![Page 1: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Taking of EvidenceDisclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration
Taking of EvidenceDisclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration
Sarita Woolhouse
Seventh Investment Forum
8th September 2006 - BIICL
![Page 2: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
“Give your evidence”, said the king.
Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
![Page 3: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Evidentiary issues relate to:Evidentiary issues relate to:
• Witnesses
• Documents
• Privilege
• Confidentiality and access to non-parties
• Use of documents in other proceedings, and so on …
![Page 4: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Outline:Outline:
1. Documents lost/destroyed
2. Documents about to disappear
3. Documents in possession of non-parties
4. Public interest immunity
5. Conclusions
![Page 5: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
1. Documents lost/destroyed1. Documents lost/destroyed
Where primary evidence is unavailable, tribunal will:
• Accept secondary evidence
• Draw adverse inference
Iran-US tribunal jurisprudence
![Page 6: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
2. Documents about to disappear2. Documents about to disappear
Tribunal can order preservation of documents:
• Agip v. Congo, Award 30 November 1979
• Vacuum Salt v. Ghana, Award 16 February 1994
Property belonged to the investors
![Page 7: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Power to order preservation of evidence
• Article 47 - ICSID Convention• Article 26 - UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules• Article 1134 - NAFTA• Article 25 - LCIA Arbitration Rules• Article 23 - ICC Arbitration Rules
2. Documents about to disappear2. Documents about to disappear
![Page 8: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Documents Taken Over by State
•Investor’s office seized
•Investor lost access to – Its bank statements– Other relevant documents (e.g. ledgers,
correspondence, etc.)
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. V. United Republic of Tanzania
2. Documents about to disappear2. Documents about to disappear
![Page 9: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Article 47 The ICSID Convention
Except as the parties otherwise agree, the Tribunal may, if it considers that the circumstances so require, recommend any provisional measures which should be taken to preserve the respective rights of either party.
2. Documents about to disappear2. Documents about to disappear
![Page 10: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Article 43The ICSID Convention
Except as the parties otherwise agree, the Tribunal may, if it deems it necessary at any stage of the proceedings,
(a) call upon the parties to produce documents or other evidence, …
2. Documents about to disappear2. Documents about to disappear
![Page 11: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Tribunal’s order• Preservation of
evidence• Inventory• Production of
documents• Production of bank
statements• Statement of
account
• Granted under Article 47, ICSID
• Yes - not English style• Case not exceptional
enough to use Art.47• Yes - under Article 43
- case management• Not allowed - akin to
request for production
2. Documents about to disappear2. Documents about to disappear
![Page 12: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
3. Documents in possession of non-parties3. Documents in possession of non-parties
Requesting party needs to show that the requested document is within the possession, power, custody or control of the other party
Article 3 (c) IBA Rules
![Page 13: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
More SPVsMore SPVs
Investors’ SPVs
Investors’ SPVs
Banks/FIsBanks/FIs
PaymentGuarantees
PaymentGuarantees
Power PurchaseAgreement
Power PurchaseAgreement
InvestmentVehicle
InvestmentVehicle
State Electricitycompany
State Electricitycompany
StateGovernment
StateGovernment
LoanLoan
CentralGovernment
CentralGovernment
UltimateInvestorsUltimateInvestors
![Page 14: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Non-parties may not cooperate
• Contractual proceedings ongoing between various entities
• Friction between Central Government and other entities
• Parties should be treated with equality but inherent imbalance
• No counterclaim by non-parties on State’s side
3. Documents in possession of non-parties3. Documents in possession of non-parties
![Page 15: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Other side of the coin
• Ultimate investor or other investors in the chain of companies non-parties
• State may challenge– The “investor” status– The “investment” status
• E.g. Tokios Tokeles v Ukraine (Dissenting award on jurisdiction)
3. Documents in possession of non-parties3. Documents in possession of non-parties
![Page 16: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Obtaining disclosure from Non-parties• Order disclosure assuming that the Parties
control such entities• Use other methods such as
– Section 43 of the 1996 Act– Section 7 of the FAA in the US– Court intervention without specific
supporting legislation
3. Documents in possession of non-parties3. Documents in possession of non-parties
![Page 17: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
4. Public interest immunity4. Public interest immunity
• Not an absolute principle
• Balance between two competing public interests
Confidentiality ofCertain informationConfidentiality of
Certain information
Fair administrationof justice - full
access
Fair administrationof justice - full
access
![Page 18: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Which law governs the claim?
• PII a domestic law principle
• BITs - applicable law– Domestic law of the State together with– the better of the law of
• the investor’s home State and• International law
4. Public interest immunity4. Public interest immunity
![Page 19: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
State’s own law - no justification for non-disclosure• Investment treaty arbitration not the context in
which PII developed• State cannot stifle evaluation of its own
conduct and responsibility• Cannot create an imbalance between parties• PII not a valid objection except in cases of
– Privileged information– Politically sensitive information (State secrets)
Biwater Gauff v Tanzania Procedural Order No.2
4. Public interest immunity4. Public interest immunity
![Page 20: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Canada’s cabinet documents
• 377 documents or parts claimed confidential
• Clerk of the Privy Council wrote to the tribunal
• No sufficient weighing exercise
United Parcel Service v Government of Canada
4. Public interest immunity4. Public interest immunity
![Page 21: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Tribunal’s order
• Some information will need to be protected – E.g. frank uninhibited exchange
between cabinet ministers• Protection circumscribed and subject to
being outweighed by competing interest in disclosure
• Claim not made out
4. Public interest immunity4. Public interest immunity
![Page 22: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Sanction for non-disclosure
A failure to disclose, found by the Tribunal to be unjustifiable, may lead to the Tribunal drawing adverse inferences on the issue in question.
Biwater and UPS tribunals
4. Public interest immunity4. Public interest immunity
![Page 23: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
• Where State has taken over or destroyed or neglected to care for documents, fair to draw an adverse inference
• Tension between approach to non-parties on State’s and investors’ sides - States do not always control other entities’ documents
• Public interest immunity claim unlikely to succeed except in exceptional circumstances
5. Conclusions5. Conclusions
![Page 24: Taking of Evidence Disclosure in Investment Treaty Arbitration Sarita Woolhouse swoolhouse@mac.com Seventh Investment Forum 8th September 2006 - BIICL](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56649f155503460f94c2a178/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Thank youThank you
Sarita Woolhouse
Seventh Investment Forum
8th September 2006 - BIICL