DOCSLIB.ORG

General Claims Commission (United States and Panama)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General Claims Commission (United States and Panama) REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL DES SENTENCES ARBITRALES General Claims Commission (United States and Panama) constituted under the Claims Convention of July 28, 1926, modified by the Convention of December 17, 1932 (22 May 1933-29 June 1933) VOLUME VI pp. 293-386 NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONS Copyright (c) 2006 PART III GENERAL CLAIMS COMMISSION UNITED STATES AND PANAMA CONSTITUTED UNDER THE CLAIMS CONVENTION OF JULY 28, 1926, MODIFIED BY THE CONVENTION OF DECEMBER 17, 1932 PARTIES: United States of America, Panama. SPECIAL AGREEMENT: July 28, 1926, modified December 17, 1932. COMMISSIONERS : Dr. Miguel Cruchaga Tocornal (Chile), Presiding Commissioner (1932), Baron Daniel Wigbold van Heeckeren (Nether- lands), Presiding Commissioner (1933), Joseph R. Baker, American Commissioner ( 1932), Elihu Root, Jr., American Commissioner (1933), Horacio F. Alfaro, Panamanian Commissioner (1932-1933). REPORTS: American and Panamanian General Claims Arbitration under the Conventions between the United States and Panama of July 28, 1926, and December 17, 1932, Report of Bert L. Hunt, Agent for the United States. (United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1934.) Comisiôn General de Reclamaciones entre Panama y Estados Unidos de America. (Publicaciôn Oficial, Panama, Imprenta Nacional, 1934.) * 1 A series of separate publications concerning each claim. 297 HISTORICAL NOTE The General Claims Arbitration under the Convention concluded on July 28, 1926, between the United States and Panama had for its object virtu- ally all claims arisen on either side since November 3, 1903, when Panama declared its independence from Colombia. Excepted from the arbitration were the so-called Colon fire claims dating back to March 31, 1885, and which the parties hoped it would be possible in the future to submit to arbitration together with Colombia, and claims for compensation on account of damages caused in connexion with the construction of the Panama Canal, which would continue to be disposed of as usually by the Joint Land Commission under the Panama Canal Convention of November 18, 1903. The parties agreed, never- theless, that two claims of the latter kind, the Caselli and Monteverde claims, would be submitted to the Commission provided for by the Convention of July 28, 1926. Ratification of the Convention of July 28, 1926, did not take place sooner than September 11, 1931, as far as the United States, and September 25, 1931, as far as Panama is concerned. Ratifications were exchanged on October 3, 1931. According to article II of the Convention, the Commission was to meet for the first time in Washington within six months after the exchange of ratifi- cations of the Convention, i.e., before April 4, 1932. Under Article VI, the Commission was bound to decide within one year from its first meeting all claims filed, i.e., before April 4, 1933. The first meeting of the Commission actually took place on April 1, 1932. The Commission then adopted its rules, setting August 22, 1932, as the last date on which memorials of claims should be filed, and adjourned to reconvene not before November 21, 1932. When thus it became clear that the work of the Commission could not be completed within the period allowed by the Conven- tion, a second Convention was concluded by the parties on December 17, 1932. modifying the first one by extension of the original time-limit to July 1, 1933. Ratifications of the second Convention were exchanged on March 25, 1933. After the selection of a new President, Baron D. W. van Heeckeren (Nether- lands), who took the place of Dr. Cruchaga Tocornal (Chile) who had become Minister for Foreign Affairs of his country, the Commission from March 2, 1933, met regularly and brought its task to an end on June 29, 1933. The Commission rendered 19 awards in favour of the United States, awarding $114, 396.25, and four in favour of Panama, awarding $3,150. 299 BIBLIOGRAPHY Convention of July 28, 1926: L.N.T.S., vol. 138, pp. 120-126; U.S. Treaty Ser., No. 842; State Papers, vol. 131, pp. 604-608; de Martens, N.R.G., 3rd series, vol. 25, p. 3. Convention of December 17, 1932: L.N.T.S., vol. 138, pp. 131-133; U.S. Treaty Ser., No. 860; State Papers, vol. 135, pp. 670-671; de Martens, N.R.G., 3rd series, vol. 27, p. 328. L. H. Woolsey, "United States-Panama Claims Commission", Am. J. Int. Law, vol. 25 (1931), pp. 520-523. George A. Finch, "The Panama-United States Claims Commission", Am. J. Int. Law, vol. 27 (1933), pp. 750-752. Bert L. Hunt, American and Panamanian General Claims Arbitration under the Convention between the United States and Panama of July 28, 1926, and December 17, 1932, Report of—, Agent for the United States. (United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1934.) "The United States-Panama General Claims Commission", Am. J. Int. Law, vol. 28 (1934), pp. 61-73. Edwin M. Borchard, "The United States-Panama Claims Arbitration", Am. J. Int. Law, vol. 29 (1935), pp. 99-105. Wilhelm Friede, "Entscheidung der auf Grund der Abkommen zweischen den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und Panama vam 28. Juli 1926 und 17. Dezember 1932 einge- setzten General Claims Commission im Falle de Sabla, vom 29. Juni 1933", Z.a.ô.R.u.V., Band IV (1934), pp. 925-928. "Die Enlscheidungen der auf Grund der Abkommen zwischen den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und Panama vom 28. Juli 1926 und 17. Dezember 1932 eingsetzten General Claims Commission", Z.a.o.R.u.V., Band V (1935), pp. 452-466. 301 Conventions CLAIMS CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND PANAMA Signed July 28, 1926. Ratifications exchanged October 3, 1931 1 The United States of America and the Republic of Panama, desiring to settle and adjust amicably claims by the citizens of each country against the other, have decided to enter into a Convention with this object, and to this end have nominated as their plenipotentiaries: The President of the United States of America, the Honorable Frank B. Kellogg, Secretary of State of the United States of America; and The President of the Republic of Panama, the Honorable Doctor Ricardo J. Alfaro, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Panama to the United States and the Honorable Doctor Eusebio A. Morales, Envoy Extra- ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Panama on special mission; Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers found to be in due and proper form, have agreed upon the following articles: A-RTICLE I All claims against the Republic of Panama arising since November 3, 1903, except the so-called Colon Fire Claims hereafter referred to, and which at the time they arose were those of citizens of the United States of America, whether corporations, companies, associations, partnerships or individuals, for losses or damages suffered by persons or by their properties, and all claims against the United States of America arising since November 3, 1903, and which at the time they arose were those of citizens of the Republic of Panama, whether corporations, companies, associations, partnerships or individuals, for losses or damages suffered by persons or by their properties; all claims for losses or damages suffered by citizens of either country, by reason of losses or damages suffered by any corporation, company, association or partnership, in which such citizens have or have had, a substantial and bona fide interest, provided an allotment to the claimant by the corporation, company, association or partnership, of his proportion of the loss or damage suffered is presented by the claimant to the Commission; and all claims for losses or damage originating from acts of officials or others acting for either Government, and resulting in injustice, and which claims may have been presented to either Government for its interposition with the other, and which have remained unsettled, as well as any other such claims which may be filed by either Government within the time hereinafter specified, shall be submitted to a Commission consisting of three members for decision in accordance with the principles of international law, justice and equity. As an exception to the claims to be submitted to such Commission, unless by later specific agreement of the two Contracting Parties, 1 Source: L.N.T.S., vol. 138, pp. 120-126. 302 UNITED STATES AND PANAMA are claims for compensation on account of damages caused in the manner set forth in article VI of the Treaty of November 18, 1903, for the construction of the Panama Canal, which shall continue to be heard and decided by the Joint Commission provided for in that article of the Treaty. With regard to the exception above made respecting the claims for losses suffered by American citizens as a result of the fire that occurred in the City of Colon on March 31, 1885, the Government of Panama agrees in principle to the arbitration of such claims under a Convention to which the Republic of Colombia shall be invited to become a party and which shall provide for the creation or selection of an arbitral tribunal to determine the following questions: first, whether the Republic of Colombia incurred any liability for losses sustained by American citizens on account of the fire that took place in the City of Colon on the 31st of March 1885; and, second, in case it should be determined in the arbitration that there is an original liability on the part of Colombia, to what extent, if any, the Republic of Panama has succeeded Colombia in such liability on account of her separation from Colombia on November 3, 1903, and the Government of Panama agrees to co-operate with the Government of the United States by means of amicable representations in the negotiation of such arbitral agreement between the three countries.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Reservations of Panama
    APPENDIX 2 TO ANNEX XVIII REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 5.4 RESERVATIONS BY PANAMA PANAMA 1. Sector: Retail Sales Sub-Sector: - Legal Source or Authority Article 293 of the Political Constitution of the of the measure: Republic of Panama of 1972, as amended. Articles 5 and 10 of Law No. 5 of January 11, 2007. Article 12 of Executive Decree No. 26 of July 12, 2007. Succinct description of the 1. Only the following persons may own a retail measure: business in Panama: (a) Panamanians national by birth; (b) natural persons who, on the date of entry into force of the 1972 Constitution were a naturalised person and married to a Panamanian national or have children with a Panamanian national; (c) Panamanians by naturalization, who are not covered by the description under (b), after three years of the date on which they have obtained their naturalisation letter; (d) Panamanian juridical persons or juridical persons organized under the law of a foreign country and foreign natural persons who on the date of entry into force of the 1972 Constitution, owned a retail business in Panama according to the domestic law; and (e) a juridical person, whether organized under the laws of Panama or any other Country, if ownership of that person is held by natural persons described in subparagraph (a), (b), (c), or (d), as set out in paragraph 5 of Article 293 of the Constitution. 2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1(e), a foreign national may own a juridical person engaged in retail business if: (a) the products sold by the juridical person in retail business are exclusively products that are - 2 – produced at its direction and bear its label; or (b) the juridical person is engaged primarily in the sale of a service, and the products that it sells are necessarily associated with the sale of that service.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 2 to Annex Xv Panama
    APPENDIX 2 TO ANNEX XV PANAMA - SCHEDULE OF SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 4.18 Modes of supply: (1) Cross-border supply (2) Consumption abroad (3) Commercial presence (4) Presence of natural persons Sector or subsector Limitations on Market Access Limitations on National Treatment Additional Commitments EXPLANATORY NOTES: - For the purposes of this Schedule, the term “None” indicates a services sector or sub-sector where there are no terms, limitations and conditions on market access or conditions and qualifications on national treatment. The term “Unbound” indicates that no national treatment or market access commitments have been made. The term “Unbound*” means unbound due to lack of technical feasibility. - The absence of specific reservations in a given services sector or sub-sector is without prejudice to the horizontal reservations that apply. - The level of commitments in a particular services sector shall not supersede the level of commitments undertaken with respect to any other services sector to which such service is an input for the particular service or to which it is otherwise related. - CPC numbers indicated in parenthesis are references to the United Nations Provisional Central Product Classification (Statistical Papers, Series M, N° 77, Provisional Central Product Classification, Department of International Economics and Social Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, New York, 1991). - Attachments I and II to this Schedule form an integral part thereof. PART I. HORIZONTAL COMMITMENTS This Part sets out those commitments that apply to trade in services in all scheduled services sectors unless otherwise specified. Those commitments that apply to trade in specific services sectors are listed in Part II.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 2 to Annex Xv Panama
    APPENDIX 2 TO ANNEX XV PANAMA - SCHEDULE OF SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 4.18 Modes of supply: (1) Cross-border supply (2) Consumption abroad (3) Commercial presence (4) Presence of natural persons Sector or subsector Limitations on Market Access Limitations on National Treatment Additional Commitments EXPLANATORY NOTES: - For the purposes of this Schedule, the term “None” indicates a services sector or sub-sector where there are no terms, limitations and conditions on market access or conditions and qualifications on national treatment. The term “Unbound” indicates that no national treatment or market access commitments have been made. The term “Unbound*” means unbound due to lack of technical feasibility. - The absence of specific reservations in a given services sector or sub-sector is without prejudice to the horizontal reservations that apply. - The level of commitments in a particular services sector shall not supersede the level of commitments undertaken with respect to any other services sector to which such service is an input for the particular service or to which it is otherwise related. - CPC numbers indicated in parenthesis are references to the United Nations Provisional Central Product Classification (Statistical Papers, Series M, N° 77, Provisional Central Product Classification, Department of International Economics and Social Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, New York, 1991). - Attachments I and II to this Schedule form an integral part thereof. PART I. HORIZONTAL COMMITMENTS This Part sets out those commitments that apply to trade in services in all scheduled services sectors unless otherwise specified. Those commitments that apply to trade in specific services sectors are listed in Part II.
    [Show full text]
  • 1540 Matrix for Panama
    OP 1 and related matters from OP 5, OP 6, OP 8 (a), (b), (c) and OP 10 State: Panama Date of Report: 12 July 2005 Date of Addendum 1: 24 February 2006 Date of Addendum 2: 30 April 2008 Did you make one of the following Remarks statements or is your country a State (information refers to the if YES, indicate relevant information (i.e. signing, accession, ratification, Party to or Member State of one of the YES page of the English version entering into force, etc) following Conventions, Treaties and of the report or an official Arrangements ? web site) General statement on non- 1 possession of WMD General statement on commitment to 2 disarmament and non-proliferation General statement on non-provision 3 of WMD and related materials to non- Biological Weapons Convention 4 X Deposit 20 March 1974 (BWC) Chemical Weapons Convention 5 X Deposit 07 October 1998 (CWC) Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 6 X Ratified 13 January 1977 (NPT) Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban 7 X Deposit 23 March 1999 Treaty (CTBT) The information in the matrices originates primarily from national reports and is complemented by official government information, including that made available to inter-governmental organizations. The matrices are prepared under the direction of the 1540 Committee. The 1540 Committee intends to use the matrices as a reference tool for facilitating technical assistance and to enable the Committee to continue to enhance its dialogue with States on their implementation of Security Council Resolution 1540. The matrices are not a tool for measuring compliance of States in their non-proliferation obligations but for facilitating the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 1540 and 1673.
    [Show full text]
  • James Perry (United States) V. Panama
    REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL DES SENTENCES ARBITRALES James Perry (United States) v. Panama 27 May 1933 VOLUME VI pp. 315-321 NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONS Copyright (c) 2006 DECISIONS 315 Cross-references: Annual Digest, 1933-1934, pp. 481-482; Comision General de Reclamaciones entre Panama y Estados Unidos de America, Reclamaciôn de la Repûblicâ de Panama en su propio nombre y representaciôn de Juan Manzo, Registre No. 21. (Publication Oficial, Panama, 1934.) Bibliography: Hunt, Report, pp. 695-696, and "The United States-Panama General Claims Commission", Am. J. Int. Law, vol. 28 (1934), p. 71 ; Borchard, "The United States-Panama Claims Arbitration", Am. J. Int. Law, vol. 29 (1935), p. 101; Friede, "Die Entscheidungen . .", Z.a.ô.R.u.V., BandV (1935), pp. 462-463; Annual Digest, 1933-1934, pp. 482-483. In 1905 Juan Manzo, then a boy between 10 and 13 years of age, was working as a water carrier for the Municipal Engineering Division of the Isthmian Canal Commission. The testimony for both parties is in agreement that Manzo was regularly allowed by his superiors to oil the sheaves, through which ran a cable used for hoisting material to a reservoir at Ancon, Canal Zone. It is the opinion of the Commission that the practice of allowing Manzo to oil the sheaves was equivalent to direcling or employing him to do so, and that it was negligence per se to employ so young a child as an oiler of heavy machinery in motion. On September 4, 1905, Manzo, while oiling, caught his right hand in one of the sheaves and lost his fingers and half of his palm.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcdermott INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report (date of earliest event reported): October 30, 2018 McDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Republic of Panama 001-08430 72-0593134 (State or other jurisdiction of (Commission file number) (I.R.S. employer identification number) incorporation) 757 N. Eldridge Parkway Houston, Texas 77079 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (281) 870-5000 (Former name or former address, if changed since last report) Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions: ☐ Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) ☐ Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) ☐ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) ☐ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter). Emerging growth company ☐ If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Filing # 29423303 E-Filed 07/08/2015 05:45:05 PM
    Filing # 29423303 E-Filed 07/08/2015 05:45:05 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA THE FLORIDA BAR Supreme Court Case No.: SC15-1011 Complainant, The Florida Bar File No.: 2012- vs. 50,591(150) RICHARD SAM LEHMAN Respondent. RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT Respondent, RICHARD SAM LEHMAN, by and through his undersigned counsel, for his Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Mitigating Circumstances, states and alleges as follows: 1. Admit 2. Admit 3. Admit 4. Admit 5. Admit 6. Admit 7. Admit, but affirmatively asserts that the audit also determined that all funds were used solely for the benefit of the Estate of Wilson Lucom. 8. Admits, that funds were transferred from the estate account into Mr. Lehman's Operating Account, but affirmatively states that no funds were retained by Mr. Lehman or by his law firm and that all funds were used for the benefit of the Estate of Wilson Lucom. 9. Admit, that for a brief period of time, that Respondent comingled funds by placing the funds in his Operating Account, but states that all funds were used for the benefit of the Estate of Wilson Lucom and that, as more particularly hereinafter set forth, that Mr. Lehman co-mingled the funds negligently and in an effort to protect those funds from dissipation by third parties from the Country of Panama. 145552.0060 I/I 00667802v. I 10. Admit that Mr. Lehman paid expenses of the Estate of Wilson Lucom from his operating account, rather than leaving the funds in the Estate Account, but affirmatively states that although Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Panama's Substantive Law on Captive Insurance Company
    PANAMA'S INCOME TAXATION AND CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY LAW - WHY FOREIGNERS ARE DOING BUSINESS FROM PANAMA By, Juan Pablo Fabrega, Senior Partner (Reviewed June 9, 2013 by Tom Cifelli, Managing Director, Captive Experts, LLC) INTRODUCTION Panama has been an important international financial center for over sixty years. Panama’s economy is primarily service-oriented. More than 70% of its Gross National Product (GDP) and 50% of the nation’s employment results from the service sector. Early after its independence from Colombia in 1903, Panama adopted a convenient and attractive fiscal legislation which, since then, has exempted from income tax the earnings or income generated, earned or produced abroad. This is the basis for our tax system, known as the “territorial concept of the income tax”. Panama’s tax legislation sets out that a taxpayer is any person or legal entity, national or foreign, receiving any income that is produced from any source within the territory of Panama, regardless of where it is received. Panamanian-sourced income is subject to income tax unless specifically exempted, without regard to the nationality, domicile or residence of the taxpayer or the place where a contract is executed or where the payment is made. As long as the income is not earned or produced in Panama, it will not be subject to income tax in this country. According to our fiscal legislation, there is no tax on any corporate or personal profits or dividends earned from foreign source income. Our Fiscal Code and regulatory provisions thereto expressly exempt from tax, among others, the income listed below as it is considered to be earned from offshore transactions: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter.Pmd
    34 ELEMENTS OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW 2 Connecting Factors INTRODUCTION Connecting factors are as many and varied as there are ways by which disputes may be linked to different countries. Some indication has already been given of the nature and diversity of such connections.1 As a rule, the law of the forum determines the meaning and decides upon the application of connective factors. The exceptions are generally provided by legislation, although this is not invariably so.2 In most cases, application of the lex fori is achieved without difficulty but judicial experience has demonstrated that the interpretation of certain connecting factors can be problematic. Chief among these is domicile, with which may be compared nationality and residence. Domicile, residence, and nationality are primarily important as linkages between individuals and the laws of specific countries but these concepts also have some relevance in the context of corporate transactions. It is convenient to examine these connecting factors in the context of personal matters separate and apart from corporate dealings. PERSONAL CONNECTING FACTORS Personal connecting factors are concepts used in private international law to describe the relationship between individuals and a particular country’s Connecting Factors 35 system of law. The relationship may be important for jurisdictional purposes in the sense that the presence of the connecting factor indicates the existence of competence in the courts of that country to hear and determine a certain dispute involving the individual. Identification of the connecting factor may also be significant to the process of ascertaining the governing law for disputes in a variety of areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Enforcement of American Judgments Abroad
    THE ENFORCEMENT OF AMERICAN JUDGMENTS ABROAI)l51 ElumsT G. Lo:RENZEN Professor of Law, Yale University Foreign countries enforcing American judgments on principle may decline to do so in particular classes of cases or for special reasons which must now be considered. FINALITY AND BINDING NATURE OF JUDGMENT Before a foreign judgment can be enforced it must be shown that it is subject to immediate execution in the ~ountry in which it was rendered. This fact must be established in the manner prescribed by the rules of procedure of the state in which the judgment is to be enforced. If the _foreign judgment was rendered in a country in which an appeal suspends execution thereon, the judgment cannot be enforced in any other state during the pendency of such appeal. Whether it will be enforced where the appeal in the foreign country does not operate as a supersedeas will depend upon the law of the state in which the judgment is presented for execution. Some countries permit the enforcement of foreign judgments in such a case.158 .The law of other countries requires the foreign judgment to be final in the sense that no further recourse is open in such foreign country with respect to the original proceedings.1119 =Continued from (I9I9) 29 YALE LAw JoURNAL, I88. ""'Austria: Law of May ZJ, IS¢, art. 8o (3) not subject to recourse which suspends its execution; Chile: art. 24.2 (4); Costa Rica: art. Io67 (3); England: Scott v. Pilkington (I862, Q. B.) 2 B. & S. n; France: App. Paris, May n, I867, Sirey (I87o) 2, Io; Trib.
    [Show full text]
  • International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
    INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES ICSID ARB. No. ARB/16/34 BRIDGESTONE LICENSING SERVICES, INC. BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC. Claimants vs. THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA Respondent REPLY 22 March 2019 Justin Williams, Katie Hyman, Johann Strauss Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction and Summary ............................................................................ 1 II. BSAM’s Claim for Denial of Justice Under Article 10.5 ............................ 15 III. BSLS’s Claim for Denial of Justice Under Article 10.5 .............................. 18 I V. Denial of Justice ............................................................................................. 20 V. The Flawed Court Proceedings in Panama ................................................. 34 VI. BSAM and BSLS’s Claims Under Articles 10.3 and 10.4 .......................... 39 VII. BSLS’s Damages of US $5,431,000 ............................................................... 40 VIII. BSAM and BSLS’s Damages in Excess of US $5,431,000 .......................... 42 IX. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 58 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Awards and Legal Decisions File Reference Full Citation Short Description Mobil Investments Canada Inc. and Murphy Oil Corp. v Canada, CLA-0038 (ENG) ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/4, Decision on Liability and on Mobil v. Canada Principles of Quantum (22 May 2012) Rumeli , Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomikasyon Hizmetleri Rumeli v. Republic of CLA-0070 (ENG) A.S. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award Kazakhstan of July 29, 2008 Mondev International Ltd v. United States of America, ICSID case CLA-0073 (ENG) Mondev v. United States ARB(AF)/99/2, Award 11 October 2002 American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San American Convention on CLA-0078 (ENG) José, November 1969) Human Rights Factory at Chorzów (Germany v.
    [Show full text]
  • High Court Judgment Template
    Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 822 (Admin) Case Nos: CO/1540/2019, CO/1541/2019, CO/1542/2019 CO/1543/2019, CO/1544/2019, CO/1545/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 8 April 2020 Before : MRS JUSTICE LANG DBE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY Applicant - and - (1) ANDREW J BAKER (2) VILLA MAGNA FOUNDATION (3) MANRICK PRIVATE FOUNDATION (4) ALDERTON INVESTMENTS LIMITED (5) TROPICANA ASSETS FOUNDATION Respondents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jonathan Hall QC and Tom Rainsbury (instructed by National Crime Agency Legal Department) for the Applicant Clare Montgomery QC and Ben Watson (instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP) for the First Second and Fifth Respondents Alison Pople QC and Aaron Watkins (instructed by Mishcon de Reya LLP) for the Third and Fourth Respondents Hearing dates: 10 & 11 March 2020 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and release to Bailii. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10.30 am on 8 April 2020. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. NCA v Baker + Ors Mrs Justice Lang : 1. This is an application by the Respondents, dated 4 September 2019, to discharge three unexplained wealth orders (“UWOs”) and related interim freezing orders (“IFOs”) (together “the Orders”) made by Supperstone J. on 22 May 2019, pursuant to sections 362A to 362R of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA 2002”). 2. Supperstone J. made the orders at an ex parte hearing of applications by the National Crime Agency (“NCA”), which were filed without notice to the Respondents.
    [Show full text]