of the IBA Rules responds that “t shall not be improper for a Party, its officers, employees, legal advisors or other representatives to interview its witnesses or potential witnesses and to discuss their prospective testimony with them.” In turn, the IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration, and namely Guidelines 20 and 21, further specify that “[a] Party representative may assist Witnesses in the preparation of Witness Statements [and] should seek to ensure that a Witness Statement reflects the Witness’s own account of relevant facts, events and circumstances.”

Unless the law of the seat of arbitration provides otherwise, the role of the counsel is, thus, limited to assistance. The counsel is not prevented from discussing a witness statement with the witness. Also, as an arbitration professional, the counsel should know best how witness statements should be structured and can guide the witness in this respect. However, what is not allowed is for the counsel to write the witness statement, i.e., “write down what the witness might, could, or should say, and then ask the witness to confirm the same.[6]
[1] See IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, Article 4(2): “Any person may present evidence as a witness, including a Party or a Party’s officer, employee or other representative.”
[2] See IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, Article 4(10): “At any time before the arbitration is concluded, the Arbitral Tribunal may order any Party to provide for, or to use its best efforts to provide for, the appearance for testimony at an Evidentiary Hearing of any person, including one whose testimony has not yet been offered. A Party to whom such a request is addressed may object for any of the reasons set forth in Article 9.2.”
[3] R. Harbst, “A Counsel’s Guide to Examining and Preparing Witnesses in International Arbitration”, Wolters Kluwer (2015), p. 70.
[4] R. Harbst, “A Counsel’s Guide to Examining and Preparing Witnesses in International Arbitration”, Wolters Kluwer (2015), p. 71.
[5] R. Harbst, “A Counsel’s Guide to Examining and Preparing Witnesses in International Arbitration”, Wolters Kluwer (2015), p. 84.
[6] R. Harbst, “A Counsel’s Guide to Examining and Preparing Witnesses in International Arbitration”, Wolters Kluwer (2015), p. 74.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
08/10/2023
Bin59 Posted


ICC - International Chamber of Commerce

Arbitration

New ICC report takes bold move to tackle unreliability of witness testimony in arbitration​

19 January 2021
ICC has launched a new report on the accuracy of fact witness memory in international arbitration. The report, which is the first of its kind conducted by an arbitral institution, analyses the psychological science of human memory, and offers arbitrators and counsel guidance to enhance the probative value of fact witness evidence
Share this:

The groundbreaking report, by the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR, was presented today during a live webinar.
The ICC Task Force on Maximising the Probative Value of Witness Evidence – initiated by former Commission Chair Christopher Newmark and co-chaired by Baker & McKenzie Partner Ragnar Harbst and Reed Smith Partner Jose Astigarraga – set out to explore the science behind the human memory retrieval process and investigate how typical arbitral practice can skew witness memory, resulting in less reliable evidence. The Task Force also considered whether changes could be made to current arbitral practices or alternative approaches could be adopted to reduce the risk of witness memory distortion and make witness evidence more reliable and the process more cost effective.

To understand the psychology of witness memory recall during an arbitration, Dr Kimberley Wade of the Department of Psychology at the University of Warwick was commissioned to conduct an independent study for the report. The outcomes of the study, which solicited views from 300 international professionals from across industries and took five years to complete, led to the following conclusions:

The memory of an honest witness in an international arbitration hearing can be easily distorted due to the interactions that commonly take place during the preparation and presentation of witness evidence. However, awareness within the arbitration community of the factors that are known to create memory distortions, as well as appropriate and selective use of measures that are set out in the report to avoid such distortion should together signal a key step forward.

A case-by-case assessment should be made to determine which of the many steps identified in the report is most appropriate to be used.

It is understood that witness evidence is presented in arbitration proceedings for a variety of purposes, many of which do not rely upon the accuracy of witness memory. Should the accuracy of witness memory not be relevant, the concerns regarding memory corruption are not relevant.
As witness evidence often takes a central role in many arbitral proceedings, this pioneering report aims to bring certain fault points into mainstream discussions in order for practitioners and tribunals to better streamline efforts and costs. The report may also serve as a successful basis for future collaborative research projects involving psychologist and arbitration specialists.

Commenting on the launch of the report, Christopher Newmark said:

“Once this report is digested and discussed, the arbitration community will be able to adjust its practices to make witness evidence not only more reliable, but also more cost effective. That should be very good news to the parties who pay for the whole process and who are looking to arbitration to produce fair and reliable outcomes.”

 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Top Bottom