The impacts of third-party funding on cost decisions in investment arbitration

The involvement of Third-party Funding (TPF) in investment arbitration disrupts the balance between the parties to an arbitration. Though a party's reliance on external funding represents its impecuniousness to participate in an arbitration, many financially sound investors take TPF to reduce the risk associated with bringing a claim or are unwilling to stick their working capital in arbitration. The existence of TPF in arbitration is a material factor in deciding an order for security for arbitration costs. The third-party funder funds an investor to initiate arbitration and gets benefits from a cost award. However, the funder does not share an investor's responsibility to pay an adverse cost. The funder's immunity from adverse costs aggravates the demand for security for costs in a funded arbitration. While a claimant's reliance on TPF is considered a material factor in issuing an order for security for its cost, this consideration, counter-wise, legitimizes the cost of funding as arbitration costs. Accordingly, the funding cost can be recoverable through an adverse cost award. The TPF consideration in an order for security for costs makes the funding arrangement a part of the arbitration proceedings. If the funding position of a party is considered in deciding an application for security for costs, it deserves equal consideration in awarding adverse arbitration costs. Establishing the funding cost as arbitration costs will increase the cost of the international arbitration and unjustly transfer public money to private entities.