What is Locus Standi?

Locus Standi is a platform for the dispute-resolution world. It brings together arbitration, mediation and adjudication events, jobs and internships, and landmark arbitral awards explained in plain English, alongside the qualifications and pathways into the field. It was established in London at LIDW26 by the alumni of Queen Mary University of London.

Can Locus Standi help me understand a dispute?

Yes. Locus Standi offers free dispute help: paste your contract's dispute-resolution clause and a short note on what happened, and it works out the type of dispute, the governing law, your options, the right forum to file in, and drafts a basic document to start from, all in plain English.

What is the agentic AI case officer?

Locus Standi's workspace includes an AI case officer that helps practitioners run their matters: tracking stages and deadlines, raising alerts, organising to-dos and documents, and drafting. It is built for arbitrators, mediators and the institutions that administer disputes.

Where can I find arbitration events and internships?

Locus Standi keeps a live calendar of arbitration, mediation and adjudication events with one-tap calendar export, and a board of arbitration jobs and internships from institutions including the PCA, ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC and AIAC.

ExxonMobil Holding Company Holland LLC and Shell Nederland B.V. v. Netherlands, NAI Case No. 5174 (NAI)

Why it matters

This interim award clarifies the balance of interests in a high-profile dispute over the allocation of costs for earthquake damage and reinforcement in the Groningen gas field. The tribunal rejected the request to halt levies, emphasizing the State's need for timely cost recovery. The case highlights the limits of interim relief in long-running contractual disputes and the importance of the State's fiscal interests.

Summary

ExxonMobil and Shell sought interim measures to prevent the Dutch State from imposing approximately €1.5 billion in levies on NAM for 2024 costs related to earthquake damage and reinforcement in the Groningen gas field. They argued that the State had failed to comply with the Akkoord op Hoofdlijnen (AoH) by not conducting independent audits and by using policies that compensate damage without causation analysis, thus passing on costs not attributable to gas extraction. The tribunal, assuming jurisdiction, weighed the interests: the claimants' interest in preventing premature levies before audits and related NAM arbitration awards versus the State's interest in timely cost recovery. The tribunal found the claimants' interests insufficient to justify the requested prohibition, noting that the State had already committed to audits and that the NAM arbitrations were separate. The interim request was dismissed, and costs were reserved for a later decision.

The detail

Parties: ExxonMobil Holding Company Holland LLC and Shell Nederland B.V. v. Netherlands, NAI Case No. 5174

Case number: italaw/cases/14137

Outcome: The tribunal dismissed the claimants' request for interim measures to prevent the State from imposing levies for 2024 costs until audits and NAM arbitration awards were completed.

Applicable law: Akkoord op Hoofdlijnen (2018 agreement between the State, Shell and ExxonMobil); NAI Arbitration Rules (2015); Dutch law

Issues in play: The dispute involved the interpretation of the Akkoord op Hoofdlijnen, particularly the State's obligations to have costs audited by an independent accountant and to ensure that only causally related costs are passed on to NAM. The claimants argued that the State's failure to conduct audits and its use of no-causation policies violated the agreement.

Read the full decision at italaw ↗

Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.

Back to the awards board