The claimant and the respondent were parties to a joint venture agreement.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

(b) To advise both the appellant and the respondent

(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 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 argued that, on the basis of articles 16 (1), 34 (2) (a) (i) and 36 (1) (a) (i) MAL, the arbitral tribunal was not competent to hear the disputes, because the agreements containing the arbitration clause were terminated following a breach of such agreements by the 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.

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.

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.

(m) Competing claimant means

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

CLAIM NUMBER, CLAIMANT NAME AND CATEGORY OF LOSS

The respondent, Satnam Vaid, was the driver of the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Such an order was granted but subsequently, following a motion of the respondent, set aside.

The Court acknowledged that the respondent was not time barred to raise defences against enforcement, since the three month period only started to run when the award was formally served on the respondent and registered with the German Courts, as required under the old law.

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

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.

It finally asserted that the respondent had waived its right to arbitration by commencing a Builder's Lien action.

The burden of proof was on the claimant.

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 respondent (hereinafter the appellant ) appealed against an order of the Trial Division declaring a foreign arbitral award enforceable.

Subsequently, two telephone interviews were conducted with the claimant.

Any person who has an interest in the property would be notified and would be entitled to be a respondent to the application.

In the first set of competing claims, a Palestinian claimant and a Kuwaiti claimant filed separate claims in categories D and C respectively for the losses of the same car repair business in Kuwait.

The individual claimant whose claim had been identified as potentially overlapping with the E4 claim provided additional evidence and claimed for losses in addition to those losses claimed by the E4 claimant.

In the third group of competing claims, two Palestinian claimants, a Kuwaiti claimant and a Jordanian claimant filed category D claims for the losses of a group of lighting businesses in Kuwait.

(c) Representation of the respondent before the Board when a staff member requests suspension of action of an administrative decision

For example, 65 per cent of respondent countries applied the absolute concept of poverty, while about one third did not.