'(i) [Respondent]'s position

20. [Respondent] argues that [Claimant] is merely a holding company without assets. [Respondent] contends that the patent for the [equipment] (the "Patent") may be the only asset owned by [Claimant]. For this reason, [Respondent] argues, it is seeking security for costs, as it will be unable to enforce any costs order made against [Claimant].

21. [Respondent] states that it has no evidence at present whether [Claimant] is the current owner of the Patent. [Respondent], furthermore, argues that even if [Claimant] does own the Patent, there is nothing to prevent [Claimant] from assigning the Patent to a third party.

22. [Respondent] claims that the [equipment] was previously owned by [company A] . . . [Respondent] further claims that [company A] was formerly known as [company B]. [Respondent] claims that [company B] had pre-tax losses of 3,666,000.00 Swedish Krona for the year-end 30 April 2001, and that [company B] suffered substantial losses during the financial years 1999 and 2000.

23. [Respondent] states that the Patent was sold by [Claimant's legal predecessor] to [company C]. [Claimant] further notes that within a month . . . [company C] sold the Patent to Claimant . . .

24. [Respondent] asserts that [company B], [a subsidiary of company B] and [company C] all suffered significant losses during financial years 1999, 2000 and 2001.

25. [Respondent] claims that [company D], [Claimant]'s marketing arm that manufactures and sells the [equipment] "has a poor credit rating (7 out of a possible score of 100) and during the financial year end 30 April 2002 suffered a trading loss of 33,000.00 [Swedish] Krona". [Respondent] further alleges that [company D] is subject to pay over 92,000.00 Swedish Krona resulting from legal action against it. . . .

26. [Respondent] claims that it has conducted searches to obtain information relating to [Claimant]'s identity, structure, directors, shareholders, financial information and other company details, however that such searches have failed to unearth any information relating to [Claimant]. [Respondent] asserts that the lack of information relating to [Claimant], particularly as to its financial standing, is a reason why [Respondent] should be protected with security for costs . . .

27. [Respondent] states that the ICC Rules make no provision for the issue of security for costs, contrary to [Claimant]'s contention that it does.

28. For the foregoing reasons, [Respondent] seeks security for costs against [Claimant].

(ii) [Claimant]'s position

29. [Claimant] contends that [Respondent]'s request for relief should be refused because the ICC Rules provide the security for costs sought by [Respondent]. Furthermore, [Claimant] claims that it is has complied with its obligations in this regard, however, that [Respondent] has failed to do so.

30. [Claimant] states that [Respondent] is "seeking security for payment of an award in its favour" and that Article 23 of the ICC Rules is not intended to cover [Respondent]'s request.

31. [Claimant] asserts that [Respondent] is not entitled to security for costs. [Claimant] argues that if security for costs should be granted in any party's favour, then it should be granted in [Claimant]'s favour and not [Respondent]'s, since [Respondent] has demonstrated its financial predicament by its failure to satisfy undisputed amounts, including the advance on costs under Article 30 of the ICC Rules.

32. [Claimant] asserts that the mere possibility, as suggested by [Respondent], that [Claimant] can dispose its assets is no justification to order [Claimant] to provide security for costs. [Claimant], in its Submission, states that it "has not undertaken any measures whatsoever to rid itself of assets in view of this arbitration" . . .

33. [Claimant] states that it is a company registered in Luxembourg, a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York Convention"). As a result, [Claimant] argues, should [Respondent] obtain a costs (or other monetary) award in its favour, it will be able to enforce such an award through the New York Convention. [Claimant] contends that all [Respondent] requires for enforcement purposes is [Claimant]'s name and address, which are both contained in the Terms of Reference.

34. For the foregoing reasons, [Claimant] asks the Sole Arbitrator to reject [Respondent]'s request for security for costs.

(iii) The Arbitrator's findings

35. [Respondent] purports to link the past financial difficulties suffered by various companies . . . to [Claimant]. By attempting to make such a link [Respondent] implies that [Claimant] must also be in financial difficulties, which would make the chances of [Respondent] enforcing a future costs award decide in its favour unlikely.

36. The documents produced by [Respondent] do show that some of the companies referred to have suffered losses over the past several years. However, there is no evidence to suggest that [Claimant] is in any financial difficulty and that it would be unwilling or unable to honour a costs award made against it. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest, as claimed by [Respondent], that the Patent is the only asset owned by [Claimant].

37. The Sole Arbitrator finds [Respondent]'s assertion regarding the lack of information about [Claimant]'s corporate structure and particulars not sufficiently reasoned to merit the argument that [Claimant] will be unable to satisfy an award for costs against it.

38. Luxembourg is a signatory to the New York Convention. Should [Respondent] obtain a costs (or other monetary) award in its favour, it can seek enforcement against [Claimant] through the Luxembourg courts in accordance with the New York Convention.

39. It follows that, at this stage of the proceedings, the Respondent's request for an interim measure providing security for its costs is rejected.

40. Likewise, the Sole Arbitrator refuses to grant security for costs in [Claimant]'s favour, as requested in [Claimant]'s submission . . . Contrary to [Claimant]'s contention, [Respondent] has satisfied the undisputed amounts arising from the Settlement Agreement and its share of the ICC advance on costs in accordance with Article 30 of the ICC Rules.'