(m) Competing claimant means

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.

In the original claim file, the claimant submitted limited documentation including a personal statement, handwritten lists of spare parts, 1987 lease contracts for two stores and a rental receipt for each store dated in 1991.

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.

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.

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.

While the company's representative indicated that the documents provided by the claimant corresponded with the company's records, the Panel finds such statement to be unreliable, as the company's claim file indicates that all of its business documents were destroyed.

CLAIM NUMBER, CLAIMANT NAME AND CATEGORY OF LOSS

The burden of proof was on the claimant.

Subsequently, two telephone interviews were conducted with the claimant.

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.

In twofive of the individual claims identified as potentially overlapping with E4 claims, the Panel considers that the claim wass were not overlapping as the individual claimant was weres claiming losses that were related to the E4 claimant companies but were not overlapping losses (for example, where the individual claimant is seeking compensation for a loss of salary or management fee from the E4 claimant).

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.

The claimant sought from the Court an order of foreclosure.

The stay was granted, but the claimant appealed against it.

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 claim of the Palestinian claimant is now before the Panel.

The claim of the Palestinian claimant is now before the Panel.

The claim of the Palestinian claimant is now before the Panel.

In addition, the fact that the claimant did not challenge the board's jurisdiction, during the hearing did not preclude the claimant from invoking the same defence in the setting aside proceedings.

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.

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

With respect to the remaining claim, the only evidence provided by the claimant to prove his authority to file a claim on behalf of the company was a business card describing the claimant as Executive Director Partner and a lease in the name of three individuals who the claimant described as the corporate shareholders.

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 buyer (claimant), confirmed the sale concluded over the phone by registered mail.

The claimant was interviewed during the technical mission to Jordan in January 2005.

During the interview the Palestinian claimant provided detailed answers regarding the business activities.

The E4 claimant Al Nuwaisib Building Requirement was originally considered in the eighteenth instalment of E4 claims where it had been considered as overlapping with a category C claim filed by a different individual claimant.

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 provided confirmation from an independent auditing firm that the claimant holds currency to the amount of KWD 4,740,102, all of which bear serial numbers that were cancelled by the Central Bank of Kuwait.

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

While the Panel noted that the claimant had not signed the submission that included the fabricated documents, the Panel finds that the claimant is responsible for the evidence submitted to the Commission by his authorized representative.

The claimant allegedly operated four of the five businesses under rent a permit agreements with various Kuwaiti licence holders the claimant stated that the fifth business operated without a business licence prior to 2 August 1990.

They alleged that on 1 January 1990 six partners, including the Palestinian claimant, the Jordanian claimant and the Kuwaiti claimant's husband, entered into a new partnership agreement with four additional partners to expand the lighting partnership.

The claimant was asked to produce the original certificates, but failed to do so.

In three instances, the company and the individual claimant were partners in joint ventures.

On the basis of the evidence provided by the claimant, the loss is compensable.

Second, the Panel must verify whether the loss was actually suffered by the claimant.

The claimant seeks compensation for these personal injuries in the amount of USD 100,000.

The claimant provided witness statements attesting to his detention and abuse by Iraqi soldiers.