Second, the Panel must verify whether the loss was actually suffered by the claimant.

In the second set of competing claims, a Palestinian claimant and a Kuwaiti claimant filed separate claims in category D for the losses of a printing business in Kuwait.

The claim of E4 claimant Al Salmy Transport Company was considered in the second instalment of E4 claims.

E4 claimant Ali Muowar Mohammed Kharma Industrial Equipment Co. was originally considered in the second instalment of E4 claims.

(m) Competing claimant means

(gg) Competing claimant means

Recommendation 110 (competing claimant)

The Pakistani claimant asserts that he and the Kuwaiti claimant were partners in the business.

The claim of E4 claimant Al Illaiwi Abudiak for Transport Export Import Co. was considered in the second instalment of E4 claims.

Revised recommended awards for the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims second instalment reported by UNSEQ and UNCC claim number and claimant name 13

In the second case, the claimant seeks compensation for the MPA he allegedly suffered resulting from his personal injuries, also following a landmine explosion.

The majority of the claims in the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims were filed by an E4 claimant and an individual claimant who was a shareholder of the E4 claimant company.

It records basic details about the claimant and notes what available evidence, if any, was provided by the claimant.

The business loss page of the individual claimant was completed in the name of an E4 claimant, and the individual claimant had originally provided documents indicating a connection between him and the company.

Both the Kuwaiti claimant and the Palestinian claimant were interviewed during the technical mission to Kuwait in 2004 and each claimant was asked to comment on the assertions and evidence submitted by the other.

Both the Kuwaiti claimant and the Palestinian claimant were interviewed during the December 2004 technical mission to Kuwait and each claimant was asked to comment on the assertions and evidence submitted by the other.

The burden of proof was on the claimant.

No response was received from the Kuwaiti claimant.

In the second set of competing claims, a Kuwaiti category D claimant and a Pakistani category C claimant filed separate claims with the Commission seeking compensation for the losses of the same construction business that operated in Kuwait prior to Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

The Panel notes that most of the evidence provided by the Palestinian claimant was original while the Kuwaiti claimant provided copies only.

Where the third party was unable to verify the documents proffered by the claimant or provided statements inconsistent with the information provided by the claimant, the Panel finds the evidence submitted by the claimant to be unreliable.

Subsequently, two telephone interviews were conducted with the claimant.

The claimant sought from the Court an order of foreclosure.

The stay was granted, but the claimant appealed against it.

The claimant further requested the Court to appoint his nominee.

Neither claimant made reference to the other in his claim.

The claimant (main contractor) appealed against the decision of a lower court, which had referred various disputes between the claimant and the respondent (sub contractor) to arbitration.

The claim of the Palestinian claimant is now before the Panel.

The Palestinian claimant asserted that as at 2 August 1990 he rented the licence and the equipped printing press from the Kuwaiti claimant to operate his own business.

Recalling that in some cases a second in time competing claimant was determined by a panel of Commissioners or a bilateral committee, after a review of all available facts, to be entitled to compensation for losses of a business or company for which compensation had previously been paid to a first in time competing claimant,

Iraq alleged that the claimant did not object to the confiscation of his stock by Iraqi authorities and that the claimant may have been a collaborator with Iraqi forces.

The Panel finds that the category C claimant did not assert any losses additional to those previously claimed by the E4 claimant and did not provide any new evidence.

Where the required affirmation has not been given by the claimant, the Rules provide that the claimant should be notified so that he or she may remedy the defect.

The Kuwaiti claimant asserts that he was the sole owner of the business as at 2 August 1990 and he did not mention the Pakistani claimant in his claim.

The claimant participated in the tournament and declared the dispute settled afterwards.

Neither claimant was able to establish the existence of an operating business.

If the claimant responds by giving an explanation as to which assets the equity loss relates, the Panel values the losses alleged by the claimant in relation to those assets.

In addition, the fact that the claimant did not challenge the board's jurisdiction, during the hearing did not preclude the claimant from invoking the same defence in the setting aside proceedings.

The buyer (claimant), confirmed the sale concluded over the phone by registered mail.

The claimant was interviewed during the technical mission to Jordan in January 2005.

During the interview the Palestinian claimant provided detailed answers regarding the business activities.

When a dispute arose, the claimant initiated arbitral proceedings and appointed its arbitrator.

C6 Support claims are for the loss of financial support to the claimant.

I've never yet met a claimant who appreciated my presence in a case.

The individual claimant whose claim had been identified as potentially overlapping with the E4 claim provided additional evidence and claimed for losses in addition to those losses claimed by the E4 claimant.