The way that the new statute deals with the manner in which costs should be allocated is contained in sections 59-65 A summary of the rules is as follows: the parties may agree that one or other of them should pay all or part of the costs provided that they make such an agreement after the dispute has arisen (section 60); subject to (a) above, the tribunal may make an award allocating costs as between the parties (section 61 (1)); costs should follow the event as a general principle unless the parties otherwise agree. Under this subsection the arbitrators have discretion to vary any allocation of costs as they see fit and as may be appropriate to the circumstances of a particular case (section 62 (2)). This is a restatement of what has been the custom and practice of arbitrators previously; where costs are made subject to an agreement between the parties, the costs shall be deemed to be recoverable unless otherwise expressly stated; the parties are free to agree what costs are recoverable (section 63 (1)). But in the absence of any such agreement, the tribunal has power to determine what costs are recoverable in whatever manner it thinks fit (section 63 (2 & 3)); if they omit to do so, the parties may invoke the aid of the court (section 63 (4)). Security for costs – The court no longer has power to award security for costs in arbitrations. The Ken Ren (1995) decision of the House of Lords, which reaffirmed that the courts could award security for costs in international arbitrations, has been said (per Lord Saville) to have caused ‘widespread dismay’ in the international arbitration community. (Coppée Lavalin SA v Ken Ren Chemicals & Fertilisers (1995)). The arbitral tribunal may award security for costs (s. 38), although the parties may agree that their tribunal shall not have this power.