Arbitral Digest

Matter

Claimant v Bi. Pi. Technology GmbH (Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court 4 Sch 9/17)

Case no.
DIS-SV-CB-1118/11
Seat
Germany
Applicable rules
DIS Arbitration Rules
Substantive governing law
Finnish law
  1. 12 May 2017Germany

    12 May 2017Germany

    Arbitral Award dated 12 May 2017

    German Arbitration Institute (DIS)

    Decision summary
    The tribunal ordered Bi. Pi. Technology GmbH to pay the Claimant €1,859,684.33 plus interest, return the bank guarantee, and pay €1,042,789.36 in costs. It terminated specified counterclaims, declared that Bi. Pi. Technology GmbH had no entitlement to those counterclaims, ordered the Claimant to pay €6,283,062.73 in costs, and dismissed the remaining claims and applications.

    Supporting details

    6 participants
    Claimant
    Bi. Pi. Technology GmbH
    German Arbitration Institute (DIS)
    Arbitrator
    C. L.
    Arbitrator
    H. E.
    Arbitrator
    R. P.
    Institutional administrator
    German Institution for Arbitration (DIS)

    2 months and 6 days later · 67 days

  2. 18 July 2017Germany

    18 July 2017Germany

    Decision on Correction and Supplementation of the Arbitral Award dated 18 July 2017

    German Arbitration Institute (DIS)

    Decision summary
    The tribunal corrected and supplemented the 12 May 2017 arbitral award.

    Supporting details

    6 participants
    Claimant
    Bi. Pi. Technology GmbH
    German Arbitration Institute (DIS)
    Arbitrator
    C. L.
    Arbitrator
    H. E.
    Arbitrator
    R. P.
    Institutional administrator
    German Institution for Arbitration (DIS)

    1 year, 3 months and 8 days later · 465 days

  3. 26 October 2018Germany

    26 October 2018Germany

    Decision of the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court in the case 4 Sch 9/17 dated 26 October 2018

    Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court

    Case no.
    4 Sch 9/17
    Decision summary
    The court declared the corrected 12 May 2017 arbitral award partly enforceable as to the paragraph 529 costs award, up to €3,102,350.51. It dismissed the arbitration claimant's application insofar as it sought a larger enforceable amount, ordered the arbitration claimant to bear the court proceedings' costs, held the decision provisionally enforceable, and set the value in dispute at up to €170 million.

    Supporting details

    23 authorities · 2 participants
    Bi. Pi. Technology GmbH
    Claimant
    Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court

    Authorities cited

    23
    • German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO)
      statute
    • German Basic Law (GG)
      statute
    • German Court Costs Act (GKG)
      statute
    • Finnish Interest Act
      statute
    • RGG
      statute
    • German Construction Contract Procedures, Part B (VOB/B)
      statute
    • BGH, NJW 2014, 1597 (NJW 2014, 1597)
      case-law
    • OLG Köln, 19 Sch 8/13 (BeckRS 2013, 16598) (19 Sch 8/13 (BeckRS 2013, 16598))
      case-law
    • OLG Köln, SchiedsVZ 2012, 161 (SchiedsVZ 2012, 161)
      case-law
    • OLG München, BB 2017, 193 (BeckRS 2017, 100032) (BB 2017, 193 (BeckRS 2017, 100032))
      case-law
    • OLG Köln, 9 Sch 18/02 (BeckRS 2012, 1194) (9 Sch 18/02 (BeckRS 2012, 1194))
      case-law
    • OLG Celle, 13 Sch 1/15 [Kart] 7 Sch 3/15 (BeckRS 2016, 124988) (13 Sch 1/15 [Kart] 7 Sch 3/15 (BeckRS 2016, 124988))
      case-law
    • BGH, NJW 2018, 70 (NJW 2018, 70)
      case-law
    • BGH, NJW-RR 2016, 1464 (NJW-RR 2016, 1464)
      case-law
    • BGH, NJW 2005, 1650 (NJW 2005, 1650)
      case-law
    • OLG Köln, NJOZ 2018, 949 (NJOZ 2018, 949)
      case-law
    • BGH, BeckRS 1957, 31202313 (BeckRS 1957, 31202313)
      case-law
    • OLG Frankfurt, NJOZ 2018, 584 (NJOZ 2018, 584)
      case-law
    • MüKo-Münch Commentary
      academic
    • Musielak-Voit
      academic
    • DIS Arbitration Rules, § 26 I 2
      statute
    • OLG München, SchiedsVZ 2015, 303 (SchiedsVZ 2015, 303)
      case-law
    • YSE 1998 General Conditions for Building Contracts (YSE 1998)
      statute

Matter record

Report a correction

Claimant v Bi. Pi. Technology GmbH (Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court 4 Sch 9/17) · Matter