'Whether the Claimant is entitled by reason of Clauses 13.1, 13.16 and 13.8 of the FIDIC Conditions to recover the financing charges as claimed in Schedule 1 and if so, the amount recoverable.

.........

47. In the present case, the Claimant contended at paragraph 41 of its Closing Statement that as the figures in the Final Payment Certificate issued by the Employer's Representative "have been the subject of lengthy negotiation and agreement within the procedures and authorities prescribed in Sub-Clauses 13.11 and 13.13 the Arbitrator should be slow to interfere with those figures".

48. The Claimant has also at paragraph 27 of its Closing Statement submitted that:

The Arbitral Tribunal is bound by what the Employer's Representative had agreed in the Final Payment Certificate "because it was agreed as that agreement was both within the procedures set out in Clause 13 of the Conditions of Contract and within the authority of the Employer's Representative given to him expressly by the Contract. Again, it is of the essence of commercial arbitration that agreements between the parties that are properly made within proper authority should be given effect".

49. The Claimant's contention in effect amounts to stating that so long as the procedures in the FIDIC Conditions relating to the claims have been complied with and the action of the Employer's Representative appears to be within his authority, the Respondents can no longer dispute the same. In the present case following this argument, the Final Payment Certificate would represent a binding agreement between the Claimant and the First Respondent which must be given effect under Clause 13.13 of the FIDIC Conditions. If the Claimant's contention is correct, it would follow that so long as sums in the Final Payment Certificate following negotiations between the Employer's Representative and the Claimant have been agreed between them, then the Respondents are bound to pay such sums in the Final Payment Certificate regardless of whether the Employer's Representative has the authority of the First Respondent to enter into such an agreement in the first place.

50. The Claimant while making reference to the FIDIC Conditions on the general authority of the Employer's Representative has not been able to refer to any document showing the express written authority given by the First Respondent to the Employer's Representative to agree with the Claimant's claim for financing charges, overheads and exchange rate losses on their behalf. It is highly unlikely that the Employer would have granted the Employer's Representative authority to agree with the Claimant's exchange rate losses when it believes that such a claim is not maintainable under the Agreement.

51. It is noted that the Respondents have in their Defence denied that the Employer's Representative was competent to certify the amounts stated as payable in the Final Payment Certificate for financing charges, overhead claims and exchange rate losses arising from the deductions and refund of the VAT [Value Added Tax] and additional AIT [Advance Income Tax] charges. It is clear that the Respondents have not given any express or implied authority to the Employer's Representative to agree on what they regard as non-contractual claims by the Claimant.

52. Accordingly, for the above reasons, I am of the view that in respect of the Claimant's Primary Case, the Sole Arbitrator is not bound by the amounts stated in the Final Payment Certificate as being payable to the Claimant. The Sole Arbitrator may disallow such claims that the Claimant fails to show that it is so entitled to payment pursuant to the Contract Conditions. Further, in respect of the Claimant's contention that the Sole Arbitrator should not interfere on what has been agreed between the Claimant and the First Respondent, it is clear from the Respondents' Answer to the Claimant's Request for Arbitration and the Respondents' Closing Statement that they deny that the Final Payment Certificate represents an agreement between the Respondents and the Claimant. As such, my findings as to the actual amounts due and payable to the Claimant in this arbitration (including such amounts as may be due under the Final Payment Certificate) are not contrary to the terms of any agreement made between the Respondents and the Claimant.

53. I shall now deal with the specific financing charges claimed by the Claimant in Schedule 1. The Claimant states in its Primary Case that it is entitled to claim financing charges under Clause 13.8 of the FIDIC Conditions on the basis of non-payment of sums due under the Final Payment Certificate as the FIDIC Conditions recognize that any delay by the Claimant in making payment of the amounts certified as due should be compensated by financing charges. As for the applicable interest rate, the Claimant contends that Clause 13.8 of the FIDIC Conditions should apply and that the rate should be at the rate of three percentage points above the discount rate of the Central Bank of [State X] for [State X currency] and the Bank of England for Pounds Sterling, compounded monthly for the period of delay.

54. The Claimant further contends in its Alternative Case under Clause 13.16 of the FIDIC Conditions that the same method of calculation of the cost of financing applicable to Clause 13.8 should be used to calculate the financing charges.

55. In my view, the Claimant for the reasons as set out in paragraphs 35, 36, 37 and 38 above is entitled to assume that the VAT and the AIT legislation would remain unchanged from the Base Date during the duration of the Contract Works. If there is a change in legislation for VAT and AIT resulting in the Claimant incurring "Cost" as defined under Clause 1.1.5.6 of the FIDIC Conditions, the Claimant may rely on Clause 13.16 to claim such "cost" thereby incurred. In respect of the Claimant's financing charges claim, I accept that the Claimant would have lost the use of the monies deducted and refunded by the Respondents for the VAT and the additional AIT from the time of their deduction to the time of their refund. This would necessarily be an expenditure incurred by the Claimant as it is reasonable to expect the Claimant to have made use of the monies withheld during the period of the deduction and refund.

56. As such, I find for the reasons set out in paragraph 55 above that Clause 13.16 of the FIDIC Conditions is applicable and available to the Claimant as the basis for its claim for the refund of the monies deducted for VAT and additional AIT by the Respondents.

57. Following from this finding, I find that the Claimant is entitled in principle to its claim for financing charges for the amounts deducted and refunded by the Respondents for the VAT. As for the applicable interest rate, I accept the rate of three percentage points above the discount rate of the Central Bank of [State X] for [State X currency] and the Bank of England for Pounds Sterling, compounded monthly for the period of delay. The Claimant's calculations as set out in the Witness Statement of [Claimant's witness] for the basis of its claim for financing charges under Schedule 1 have not been challenged by the Respondents during the hearing. I have no reason to doubt the correctness of these calculations.

58. In the premises, I find that the Claimant succeeds in its claim for the following financing charges under Schedule 1 for the total sum of [amount] plus [amount] (being tax at 8.5% on this sum.) This tax at 8.5% on the amount awarded comprises of 4% AIT and 4.5% VAT on the amounts awarded by the Sole Arbitrator as claimed by the Claimant. This is on the basis that the Claimant will be liable to pay tax at 8.5 % to the Second Respondent on the amounts awarded to it in this arbitration. As set out at paragraph 62 of the Witness Statement of [Claimant's witness], the addition of the total 8.5% tax (4% AIT and 4.5% VAT) is to enable the Second Respondent to make a tax deduction in accordance with the taxation requirements when making payment of the sums awarded in this arbitration. Hence, the total amount due is [amount] (including 8.5% applicable tax). Accordingly, I find that the Claimant is entitled to payment of the sum of [amount] (including 8.5% applicable tax) as financing charges. The breakdown of this sum is as follows: ...

59. The next issue which I have to determine is whether the Claimant is entitled by reason of Clauses 13.1 and 13.16 of the FIDIC Conditions to recover the overhead charges as claimed in Schedule 1 of the Claimant's Statement of Case and if so the amount that will be recoverable.

60. In order for the Claimant to succeed in this claim, it will have to show the basis or entitlement under the Contract Conditions for this overhead claim, and how it had incurred this expenditure resulting from the monies that were deducted and refunded to it for the VAT and additional AIT. In particular, the Claimant must be able to show that such expenditure as incurred by it constitutes "Cost" as defined under Clause 1.1.5.6 of the FIDIC Conditions.

61. In this regard, the Claimant in its Closing Statement contends that overheads include contribution to off-site overheads and that as with all off-site overheads this falls to be calculated as a percentage of turnover. It then referred to a letter from the Claimant to the Employer's Representative dated 21 June 2005 ... which confirmed that in the interest of achieving an acceptable settlement, the Claimant would agree to an amount of 7.67% of the monies deducted and returned ... for its overhead claim. The breakdown of the agreed 7.67% for its overhead claim is as follows:

Head office overhead: 5.67%

Contractors' All Risks insurance: 1%

Agent's fees: 1%

Total 7.67%

62. It contends that overheads incurred were head office overheads as opposed to site overheads and that "head office overheads are a regular and necessary cost involved in the operation of any construction company". It then submitted that it "is a universally-accepted norm that the recovery of these costs is made by way of a percentage applied to expenditure/turnover".

63. As for the Contractors' All Risks insurance, it contends that "premiums paid for such cover are calculated as a percentage based on turnover".

64. As for the Agent's fees it contends that "on overseas contracts the Claimant engaged a local agent and his fees were 1% of all certified sums". Accordingly the Claimant contended that it incurred additional expenditure of 1% as Agent's Fees on the reimbursed tax amounts that were certified by the Employer's Representative and paid by the Respondents.

65. I am unable to accept the basis of the Claimant's head office overhead claims. I do not agree with the Claimant that head office overheads were incurred as a result of monies that had been deducted and refunded by the Respondents for VAT and additional AIT. During the period when these monies were withheld, I do not see how additional head office overheads could have been incurred by the Claimant.

66. The incurring of additional costs of head office overheads is not related in any way to the expenditure incurred for the period when the monies were deducted and refunded for the VAT and additional AIT. If any additional head office overheads had been incurred, such costs must result from the additional time it took to complete the Works. If the Project completion period was not prolonged by the deduction and refund of the VAT and additional AIT, and where the Claimant has already been compensated by financing costs for the period of withholding of such monies, I do not see the basis of how a claim for additional head office overheads can be made.

67. The computation of the loss for head office overheads cannot be based solely on a percentage of turnover (in this case the amount of the monies withheld) as submitted by the Claimant. If the contract period had not been prolonged resulting from the deductions and refund of the monies for VAT and additional AIT, no additional head office overheads would have been incurred by the Claimant. In any event, the Claimant has not in the arbitration adduced evidence to show how it had incurred additional head office overheads based on the 5.67% of the monies retained.

68. In respect of the claim of 1% of the monies retained for "insurance premiums", again I do not see how the payment of an additional insurance premium by the Claimant to its insurers could have caused by the deductions and refunds of the monies for VAT and additional AIT. The calculation of the quantum of insurance premium for the Works is usually fixed in advance based on the Project costs, potential third party liabilities, the nature and risks associated with the Works and the time period for the completion of the Works among other factors. For the Claimant to succeed in its claim that it had incurred additional insurance premiums as a result of the said monies being deducted and refunded, it has to provide evidence that it had to pay additional insurance premiums to its insurer arising from the deduction and refund of such monies. No such evidence was provided.

69. Further, the Claimant failed to provide any evidence on how this additional insurance premium fixed at 1% of the monies retained had been incurred by them as a result of the said monies being withheld and refunded. It is not sufficient to refer to a letter from the Claimant to the Employer's Representative which contains reference to the 1% claim of the monies deducted and refunded as additional insurance premium without any explanation of how this figure is arrived at and how this "expenditure" was incurred. This 1% figure is an arbitrary figure agreed upon between the Claimant and the Employer's Representative as a compromise figure without any real understanding or inquiry of how such "expenditure" was actually incurred. Accordingly, I disallow the Claimant's claim for this item.

70. As for the claim of 1% of the Agent's fees, again this item of claim appears to be totally unrelated to and is not caused by the deductions and refunds of the monies for VAT and additional AIT. No evidence was provided by the Claimant to show how the payment of the additional 1% of its Agent's fee was caused by the deduction and refund of the VAT and additional AIT by the Respondents. I have my doubts on whether the fees payable by the Claimant to its Agent is a legitimate expenditure which it may claim against the First Respondent under the Contract Conditions in the first place. It cannot be said that payment of Agent's fees by a foreign contractor to his local agent is an expenditure which is claimable under the Contract Conditions of most standard forms of building contract. In my view, such payments to the local agent would not constitute "Cost" under Clause 1.1.5.6 of the FIDIC Conditions and I find that the Claimant is not entitled to its claim for this as part of its overhead claim.

71. The evidence of [Claimant's witness] given at the hearing for the basis of the overhead claim was essentially that the Claimant felt that this item of claim could be recovered as part of the "Cost" incurred pursuant to the definition of cost under Clause 1.1.5.6 of the FIDIC Conditions. Clause 1.1.5.6 includes as cost, "overhead" arising from a claim under Clause 13.16.

72. In any case, he gave evidence that the Employer's Representative had already certified in the Final Payment Claim that overheads should be paid and as such the Claimant is entitled to such a claim in this arbitration. [Claimant's witness] however was not able to explain how the Claimant had actually incurred the overhead costs claimed. He said that the 7.67% was a percentage agreed with the Employer's Representative. His evidence on the basis of this claim can be found in the Transcripts ...:

Arbitrator: You see, my understanding of overhead charges is really if the works had been prolonged, I understand you incur overheads, but in a case like this, where monies are withheld or where monies are deducted and paid back to you, and you have actually made a claim for financing charges in respect of the deduction and the refund and the loss of interest for this monies which you could have used, and you have also claimed for loss of exchange in terms of the fluctuation of exchange rates, I'm just wondering what other losses would you suffer? It's easy to say overheads, but what is the actual loss that you've suffered?

A. What is the actual loss? Well, we've been put ( by way of the change in legislation, we've been put to considerable time and expense in pursuing that entitlement, for one. My time -

Arbitrator: Is that claimable, as part of overheads? Do you understand what I am trying to ask you?

A. Yes, I think I do. I believe I do. That's in the discussions and negotiations leading up to the final payment certificate issued by the employer's representative, there was various other issues and some concessions made by the claimant to achieve a negotiation settlement, and part and parcel of those negotiations, the employer's representative determined and had agreed to the inclusion of an overhead on the change in legislation costs attributed to the tax.

Arbitrator: Yes, but I'm not bound by what the ER has agreed. I just want to see what is the basis of your entitlement for the overhead. I can understand if your works have been delayed, you will incur overheads, for which you want to be paid. But where you are claiming for monies that have been withheld and you're claiming interest and exchange losses, I'm just wondering what other losses would you have suffered?

A. What other losses? I would agree with you, it's difficult to argue a loss in that context, in the same context of an exchange rate or the financing loss.

Arbitrator: Because the definition of under Clause 1.5.6 includes overheads, it doesn't include financing charges, but you can argue it's part of overheads, but the term "overhead" is not something which allows someone to make, you know, any kind of claim that you want. There still must be some basis for the claim. I mean, I don't know how you got the ( there is the explanation of why 7.6 per cent, but really, I need to find out from you why this claim for overheads, in the way that it is claimed?

A. To answer that, sir, the only thing I can say is that in accordance with the contract, under Clause 13.16, the ER has determined and certified additional sums in respect to the change in legislation, and off the back of that, pursuant to 13.16, he's allowed for an overhead. I can't really answer it in any ( or give any further explanation than that.

Arbitrator: But actually you made the claim, that's why he gave the overhead ( he allowed the overhead claim. So when you made that claim, on what basis do you make that claim? You cannot push it to the ER because the ER certified what you have claimed.

A. Purely on the basis that in accordance with the contract under 13.16, we have an entitlement to recover the costs.

Arbitrator: Which you are recovering in terms of the financing charges from the monies that you -

A. Agreed, sir. And purely in accordance with the definitions provided in the contract, that that cost includes for an overhead, and it's no more complicated than that. That's purely the basis on which it was inserted into the account.

73. The evidence of [Claimant's witness] reveals that the Claimant has no real understanding of the basis for its overhead claim. It relies on the definition of Cost in Clause 1.1.5.6 of the FIDIC Conditions as including overheads as the basis for its claim. For this claim to succeed, it is not sufficient to contend that the Employer's Representative has certified this claim as being payable in the Final Payment Certificate. The evidence of [Claimant's witness] as set out above and in particular the following extract from the Transcript quoted above supports my view:

Arbitrator: But actually you made the claim, that's why he gave the overhead ( he allowed the overhead claim. So when you made that claim, on what basis do you make that claim? You cannot push it to the ER because the ER certified what you have claimed.

A. Purely on the basis that in accordance with the contract under 13.16, we have an entitlement to recover the costs.

Arbitrator: Which you are recovering in terms of the financing charges from the monies that you -

A. Agreed, sir. And purely in accordance with the definitions provided in the contract, that that cost includes for an overhead, and it's no more complicated than that. That's purely the basis on which it was inserted into the account.

74. It is noted that during the hearing and in his Witness Statement [Claimant's witness] did not refer to the Claimant's letter ... to the Employer's Representative as the evidentiary basis for the Claimant's overhead claim. If he had done so, the Respondents would have had the opportunity to cross-examine him on this aspect of his evidence.

75. In my view, the Claimant has failed to make out its claim for overheads incurred as a result of the deduction and refund of the monies for the VAT. It has failed to show how they have incurred this cost. The manner in which it arrived at the figure of 7.67% of the monies deducted and refunded is purely arbitrary and was intended as a compromise figure. The fact that the Employer's Representative had certified this sum as being due to the Claimant in the Final Payment Certificate does not mean that the First Respondent must pay this sum if in fact the Employer's Representative was wrong in making such a certification. In my view from a reading of the FIDIC Conditions, it is clear that this claim does not fall within the list of permitted claims such as the claims under Clause 13.3 (a) to (g) of the FIDIC Conditions for which the Employer's Representative has the power to certify payment.

76. Further, this is not a claim which the Employer's Representative is authorized by the First Respondent to agree with the Claimant on their behalf. If the Employer's Representative thought he had the authority of the First Respondent to agree with the Claimant in respect of its claim for this item, he should have obtained the written authority of the First Respondent. He does not appear to have done so. The First Respondent has clearly stated that the Employer does not have such authority from them. In any case, as the Sole Arbitrator I am not bound by the Employer's Representative's Certifications of Payment under the FIDIC Conditions particularly if his certification was wrongly made as being outside the scope of the FIDIC Conditions and without any authority from the Employer.

77. In respect of the Claimant's claim for overhead charges of [amount] at Item C 3c in Schedule 1, the Claimant contends that the basis of this claim stands on a different footing from its other overhead claim in Section E Change in Legislation in Schedule 1. It contended that this claim should be treated separately from the overhead claims that form part of the claim under Sub-Clause 13.16 because the entitlement is under Sub-Clause 13.1 as part of the "actual costs".

78. Sub-Clause 13.1 includes the following provision:

Payment for the financing activity in the Activity Schedule will be made on the basis of the actual costs incurred by the Contractor in connection with the Commercial Loan and the ECGD Cover.

79. Item C 3c is the overhead charge on the actual costs of providing the Project Financing Facility which was a Provisional Sum item in the Contract. The Claimant contended that the "actual costs" include a contribution to off-site overheads and as with all off-site overheads, the calculation should be made on the basis of a percentage of turnover. The turnover in this calculation is the cost of providing the finance which was [amount] (see Schedule 1 Item C 3a). To this figure the percentage addition for overhead charges of 7.67% has been applied resulting in the amount claimed of ... In any event, the Claimant contended that this item was not disputed by the Respondents.

80. The Claimant's contention that the Respondents have not disputed this item is not correct. In the Terms of Reference at Clause 17.2 (5), the issue to be decided was: "Whether the Claimant is entitled by reason of Clauses 13.1 and 13.16 of the FIDIC Conditions to recover the overhead charges as claimed in Schedule 1and if so the amount that will be recoverable." Although the Respondents did not specifically address this claim, it is clear from this issue to be determined and from their Opening and Closing Statements that they disputed the Claimant's claim for overheads.

81. As set out above, the burden still rests with the Claimant to show that it is entitled to this item of claim. While I accept that the basis of this claim is under Clause 13.1 of the FIDIC Conditions and not Clause 13.16 (Change of Legislation), the Claimant must still show that it had actually incurred actual "off-site overheads" arising from the repayment of the sum of [amount]. In the Witness Statement of [Claimant's witness] at paragraphs 11 to 17 concerning the basis of the Claimant's claim for Project Financing Facility-Tax (AIT and VAT), it appears that the refund made by the Respondents related to the imposition of VAT and additional AIT which was subsequently refunded.

82. I am unable to accept in the absence of any evidence adduced by the Claimant that it had actually incurred the sum of [amount] as off-site overheads arising from such deduction and refund and that it is entitled to claim for this sum. The figure of 7.67% of the turnover which has been applied is an arbitrary figure agreed to by the Employer's Representative. I have already expressed my views that the Employer's Representative does not appear to have the authority of the First Respondent to agree to this claim and that this claim is not within the FIDIC Conditions for him to certify payment. In the premises, I find that the Claimant has not shown that it is entitled to this claim under the FIDIC Conditions nor has it been able to show that it has suffered any actual loss. Accordingly, I disallow the same.

83. In the premises I find that there is no basis under the Agreement for the Claimant's various overhead claims as contained in Schedule 1 and I shall dismiss all of the Claimant's overhead claims. For the purpose of completeness the following items of the Claimant's overhead claims in Schedule 1 are dismissed: ...

Whether the Claimant is entitled to claim its exchange rate loss due to the devaluation of the [State X currency] against the Pound Sterling in respect of the deductions and refunds of the VAT and the AIT and if so the amount that will be recoverable. Whether the Claimant's claims for the financing charges, overhead charges and exchange rate loss are hypothetical and should not be treated as events giving rise to a claim as contemplated in the FIDIC Conditions.

84. As for the Claimant's claim for its exchange rate losses, the Claimant contends that for the purpose of calculating the VAT or AIT due on the part of the payment expressed in Pounds Sterling, a rate of exchange was used to convert the Pounds Sterling amount certified into [State X currency]. The deductions were then made in [State X currency] from the amount certified in [State X currency] so that all the deductions were made against the amounts in [State X currency]. By the time the repayments were made, the exchange rate had changed so that when converting the [State X currency] repayment back into Pounds Sterling there was a shortfall in the payment in Pounds Sterling. The result was that in the Pounds Sterling element the Claimant received back less than had been deducted. It is this shortfall that the Claimant now seeks to recover as an exchange rate loss.

85. The Claimant's witness ... in his Witness Statement Annexure 1 - Explanation of Schedule 1 had set out the basis of the Claimant's calculations for its exchange rate loss. The basis for this claim and the calculations in support were not challenged by the Respondents during the hearing. The defence raised by the Respondents to this claim is that such a loss is hypothetical and is not contemplated in the FIDIC Conditions.

86. As the VAT in Pound Sterling had been deducted by the Respondents, the Claimant expected payment of the monies deducted to be refunded back in Pound Sterling or its equivalent in [State X currency]. Due to the requirements of the Respondents, the VAT liability in Pound Sterling had to be converted into [State X currency] first before being deducted, then when the refunds were made, they were converted back from [State X currency] into the same amount deducted in Pound Sterling. The Claimant argued that they should not have to suffer a loss arising from this conversion if the value of the Pound Sterling had appreciated vis-à-vis the [State X currency] when the refund of the monies deducted and the conversion took place. It contends that it is entitled to be compensated under Clause 13.16 of the FIDIC Conditions.

87. I assume that the Respondents would refund in [State X currency], the exact amounts in [State X currency] which they had deducted against the Claimant for VAT. Although the Claimant's argument appears to be cogent at first glance, I would have to ask what its position would be if in the intervening period the [State X currency] had strengthened in value vis-à-vis the Pound Sterling so that when the conversion from [State X currency] to Pound Sterling took place, the Claimant would have made an unexpected windfall gain in Pound Sterling.

88. Would the Claimant in such an event give to the Respondents its windfall gain in the Pound Sterling due to the fluctuation in the exchange rate? I doubt very much that the Claimant would do so. In the same manner, the Respondents should not be penalized for the exchange rate loss of the Claimant. As the value of the [State X currency] against the Pound Sterling will vary over time depending on political, economic and other factors beyond the control of both the Claimant and the Respondents, the loss (or profit as the case may be) which may be made by the Claimant arising from the fluctuation of the exchange rate would be purely speculative and in this sense hypothetical.

89. In any case it would strain the meaning of the term "Cost" under Clause 1.1.5.6 of the FIDIC Conditions to regard a loss arising from exchange rate fluctuations as an expenditure of the Claimant. There is no certainty that such expenditure will be incurred by the Claimant. There are no other provisions in the FIDIC Conditions which the Clamant has relied upon as a basis of its claim for the exchange rate loss apart from Clause 13.16. Accordingly, for the above reasons I find that the Claimant fails in its claim for the exchange rate losses as set out in Schedule 1. For the purpose of completeness, the following items of claim for exchange rate loss under Schedule 1 are disallowed: ...

Whether the Employer's Representative's final payment certificate certifying that financing charges, overhead charges and exchange rate loss was due to the Claimant is binding on the first Respondent as the Employer under the agreement. Alternatively, whether the scope of the payment claims allowed to be certified by the Employer's Representative in the FIDIC Conditions includes the certification of claims for financing charges, overhead charges and exchange rate loss.

90. I find that the Employer's Representative's Final Payment Certificate certifying that overhead charges and exchange rate losses are payable to the Claimant is not binding on the First Respondent (as the Employer) for the following two reasons:

(a) the Employer's Representative did not have the authority of the First Respondent to agree with the Claimant in respect of these claims (see paragraph 76 above) and

(b) under the FIDIC Conditions, the overhead charges (as claimed in this arbitration) and exchange rate losses (as claimed in this arbitration) are not payable (see paragraphs 83 and 89 above) .

For the reasons set out at paragraphs 57 and 58 above, I find that the FIDIC Conditions allow the Claimant to claim for financing charges under Clause 13.16 read with the definition of Cost in Clause 1.1.5.6.

As set out at paragraphs 75, 82 and 89 above, I find that the FIDIC Conditions do not allow the Claimant to claim for exchange rate losses and for overheads as claimed by the Claimant in this arbitration.'