{"title":"全球索求法:埃及和阿拉伯联合酋长国发展的成熟领域","authors":"E. Rankin, Bryan Dayton","doi":"10.54648/bcdr2017010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The authors consider whether global claims are permissible in the Middle East. Global claims permit a construction contractor to claim for damages without demonstrating the precise causal link between its contractual counterparty’s conduct and the contractor’s claimed damages. The topic of global claims has been thrust into the spotlight as a result of the English High Court’s decision in ‘Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v. Mackay & Anor’, which reaffirmed and expanded the permissibility of global claims in England. However, despite ‘Walter Lilly’, the scope of global claims in England appears limited. This is similar to the position of US law, which permits total loss claims (the US equivalent of global claims) in rare circumstances and prefers the use of other methodologies to calculate damages. While acknowledging that the position in the Middle East is largely uncertain, the authors argue that the obstacles faced by contractors in raising global claims in England and total loss claims in the United States are not as significant in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. As a consequence, the authors predict that courts and arbitral tribunals applying Middle Eastern laws should be more receptive to global claims than they otherwise would be when applying English and US law.","PeriodicalId":166341,"journal":{"name":"BCDR International Arbitration Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Law on Global Claims: An Area Ripe for Development in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates\",\"authors\":\"E. Rankin, Bryan Dayton\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/bcdr2017010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The authors consider whether global claims are permissible in the Middle East. Global claims permit a construction contractor to claim for damages without demonstrating the precise causal link between its contractual counterparty’s conduct and the contractor’s claimed damages. The topic of global claims has been thrust into the spotlight as a result of the English High Court’s decision in ‘Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v. Mackay & Anor’, which reaffirmed and expanded the permissibility of global claims in England. However, despite ‘Walter Lilly’, the scope of global claims in England appears limited. This is similar to the position of US law, which permits total loss claims (the US equivalent of global claims) in rare circumstances and prefers the use of other methodologies to calculate damages. While acknowledging that the position in the Middle East is largely uncertain, the authors argue that the obstacles faced by contractors in raising global claims in England and total loss claims in the United States are not as significant in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. As a consequence, the authors predict that courts and arbitral tribunals applying Middle Eastern laws should be more receptive to global claims than they otherwise would be when applying English and US law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":166341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BCDR International Arbitration Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BCDR International Arbitration Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/bcdr2017010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BCDR International Arbitration Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/bcdr2017010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
作者考虑了全球索赔在中东是否被允许。全球索赔允许建筑承包商索赔损害,而无需证明其合同对手方的行为与承包商索赔的损害之间的确切因果关系。由于英国高等法院在“Walter Lilly & Company Ltd . v. Mackay & Anor”一案中的判决,全球索赔的话题被推到了聚光灯下,该判决重申并扩大了全球索赔在英国的许可范围。然而,尽管有“沃尔特礼来”,英国的全球索赔范围似乎有限。这与美国法律的立场类似,美国法律允许在极少数情况下提出全损索赔(相当于美国的全球索赔),并倾向于使用其他方法来计算损害赔偿。虽然承认中东地区的情况在很大程度上是不确定的,但作者认为,承包商在英国提出全球索赔和在美国提出全损索赔时所面临的障碍在埃及和阿拉伯联合酋长国并不那么严重。因此,作者预测,与适用英国和美国法律相比,适用中东法律的法院和仲裁法庭应该更容易接受全球索赔。
The Law on Global Claims: An Area Ripe for Development in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates
The authors consider whether global claims are permissible in the Middle East. Global claims permit a construction contractor to claim for damages without demonstrating the precise causal link between its contractual counterparty’s conduct and the contractor’s claimed damages. The topic of global claims has been thrust into the spotlight as a result of the English High Court’s decision in ‘Walter Lilly & Company Ltd v. Mackay & Anor’, which reaffirmed and expanded the permissibility of global claims in England. However, despite ‘Walter Lilly’, the scope of global claims in England appears limited. This is similar to the position of US law, which permits total loss claims (the US equivalent of global claims) in rare circumstances and prefers the use of other methodologies to calculate damages. While acknowledging that the position in the Middle East is largely uncertain, the authors argue that the obstacles faced by contractors in raising global claims in England and total loss claims in the United States are not as significant in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. As a consequence, the authors predict that courts and arbitral tribunals applying Middle Eastern laws should be more receptive to global claims than they otherwise would be when applying English and US law.