Примеры использования Claimant's loss на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
This resulted in an under-compensation of the claimant's loss.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the claimant's loss of port services income from Ceyhan is not compensable.
The Panel hereafter specifies the time period for which lost profits are compensable andarticulates the method used to calculate the claimant's loss.
In evaluating a claimant's loss, generally accepted principles of accounting and loss adjusting were applied.
The Panel finds that this evidence sufficiently establishes that the claimant's losses were a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Therefore, the claimant's losses are not direct losses within the meaning of Security Council resolution 687(1991), and the claim is not compensable./.
The Panel reviewed all documentary evidence provided by the claimant, the reports of the interview and inspections, and the comments of Iraq regarding the claimant's losses.
The Panel therefore finds that the claimant's loss is not a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Such variations could be due to a variety of reasons, including entry error, overestimation of the losses suffered, andextraordinary circumstances surrounding the claimant's losses.
The Panel therefore determined that the claimant's loss did not arise as a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
With respect to claims for loss of tangible assets,the Panel selects 2 August 1990 as the date of loss as that date generally coincides with the claimant's loss of control over the assets in question in this instalment.
The Panel finds that the claimant's loss is more appropriately characterized as a loss of professional opportunity or standing.
In accordance with decision 1 and article 35(c) of the Rules,evidence must be provided regarding the circumstances surrounding the claimant's loss to demonstrate that the loss was a direct consequence of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
In that event, the claimant's loss would not appear to be caused directly by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait but by the failure of the debtor to pay.
The Panel has found that increased costs such as the cost of storing and handling goods or equipment that could not be delivered to Iraq or Kuwait, costs of finding substitute markets, as well as associated administrative costs,are reasonable steps in mitigation of a claimant's loss.
The Panel therefore concluded that the claimant's loss was a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait and that it was compensable.
The Panel has found that increased costs such as the cost of storing, handling, re-packaging, re-labelling and adapting for resale goods or equipment that could not be delivered to Iraq or Kuwait, costs of finding substitute markets, as well as administrative costs,are reasonable steps in mitigation of a claimant's loss.
The Panel therefore finds that the claimant's loss was not directly caused by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait and recommends no award of compensation.
With respect to the legal costs incurred in attempting to secure the release of Iraqi assets frozen pursuant to freezing orders so as to obtain payment of outstanding contract debts owed by Iraqi parties, the Panel finds thatunder the circumstances presented, these costs were incurred in an effort to mitigate the claimant's loss and are, in principle, compensable.
The Panel determined that the claimant's loss was not a loss in respect of stock since the claimant continued to trade in stock during the occupation period.
The Panel has found that increased costs such as the cost of freight for diverting goods, costs of storing and handling goods or equipment that could not be delivered to Iraq or Kuwait or other compensable areas, costs of finding substitute markets,as well as associated administrative costs, are reasonable steps in mitigation of a claimant's loss.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the claimant's loss, even though it may also have been attributable to the effect of the trade embargo, was a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
The Panel finds that,in the light of the totality of the evidence submitted by the claimant and the chaotic circumstances in Iraq during the jurisdictional period, and particularly after the commencement of air raids by Allied Coalition Forces in January 1991, the claimant's loss of goods and vehicles located in Iraq directly resulted from the invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
In its comments, Iraq contends that the claimant's losses resulted from Allied Coalition Forces' bombing, or that the claimant did not provide evidence that the horses were taken outside of Kuwait.
The Panel identified and considered three evidentiary issues relevant to the assessment and disposition of motor vehicle claims in the first instalment:(a) the fact of the claimant's ownership of the motor vehicle;(b)the fact of the claimant's loss; and(c) whether the claimant's loss was causally related to the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Thus the claimant's loss was directly caused by the borrower's failure to repay the loan and the claimant's inability to enforce its security interest due to the injunction issued by the court in India.
The Panel finds, therefore,that in accordance with the principles set out in paragraph above, the Claimant's loss of use of these office premises during the period of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait is amenable to monetary evaluation.
The Panel finds that the claimant's loss was due to BCI's refusal to pay against the delivery of the securities in the face of the international freeze on Kuwaiti assets, which is a loss arising from the trade embargo and related measures imposed on Kuwaiti assets following Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and not Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
The lack of directness is further demonstrated by the fact that the claimant's loss resulted from the newspaper's decision, taken several months after the date of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, to cancel its course of dealing with the claimant. .
Consequently, the Panel decides that the Claimant's loss arising out of its receipt of stolen Kuwaiti dinar banknotes should be compensated to the extent it is adequately supported by documentary or other appropriate evidence.