International Arbitration V2

International Arbitration

Our Footprint

Learn More

For over 50 years, Exponent has provided arbitration expertise to clients all over the world. Our experience in courts of law and global arbitration forums offers clients valuable, rigorous analysis they can trust.

LITIGATION, ARBITRATION & DISPUTES

Chemical

Construction & Infrastructure

Oil & Gas

Transportation

Utilities

Our established testifying experts have international experience in high-profile matters and high-stakes litigation.

Industries We Serve

With decades of experience providing expert and advisory services, Exponent is recognized for its integrity, objectivity, independence, and professionalism.

Asia Africa Europe North America Oceania South America

888.656.EXPO(within the U.S.) 650.326.9400(outside the U.S.) info@exponent.com

Offices Project Locations

Electric Utility vs. Nuclear Equipment

ICC-Rules Arbitration

Gas Pipe Manufacturer vs. Steel Supplier

ICC-Rules Arbitration

A Pipeline Partnership vs. Multiple Construction Companies

ICC-Rules Arbitration

Architecture/ Engineering Design Firm vs. Construction Joint Venture

ICC-Rules Arbitration

Explore Experience

An electric utility submitted a claim to arbitration under International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules against a nuclear equipment vendor, seeking to hold the vendor responsible for defects discovered in critical equipment at a nuclear power plant. The utility asserted that the vendor failed to properly design the equipment components and systems and that they were contractually required to repair or replace them but failed to do so. The vendor responded that the equipment was designed and manufactured with the utility’s full supervision and approval and in accordance with well-established and accepted codes and standards. As part of the dispute, Exponent was retained by outside counsel for the utility. Our role was to perform an independent investigation as to the cause of the observed defects and a detailed review of the vendor’s design-stage analysis of the equipment and their proposed repair. Exponent testified at the arbitration hearing.

Electric Utility vs. Nuclear Equipment Vendor ICC-Rules Arbitration

As part of the construction of a major transnational natural gas pipeline, a gas pipe manufacturer contracted with a steel supplier for plate material. During pipe fabrication, the manufacturer noticed defects in the plate material being supplied, and a dispute arose between the two parties as to the root cause of the defects. Claims were submitted to arbitration by a three-member tribunal under International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules. Exponent was retained by outside counsel for the pipe manufacturer. Our scope of work included an independent assessment of the root cause of defects in the plate material and determination of whether those defects would render the plate unfit for its intended purpose. Exponent testified at the arbitration hearing.

Gas Pipe Manufacturer vs. Steel Supplier ICC-Rules Arbitration

A pipeline partnership contracted with multiple construction companies to design and construct a major crude oil pipeline. During construction of the pipeline, inspectors reported apparent non-conformances to project specifications and the applicable codes and standards. These non-conformances were significant in nature and affected the structural integrity of the pipeline. A dispute arose out of the discovery of these non-conformances, and claims were submitted to arbitration by a three-member tribunal under International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules. Exponent was retained by outside counsel for the pipeline partnership to independently assess the impact of alleged non-conformances on the structural integrity of the pipeline. As part of our evaluation, we reviewed design drawings and applicable standards and conducted advanced finite element analysis. Exponent testified at the arbitration hearing.

A Pipeline Partnership vs. Multiple Construction Companies ICC-Rules Arbitration

As part of the construction of a major urban metro rail system in the Middle East, a construction joint venture (JV) contracted with an architecture/engineering (A/E) design firm to develop detailed design documents and specifications for tunnels, underground stations, elevated stations, viaducts, and other civil infrastructure associated with the metro development. The A/E firm alleged that the baseline design as required by the owner and JV continually changed, requiring multiple updates to the detailed design that affected the A/E firm’s ability to meet key contractual milestones. A dispute arose between the two parties as to the root cause of the necessary changes and whether the design provided by the A/E firm met the applicable standard of care in the metro rail industry. Exponent was retained by outside counsel for the A/E firm. Our scope of work included performing an independent assessment of the root causes of the design changes, the level of completion of the design documents relative to contractually defined milestones, and whether the design provided by the A/E firm was appropriate relative to the industry standard of care. Exponent prepared a written report and gave evidence at the arbitration hearings.

Architecture/Engineering Design Firm vs. Construction Joint Venture ICC-Rules Arbitration

Construction Joint Venture vs. EPC Contractor

LCIA-Rules Arbitration

Mine Owner vs. Engineering & Procurement Contractor

SIAC-Rules Arbitration

Government Entity vs. EPCM Contractor

ICC-Rules Arbitration

EPC Subcontractor vs. EPC Prime Contractor

ICC-Rules Arbitration

A major joint venture (JV) of two large general contractors filed a claim with the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) against a large engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractor, seeking an adjustment to their fixed-price contract based on changes made to their scope of construction work on a nuclear power plant in the Middle East. The JV asserted over 25 claims related to a wide variety of technical matters, including design changes made after award of tender, alleged defects to below-ground concrete structures, and various standard-of-care issues related to the design and construction of both nuclear island structures and ancillary structures at the site. The EPC contractor responded and counterclaimed, alleging that the JV’s claims were for work that was included under the original contract, and denied an adjustment to the fixed price. As part of the dispute, Exponent was appointed as an expert by outside counsel for the JV. Our role in the arbitration was to perform an investigation into the proximate causes of the changes made to the construction scope, analyze the alleged construction defects, and render opinions regarding the issues in the context of the nuclear industry standard of care. Exponent gave expert evidence on behalf of the JV at the arbitration hearings in London in November 2018, providing several days of direct testimony and cross examination.

Construction Joint Venture vs. EPC Contractor LCIA-Rules Arbitration

An owner of a mine filed a claim with the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC) against a large engineering and procurement (EP) contractor, seeking damages based on extra costs due to alleged design errors and delays to ore commissioning. The owner asserted 16 specific claims related to the civil and structural design of plant facilities, including design revisions made after issuance of issued-for-construction (IFC) drawings and various standard-of-care issues related to the design of steel structures and an embankment dam. The EP contractor responded, alleging that the owner’s claimed design errors were instead revisions made during the design process and that the claimed damages were a result of the owner’s actions. As part of the dispute, Exponent was appointed as an expert by outside counsel for the EP contractor. Our role in the arbitration was to perform an investigation into alleged design errors and to render opinions regarding the issues in the context of the engineering industry standard of care. Exponent prepared a comprehensive written report and gave expert evidence on behalf of the EP contractor at the arbitration hearings in Sydney in November 2017.

Mine Owner vs. Engineering & Procurement Contractor SIAC-Rules Arbitration

An owner of an international airport filed a claim with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) against a large engineering, procurement, and construction management (EPCM) contractor, seeking damages based on extra costs and delays due to alleged design and construction management errors that occurred during design and construction of the airport. The owner asserted several claims related to the civil and structural design of airport facilities, including design and specification errors for concrete and steel structures as well as concrete bridges. The EPCM contractor responded, alleging that the owner’s claimed design and construction management errors were instead changes that resulted from owner-instructed changes. As part of the dispute, Exponent has been appointed as an expert by outside counsel for the owner of the airport. Our role in the arbitration is to perform an investigation into alleged design and construction management errors and to render opinions regarding the issues in the context of the engineering industry standard of care. We will give expert evidence on behalf of the owner of the airport at the arbitration hearings in London in April 2022.

Government Entity vs. EPCM Contractor ICC-Rules Arbitration

An engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) subcontractor for structures at a solar power plant filed a claim with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) against the prime contractor for the plant, seeking damages for design and construction costs that were allegedly unpaid to them. The EPC subcontractor asserted several claims related to structural design and construction, including extra design that resulted from errors in the prime contractor’s scope of work. The prime contractor responded and counterclaimed, alleging that the subcontractor’s work contained design errors that resulted in delays and extra costs to the project. As part of the dispute, Exponent was appointed as an expert by outside counsel for the EPC subcontractor. Our role in the arbitration was to perform an investigation into alleged design and construction errors and to render opinions regarding the issues in the context of the engineering industry standard of care. We gave expert evidence on behalf of the EPC subcontractor at the arbitration hearings in Paris in November 2019.

EPC Subcontractor vs. EPC Prime Contractor ICC-Rules Arbitration

Explore Our ExpertS

Angola

Nigeria

Seattle

SF Bay Area

Sacramento

Denver

Chicago

Austin

Houston

Detroit

Washington DC

Philadelphia

New York

Boston

Canada

United States

Harrogate, UK

Derby, UK

London, UK

Basel, Switzerland

Germany

Poland

Shanghai, China

Hong Kong

Singapore

Taiwan

Thailand

Vietnam

Yemen

Uzbekistan

South Korea

Laos

Malaysia

Macao

Kazakhstan

Jordan

Israel

Iraq

Bangladesh

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Georgia

Japan

Philippines

France

Brunei

Virgin Islands, U.S.

Costa Rica

Nicaragua

Panama

Spain

New Zealand

Ecuador

Brazil

Peru

Australia

United Arab Emirates

Morocco

Egypt

Sweden

United Kingdom

Paris, France

Slovakia