While the claimant and the respondent had signed the arbitration agreement, a company (the sole shareholder of the respondent), the individual shareholders of that company, and the wholly owned subsidiaries of the claimant had not.

The Court of Appeal directed that all issues between the claimant and the respondent be referred to arbitration.

The claimant (main contractor) appealed against the decision of a lower court, which had referred various disputes between the claimant and the respondent (sub contractor) to arbitration.

The respondent objected that the claimant was barred, because the matter had already been settled by the arbitral award.

The claimant served a notice of default under the joint venture agreement on the ground that the respondent was in breach of the agreement.

The claimant argued that the respondent had taken a step in the proceedings when it served a request for discovery of documents in the action.

In the current text, the claimant State could institute proceedings on behalf of any citizen of the respondent State, which would adversely affect the sovereignty of the latter.

The dispute arose out of a charter party entered into by the claimant and the respondent, providing for arbitration under the rules of the German Maritime Arbitration Association (GMAA) in Hamburg.

In 2001, after the award had finally been formally served on the respondent and had been registered with the German Courts, the claimant applied to have it declared enforceable in Germany.

The ensuing dispute concerning this decision led to a temporary injunction by a DLV arbitral tribunal ordering the respondent to authorize the claimant to take part in the tournament.

At the same time the Court deemed that the claimant, by obeying the procedural terms set up by the respondent, had refrained from pursuing its rights before State Courts.

3. In article 6 bis, entitled quot Reparation quot , paragraph 2 (b) should be redrafted to clarify that the quot national quot belonged to the claimant State and not the respondent State.

On the basis of article 8 (1) MAL, the claimant sought a stay in favour of arbitration with regard to the action brought by the respondent before the Queen's Bench of Alberta.

The Pakistani claimant asserts that he and the Kuwaiti claimant were partners in the business.

In addition, quot provisions in Settlement Agreements specifying that the compensation to be paid by the respondent State shall come from its earnings from the export of goods to the claimant State, also are common quot .

(b) To advise both the appellant and the respondent as stated above, the Administrative Law Unit represents the respondent at all stages of the appeals process.

When the respondent sold its shares in the LP to a third company, the claimant, one of the partners, considered this to be a violation of the non competition clause of the LP agreement and commenced arbitration proceedings claiming damages.

The dispute arose out of a reorganization of the German Hockey League by the respondent, the German Hockey Association ( the Association'), as a result of which the claimant, a hockey club, was downgraded to the second league.

(m) Competing claimant means

(gg) Competing claimant means

Recommendation 110 (competing claimant)

Both the Kuwaiti claimant and the Palestinian claimant were interviewed during the technical mission to Kuwait in 2004 and each claimant was asked to comment on the assertions and evidence submitted by the other.

Both the Kuwaiti claimant and the Palestinian claimant were interviewed during the December 2004 technical mission to Kuwait and each claimant was asked to comment on the assertions and evidence submitted by the other.

It records basic details about the claimant and notes what available evidence, if any, was provided by the claimant.

Though the respondent did not initiate any annulment proceedings, the three month period did not expire as the claimant commenced the enforcement proceedingsThe Court, however, rejected all the respondent's defences, since it deemed a valid arbitration agreement to exist.

The business loss page of the individual claimant was completed in the name of an E4 claimant, and the individual claimant had originally provided documents indicating a connection between him and the company.

The majority of the claims in the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims were filed by an E4 claimant and an individual claimant who was a shareholder of the E4 claimant company.

Upon challenge by the respondent, the arbitration tribunal declared not to have any jurisdiction as in its views the respondent had validly terminated the arbitration agreement.

When the claimant applied to have the award rendered in its favour declared enforceable according to 1060 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ZPO), based on articles 35 36 MAL, the respondent raised several defences, all of which were rejected.

The respondent objected, invoking the Polish judgment and the lack of a valid arbitration agreement.

Summoning of the victim, witness, civil plaintiff, civil respondent, their representatives and experts (article 476)

The applicant cooperated with the Commission and was not cited as a respondent in the case.

Before the Court could decide on the application, the respondent nominated an arbitrator.

The Court rejected the application and concluded that the respondent was still bound by the arbitration agreement.

The burden of proof was on the claimant.

No response was received from the Kuwaiti claimant.

The Panel notes that most of the evidence provided by the Palestinian claimant was original while the Kuwaiti claimant provided copies only.

The claimant participated in the tournament and declared the dispute settled afterwards.

In turn, the plaintiff brought an incidental warranty action in appeal against the respondent.

Where the third party was unable to verify the documents proffered by the claimant or provided statements inconsistent with the information provided by the claimant, the Panel finds the evidence submitted by the claimant to be unreliable.

The Palestinian claimant asserted that as at 2 August 1990 he rented the licence and the equipped printing press from the Kuwaiti claimant to operate his own business.

Iraq alleged that the claimant did not object to the confiscation of his stock by Iraqi authorities and that the claimant may have been a collaborator with Iraqi forces.

In the second set of competing claims, a Palestinian claimant and a Kuwaiti claimant filed separate claims in category D for the losses of a printing business in Kuwait.

The Panel finds that the category C claimant did not assert any losses additional to those previously claimed by the E4 claimant and did not provide any new evidence.

The Kuwaiti claimant asserts that he was the sole owner of the business as at 2 August 1990 and he did not mention the Pakistani claimant in his claim.