brought under the dominican republic - central america - ita

cure the serious weaknesses and deficiencies in the allegations made in the Notice of
Arbitration at a later time.
6.44. The Respondent contends that, even though the Tribunal decided to allow the arbitration
to continue with regard to all the Claimant's claims, the Tribunal noted that
the Respondent‟s Preliminary Objections had served a useful purpose in the arbitration,
as expressed in Paragraph 264 of the Tribunal‟s Decision of 2 August 2010 (“...
as regards these particular claims, much of the costs so far incurred by the Parties
will not have been wasted. Much of the work required to bring these proceedings
forward ... to a conclusion has now been done. In the Tribunal's view, it is unlikely
that much time, effort and expenditure will have been lost overall).
6.45. The Respondent submits that the Preliminary Objections phase allowed the Tribunal
an early look at the weaknesses in the Claimant's claims; that, in addition, the filing
of the Preliminary Objections was helpful for the Tribunal's decision in this second
jurisdictional phase; that, by having engaged in an early discussion of what the dispute
was about (unaffected by a concurrent consideration of the Respondent‟s abuse
of process objection), the Tribunal was able to see during the first phase that the Parties‟
dispute had started well before the Claimant's abusive change of nationality;
that had the Respondent not brought its Preliminary Objections before filing its
Abuse of Process objection, the Claimant would have without a doubt argued that it
was necessary to join the decision on jurisdiction to the merits of the dispute; and
that, because the Respondent brought its Preliminary Objections earlier, the Tribunal
had the evidence it needed to render an award declining jurisdiction at this stage.
Therefore, so the Respondent contends, there is no need to waste more time and resources
to reach the same result after a costly phase on the merits, which would have
included evidence and arguments on both liability and damages.
6.46. Third, the Respondent submits that the Claimant, not the Respondent, caused significant
delay and unnecessary additional expense in this arbitration: the Respondent
is the unwilling party in these proceedings; it was the Claimant which chose to initiate
this arbitration; the Claimant should have researched and understood the legal
and factual bases for its claims before forcing the Respondent into these arbitration
proceedings; had the Claimant done so, the costs of this arbitration could have been
Part 6 - Page 14