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

DP World and Doraleh v. Djibouti, Procedural Order No. 1 (Mode of Communications), February 28, 2018

28 Feb 2018
DP World Djibouti FZCO and Doraleh Container Terminal SA v. Republic of Djibouti (II), LCIA Case No. 183886
Procedural Order No. 1 (Mode of Communications)
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Procedural Order No. 1 (Mode of Communications)
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
Judges
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
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Procedural Order No. 1 (Mode of Communications)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

Procedural Background

This document is Procedural Order No. 1, issued by the Sole Arbitrator in LCIA Arbitration No. 183886, governing the mode of communications between the parties pursuant to Article 4 of the 2014 LCIA Arbitration Rules. The Claimants initiated the proceedings by dispatching their Request for Arbitration and Application for Interim Relief via international courier and email to various high-ranking officials of the Respondent, the Republic of Djibouti. This included service upon the Chairman of the Djibouti Ports and Free Zone Authority, the designated representative under the notice provisions of the underlying Concession Agreement.

Tribunal's Analysis

The Sole Arbitrator examined whether service by electronic means upon the Respondent was appropriate and effective. Relying on correspondence submitted by the Claimants, the Tribunal found conclusive evidence that the Respondent was fully apprised of the arbitration's existence. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the Respondent's designated representative had previously utilized his official government email address to communicate with the Claimants regarding matters arising directly from the Concession Agreement, thereby validating the use of that address for formal communications.

Operative Directions

Consequently, the Sole Arbitrator directed that, pursuant to Articles 4.1 and 4.3 of the LCIA Rules, all documents in the arbitration proceedings shall be served electronically on the Claimants' counsel and the Respondent's designated representative. The Tribunal further ordered that lengthy submissions—including pleadings, witness statements, expert reports, and annexed legal authorities—must additionally be served in hard copy via courier. The Tribunal reserved the right to revise these procedural directions should the Respondent subsequently elect to participate in the proceedings.