ICC Arbitration Win in Technology Services Dispute
Full representation in an ICC arbitration seated in Singapore arising from a multi-year technology services contract dispute — pursuing a claim of US$4.2 million for unpaid invoices and wrongful termination.
Practice Areas Involved
The Challenge
A Noida-based IT services provider entered a multi-year managed services contract with a European financial services company. After 18 months of performance, the European client issued a termination notice alleging material breach — specifically, SLA failures and inadequate security incident response. The termination notice was itself a breach: the contract required a 60-day cure period before termination, which the client did not observe. The Indian company had US$4.2 million in outstanding invoices and a claim for the remaining contract value (approximately US$6.8 million). However, the case was complicated by the fact that there had been genuine SLA failures in months 11-14, creating a partial counterclaim exposure.
Our Approach
We structured the claim around two independent legal positions that could succeed cumulatively or alternatively. First, the wrongful termination argument — regardless of any SLA failures, the failure to observe the contractual cure period independently invalidated the termination. This was a clean legal argument that did not depend on the contested SLA performance facts. Second, we quantified the unpaid invoices claim independently, separating it from the future value claim, to create a floor recovery that was essentially unanswerable.
For the SLA defence, we commissioned a technical review demonstrating that the incidents cited as material breaches were not classified as P1 incidents under the contract's defined severity matrix, and that incident response times — while occasionally delayed — were within the aggregate SLA tolerance thresholds over the measurement period.
We engaged a damages expert early to prepare a structured loss model covering unpaid invoices, wind-down costs, and a mitigation-adjusted residual contract value claim. The counterclaim exposure was quantified conservatively and ring-fenced in our presentation.
The Result
The sole arbitrator awarded US$4.2 million on the unpaid invoices claim in full and US$1.8 million on the wrongful termination damages claim — a total award of US$6 million, plus costs. The counterclaim was dismissed entirely on the basis that the SLA failures did not meet the contractual threshold for material breach. The award was enforced in Singapore and the funds were recovered within 60 days of the award.
Key Lessons
- ◆Multi-ground claims — presented as cumulative and alternative — maximise recovery potential and force the opposing party to defend on multiple fronts simultaneously.
- ◆Technical contract interpretation (SLA severity matrix, measurement periods) requires early expert engagement — not a last-minute expert report assembled for the hearing.
- ◆The wrongful termination procedural argument (failure to observe cure period) was ultimately as valuable as the substantive SLA defence — procedural compliance in contract drafting and execution matters.
- ◆Separating the invoices claim from the future value claim in presentation creates a psychologically compelling floor recovery that is difficult for the tribunal to ignore.
Facing a similar challenge?
Our Arbitration & Dispute Resolution team has extensive experience with matters like this. Every consultation is with a senior partner.