Whether you are a supporter of third-party funding—believing that it promotes access to justice, or a detractor—believing that it encourages frivolous claims, one thing is clear: Third-party funding is here to stay. This is attested to by the growing number of funders around the world, new legislation in Singapore and Hong Kong—both leading arbitral seats—authorizing the use of third-party funding in international arbitration, and pronouncements by professional bodies, such as a recent one by the Paris Bar Counsel, to the effect that third-party funding is a positive development in international arbitration. (One blip in this general trend in favor of third-party funding was a decision of the Irish Supreme Court last month holding that third-party funding is unlawful.).
The growth of third-party funding has raised certain novel issues in international arbitration. These issues relate to the disclosure obligations of arbitrators who may have some connection to a funder, the impact of the use of third-party funding on the attorney-client privilege, and the award of costs. This article will focus on one of those issues—costs.
