The first quarter of 2017 has been an exciting one for the QICDRC with the passing of Law No 2 of 2017 issuing the Arbitration Law in Civil and Commercial Matters. Now fully in force, Parties arbitrating pursuant to the provisions of this new law may elect the QFC Court as the “Competent Court” of the arbitration. More is said about that, as well as other matters relating to the Court and Regulatory Tribunal, below.

 
Arbitration- implementation and awareness
The State of Qatar’s new arbitration law came into force on the 13th April 2017. The QICDRC marked the occasion by holding a seminar the day before which focused on the role of the QFC Court under the new law as well as addressing the broader issue of ‘what this new law means for Qatar’. I, along with the CEO of the QICDRC and Professor Khawar Qureshi of McNair Chambers, took the opportunity when addressing a room comprising local, regional and international practitioners, to reveal, for the first time, the QICDRC-approved English translation of the new law as well as the QICDRC Dispute Resolution Clause, both of which are available on the QICDRC website.
The new law- which impacts all existing, as well as future, arbitrations- provides parties with the opportunity to select the “Competent Court”, whether it be the Civil and Commercial Arbitral Disputes Circuit in the Court of Appeals, or the First Instance Circuit of the Civil and Commercial Court of the Qatar Financial Centre. This ability to choose gives parties the option to select the Court which they consider to be the most appropriate, taking into account, amongst other things, the nature of the agreement and the types of dispute(s) which may arise.
The Competent Court may undertake a number of functions, including the appointment and removal of arbitrators, determining challenges to jurisdiction, assisting with the taking of evidence, correcting awards, hearing appeals against awards as well as challenges to decisions relating to enforcement. On the subject of enforcement, the “Competent Judge” (which, in the case of the QFC Court, is the designated Enforcement Judge) will be responsible for enforcing interim measures and awards.
Practitioners and those entering into arbitration agreements are advised to familiarise themselves with the provisions of this new law and, where they wish to elect the QFC Court as the Competent Court, to use the words prescribed by the new QICDRC Dispute Resolution Clause.   
 
Case Management
Earlier this year the QICDRC announced that it had awarded its contract for the build of a new case management system to the Singaporean based company Crimson Logic. The project is well under way and I look forward to announcing the availability of a new, dynamic, case management system for Court and Regulatory Tribunal users in the latter part of this year. 
Cases- costs
In Case No 1 of 2016, in a judgment dated the 5 March 2017, I took the opportunity to identify the principles to be applied in cases where a Costs Assessment proves necessary following a trial or other hearing. At paragraphs 10-12 of the judgment, I observed as follows:

How is the issue of reasonableness to be approached? In my judgment, in order to be recoverable costs must be both reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount. If they are not then they are unlikely to be recoverable. 

 

I have identified the following (non-exhaustive) list of factors which will ordinarily fall to be considered when assessing whether or not costs have been reasonably incurred by a party and, if they have, whether they are also reasonable in amount:

 

Proportionality;
The conduct of the parties (both before and during the proceedings);
Efforts made to try and resolve the dispute without recourse to litigation             (for example through Alternative Dispute Resolution); 
Whether any reasonable settlement offers were made and rejected; and
The extent to which the party seeking to recover costs has been successful.

 

When considering the proportionality factor, the following (again non-exhaustive) factors are likely to fall to be considered:

 

In monetary or property claims, the amount or value involved;
The importance of the matter(s) raised to the parties;
The complexity of the matter(s);
The difficulty or novelty of any particular point(s) raised;
The time spent on the case;
The manner in which work on the case was undertaken; and
The appropriate use of resources by the parties including, where appropriate, the use of available information and communications technology.   

The judgment, in particular the paragraphs cited above, will hopefully assist parties in future cases as to relevant considerations when drafting schedules and submissions relating to costs. The full text of the judgment, as with other judgments of the Court and Regulatory Tribunal, is available on the QICDRC website.