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

Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway, Decision on Bifurcation and Other Matters

12 Oct 2020
Peteris Pildegovics and SIA North Star v. Kingdom of Norway, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/11
Document provided by: ICSID
View case details
Decision on Bifurcation and Other Matters
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Decision on Bifurcation and Other Matters
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
Louis Yves Fortier
Respondent appointee
Donald M. McRae
Tribunal/Panel chair
Christopher Greenwood
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
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
Leah Waithira Njoroge
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
Peteris Pildegovics, SIA North Star, Norway
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Decision on Bifurcation and Other Matters
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Context

This Decision, issued by an ICSID tribunal constituted under the Latvia-Norway BIT, addresses several procedural matters raised by the parties during the first session. It supplements Procedural Order No. 1 by providing a fuller explanation for the Tribunal's rulings on contested issues, including bifurcation, witness presence, confidentiality, and document production.

The Tribunal's Decision on Bifurcation

The Tribunal denied the Claimants' request for an immediate decision to either order bifurcation or preclude a future request for it. The Claimants argued that an early decision was necessary for expedition, given their status as a small enterprise. The Respondent contended that the Tribunal lacked the power to decide on bifurcation before a formal jurisdictional objection was filed, pursuant to Article 41 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, and that such a decision would be premature.

The Tribunal expressed "serious doubts" regarding its power to rule on bifurcation at this preliminary stage, noting that its authority under Article 41(3) is triggered "upon the raising of a formal objection." Even assuming it possessed such power, the Tribunal found it would be inappropriate to exercise it without knowing the substance of any potential jurisdictional objections, as it could not make a "sensible assessment" of whether bifurcation would enhance procedural efficiency. The Tribunal instead established a procedural timetable requiring the Respondent to make any bifurcation request within four weeks of receiving the Claimants' Memorial.

Rulings on Other Procedural Matters

The Tribunal also addressed several other contested issues. It rejected, for the time being, the Claimants' proposal to permit a non-party business partner (Mr. Kirill Levanidov) to be present in the hearing room before his testimony, finding his presence was not demonstrated to be necessary for counsel to receive instructions. The Tribunal declined to issue a separate confidentiality order, instead incorporating the relevant provisions into Procedural Order No. 1 and rejecting the Claimants' proposal for a two-tiered system of confidentiality as "unnecessary and inappropriate." Finally, the Tribunal deferred a decision on the Claimants' request for a round of document production on jurisdictional matters, stating the issue would be determined if and when a decision to bifurcate is made.