Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

Djibouti v. Doraleh Container and Others, Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, October 28, 2024

28 Oct 2024
Republic of Djibouti, Djibouti Ports and Free Zone Authority, and Port de Djibouti SA v. Doraleh Container Terminal SA, DP World Djibouti FZCO and Dubai International Djibouti FZE (I), LCIA No. 142732
Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Claimant's counsel
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Print reporter
Document Summary
Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

This document is a Per Curiam Order issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, addressing a petition for rehearing en banc filed by the Appellee, Doraleh Container Terminal SA, in its ongoing dispute against the Appellant, the Republic of Djibouti.

The primary procedural issue before the Court was whether to grant an en banc rehearing. The Court noted that the Appellee’s petition and the corresponding response were circulated to the full court, prompting a request for a vote among the active circuit judges.

Upon consideration, the Court found that a majority of the judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition. Consequently, without issuing further substantive reasoning regarding the underlying arbitral enforcement dispute, the Court issued an operative directive denying the petition for rehearing en banc.