WIXLIB

Team 11Memorandum for ClaimantSUBMISSION ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTIONI.THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE CASE1. The CLAIMANT argues that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the case because theagreement is valid. Furthermore, the Tribunal shall determine the validity of the agreementbased on (A) The arbitration agreement is formally valid; and (B) the arbitration agreement issubstantially valid.THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IS FORMALLY VALID2. In order to determine the validity clause of the arbitration agreement, the arbitral shall considerthe formal or material validity requirements. 1 It shall recognize an agreement in writing whichrefers to the parties undertaking to submit to arbitration all or any differences which have arisenor which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractualor not, concerning a subject matter capable of settlement by arbitration.2 Moreover, the arbitralclause shall be written in a contract or arbitration agreement signed by the parties or containedin an exchange of letters or telegrams to fulfil the writing requirement under the New YorkConvention (1958).33. Even if the agreement was not signed by the parties, the formal validity requirement underSection 5 (2) Arbitration Act 1996 which states the agreement in writing still qualified whetheror not signed by the parties.4 The agreement may be made whether or not say itself embodiedin writing, but if there is an agreement in writing, it will consider as evidence or a record ofwhich parties agreed. 54. This agreement is well-established since the parties agreed to use Terms and Conditionsv.3.86 and shall apply to Bill of Lading numbered QSHIP16380, QSHIP77245, QSHIP68735,and QSHIP18479, issued by or on behalf of the RESPONDENT.7 Thus, when the dispute isreferred to the agreement, it shall consider the dispute whether an issue is one of substance orrelates to the procedural arbitration.81Zheng Sophia Tang, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements in International Commercial Law (New York:Routledge 2014) 21.2New York Convention 1958 Art. II (1)3New York Convention 1958 Art. II (2)4Zheng Sophia Tang, (n.1) 21.5Bruce Harris, Rowan Planterose, and Barrister Jonathan Tecks, Arbitration Act 1996 Commentary (UnitedKingdom: Blackwell Spring, 4th Edition 2014) 47.6Record 3: CLAIMANT’s Points of Claim. Point 37Record 35-38: Bill of Lading8Arbitration Act 1996 Section 463

Team 11Memorandum for Claimant5. According to the Section 46 Arbitration Act 1996, the law chosen by the parties is applicableto the substance of the dispute. 9 In the present case the agreement governed by English Law,hence the parties agreed to apply the English Law (Arbitration Act 1996) to this agreement,due to: (i) The English law as the lex abitri governs be an arbitration agreement; and (ii) theEnglish law has the clauses and most real connection to be an arbitration agreement.i. The English Law as the lex abitri governs be an arbitration agreement6. In order to determine the intention of the Parties, it shall consider all surroundingcircumstances,10 including Terms and Conditions v.3.8 as an agreement which was in writingand contained on the back of its Bills of Lading.11 According to Clause 26 Law and Jurisdiction,the parties agree to choose London as the seat of arbitration and the London Court forInternational Arbitration (LCIA) as the administrator of arbitration proceedings. 127. The Tribunal shall determine the applicable law in arbitral proceedings refers to the choice oflaw on an arbitration agreement that governs its validity, meaning and scope, the validity ofthe notice to arbitrate, the identity of the parties to the agreement, the constitution of thetribunal, and the jurisdiction of the arbitrators. 13 When the parties did not express the choice oflaw, it will be no doubt to identify the law governing an arbitration agreement by the impliedchoice of law.14 The seat of arbitration will have an important in relation to confirming boththe law governing the arbitration agreement and the law governing the arbitration. 15 It was clearthat the arbitration agreement had connected to the arbitral seat and procedural law, whichappoint the English Law as the lex abitri.168. The CLAIMANT has legal standing to bring the claim to the Tribunal, due to the intention ofParties whether on writing agreement or not, is considered as valid. 17 The parties designatedthe seat of arbitration on the agreement which was regulated by Section 3 Arbitration Act1996.18 Furthermore, Section 3 Arbitration Act 1996, rules that when the parties have not9Ibid.Clare Ambrose, Karen Maxwell, and Michael Collett, London Maritime Arbitration (4th Edition, New York:Informa Law 2018) 6.11Record 52 – 64: Terms and Conditions v.3.812Record 64: Terms and Conditions v.3.8 Clause 2613Clare Ambrose (n.10) 65.14Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v VSC Steel Co Ltd [2013] EWHC 4071 (Comm), [2014] 1Lloyd’s Rep 479 [101]15Clare Ambrose, (n.10) 54.16Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edition, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International B.V2020) 634.17Arbitration Act Section 518Bruce Harris, (n.5) 39.104

Team 11Memorandum for Claimantdesignated the seat of arbitration, the Tribunal shall determine regard to the arbitrationagreement and relevant circumstances. 199. When the parties agreed to designate London as a seat of arbitration, the parties have impliedlychosen English procedural law and its conflict of laws rules.20 Even if the governing law of thecontract is different from the seat of arbitration, it can apply the lex abitri.21 Therefore, theparties have impliedly given consent to be bound by the procedural law of the seat ofarbitration.10. Even if the agreement was not express the choice of law and only designate the disputes toarbitration in London, English law is the implied choice of law and jurisdiction. 22 It is similarwhen the LMAA terms (by reason appointing the procedural), the parties will be deemedagreeing with London as a seat of arbitration. 23 Constantly the law of the seat of arbitration,the procedural law of arbitration, and the curial law will coincide. 24 Therefore, when the partieshad chosen the place of arbitration, parties have impliedly given consent to be bound by theprocedural law of the seat of arbitration.11. The seat of arbitration is interpreted as the legal place of the arbitration by choosing the legalplace of the arbitration the parties ipso facto choose the laws of that place to govern theirarbitration proceeding.25 Furthermore, the juridical is used to ascertain that there will be onlyone seat of arbitration even if the parties agreed to move the venue of arbitration to the othercountry,26 which in this present case is Singapore.27 The arbitral tribunal can hold hearings ormeet anywhere throughout it conveniently.28 Thus, the seat of arbitration does not changesimply by virtue of the tribunal holding hearings or other meetings at a location other than theseat.2912. Due to Covid travel restrictions and the physical location of arbitrators, the parties could notcommence the arbitral proceeding in London.30 Hence, the parties agreed to move the venue toSingapore.31 London was an unsuitable place for the arbitral hearings and those hearings shouldDubai Islamic Bank PJSC v Paymentech Merchant Services Inc [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 65 (Comm)Coppee-Lavalin SA/NV v Ken- Ren Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 10921XL Insurance Ltd v Owens Corning [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 500 (Comm).22Clare Ambrose, (n.10) 67.23LMAA terms para 6(b)24C v D [2007] EWHC 1541 (Comm), [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 367, 374.25Clare Ambrose, (n.10) 72.26Braes of Doune Wind Farm (Scotland) Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Business Services Ltd [2008] EWHC 426 (TCC),[2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 60827Procedural Order No 2, 3: Point 1728The Bay Hotel and Resort Ltd v Cavalier Construction Co Ltd [2001]29Ibid.30Procedural Order No 2, 3: Point 1731Ibid.19205

Team 11Memorandum for Claimantbe conducted in Singapore but still Singapore courts did not have jurisdiction. 32 In conclusion,the arbitration agreement and the procedural of arbitration are still governed by English Law.ii. The English law has the closest and most real connection to the arbitration agreement13. The arbitration agreement which contained the seat of arbitration and is referred a procedurallaw will deem the parties impliedly choose the law governing the contract. 33 In the absence ofan express or implied choice of law, to determine the proper law that governed the agreement,it shall refer to the law with which that agreement had its closest and most real connection wasmore likely to be the law of the seat of arbitration. 3414. When the governing law of the substantive contract is contrary to the law system of the seat ofarbitration, it can be concluded there was no express or implied choice of law and the agreementhad its closest and most real connection with the English law due to the parties refer to Londonas the seat of arbitration.3515. Notwithstanding the arbitration agreement contained London as a seat of arbitration isimportant to point out to conclude the law which governed the arbitration agreement but stillnot decisive.36 The Tribunal shall identify the other relevant factor that has the closestconnection, such as the language in which the agreement is made and the nationality of theparties.37 In the present case, the agreement used the English language, and the parties werepart of common law.3816. Furthermore, appointing the LMAA terms as procedural, the parties will be deemed to agreewith London as a seat of arbitration. 39 According to Rome I Regulation, it is relevant an LMAARules with a choice of London arbitration, hence it will be treated as a choice of English law.40Constantly the law of the seat of arbitration, the procedural law of arbitration, and the curiallaw will coincide. 41ABB Lummus Global Ltd v Keppel Fels Ltd [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 24Clare Ambrose, (n.10) 71.34Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v VSC Steel Co Ltd [2013] EWHC 4071 (Comm)35Sulamerica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v Enesa Engenharia SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638, [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep671.36Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v VSC Steel Co Ltd [2013] EWHC 4071 (Comm), [2014] 1Lloyd’s Rep 479 [102]37Clare Ambrose, (n.10) 67.38Record 64: Terms and Conditions v.3.8 Clause 2639LMAA terms para 6(b)40Egon Oldendorff v Liberia Corp (No 2) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 380 (Comm)41C v D [2007] EWHC 1541 (Comm), [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 367, 374.32336

Team 11Memorandum for ClaimantTHE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT IS SUBSTANTIALLY VALID17. The aim which the arbitration can be cross-national legal boundaries, it makes the Arbitrationto be substantially valid to complement the national legal practice. 42 In addition, the arbitrationhas a wide range internationally which provides an international standard based on the solutionthat acceptable to parties from different legal systems.4318. Moreover, principle of lex mercotaria can be applied in this case as courage to cross thelimitation of the national court. 44 The lex mercotaria as a custom that usually been used forcommon law, especially in international commercial arbitration. 4519. Under Clause 26 of Terms and Conditions v. 3.8 Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim.46Parties agreed to submit all disputes to the London Court for International Arbitration (LCIA)with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.47 Therefore, the agreement between two partiesregarding Terms and Conditions v.3.8 has affected to becomes substantially valid.4820. The Notice of Arbitration has conformed and brought to be substantially valid. 49 TheUNCITRAL has a requirement regarding the Notice of Arbitration on Article 3 with theLondon Court for International Arbitration (LCIA) as the tribunal.50 The Notice of Arbitrationrequested by the CLAIMANT is sufficiently close to the requirement of LCIA Rules. 5121. The validity of the Notice of Arbitration that is already requested by the CLAIMANT can belooked by checking several qualifications, which are the identity of parties, identification ofany contract or other legal instrument out of or in relation to which the dispute arises, briefdescription of the claim, an indication of the amount involved, a statement of the relief sought,the appointment of the tribunal, the arbitration agreement, with the result that is legitimate. 5242Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Introduction (Objectives);Art.VII (2)43UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, Part Two. Explanatory Note by theUNCITRAL secretariat, (A) Background to the Model Law, 2 Disparity between national laws (9)44Mert Elcin. Lex Mercatoria in International Arbitration Theory and Practic. European University Institute,Department of Law. (2012) [LMIATP]. para 85545Iowa State Savings Bank v. Wignall, 53 Okla. 641, 157 P. 725 (Okla. 1916)46Record 64: Terms and Conditions v.3.8 Clause 2647Ibid.48Record 3: CLAIMANT’s Points of Claim, Point 349Record 14-19: Notice of Arbitration; LCIA Arbitration Rules (2014) Art. I Request for Arbitration50United Nations Commission On International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules, Art. III Notice OfArbitration; Record 64: Terms and Conditions v.3.8 Clause 2651Record 14-19: Notice of Arbitration; LCIA Arbitration Rules (2014) Art. I Request for Arbitration52United Nations Commission On International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules, Art. III, IV: Record14-19: Notice of Arbitration7

Team 11Memorandum for Claimant22. In addition, while the requirement of a validity Notice of Arbitration is fulfilled, the arbitraltribunal may rule on its substantive jurisdiction because the arbitration agreement as one of theparts of Notice of Arbitration, has substance under matters that are submitted.5323. The aim which the arbitration can be cross-national legal boundaries, it makes the Arbitrationagreement to be substantially valid to complement the national legal practice. 54 In addition, thearbitration has a wide range internationally which provides an international standard based onthe solution that acceptable to parties from different legal systems. 5524. Moreover, the lex mercotaria can be applied in this case as courage to cross the limitation ofthe national court. The lex mercotaria as a custom that usually been used for common law,especially in international commercial arbitration. 5625. Under Clause 26 of Terms and Conditions v. 3.8 Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim. 57Parties agreed to submit all disputes to the London Court for International Arbitration (LCIA)with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.58 Therefore, the agreement between two partiesregarding Terms and Conditions v.3.8 has affected to becomes substantially valid.5926. The Notice of Arbitration has conformed and brought to be substantially valid. 60 TheUNCITRAL has a requirement regarding the Notice of Arbitration on Article 3 with theLondon Court for International Arbitration (LCIA) as the tribunal.61 The Notice of Arbitrationrequested by the CLAIMANT is sufficiently close to the requirement of LCIA Rules. 6227. Several qualifications that must be included are a brief description of the claim, an indicationof the amount involved, a statement of the relief sought, the appointment of the tribunal alreadyshown on the Notice of Arbitration.6353Arbitration Act (1996) Sec. 30Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Introduction (Objectives);Art.VII (2)55UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, Part Two. Explanatory Note by theUNCITRAL secretariat II (9)56Iowa State Savings Bank v. Wignall, 53 Okla. 641, 157 P. 725 (Okla. 1916)57Record 64: Terms and Conditions v.3.8 Clause 2658Ibid.59Record 3: CLAIMANT’s Points of Claim, Point 360Record 14-19: Notice of Arbitration; LCIA Arbitration Rules (2014) Art. I Request for Arbitration61United Nations Commission On International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules, Art. III Notice OfArbitration; Record 64: Terms and Conditions v.3.8 Clause 2662Record 14-19: Notice of Arbitration; LCIA Arbitration Rules (2014) Art. I Request for Arbitration63United Nations Commission On International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules, Art. III, IV: Record14-19: Notice of Arbitration548

Team 11Memorandum for Claimant28. After the requirement of a validity agreement is fulfilled, the arbitral tribunal may rule on itssubst

19 Dubai Islamic Bank PJSC v Paymentech Merchant Services Inc [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 65 (Comm) 20 Coppee-Lavalin SA/NV v Ken- Ren Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep 109 21 XL Insurance Ltd v Owens Corning [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 500 (Comm). 22 Clare Ambrose, (n.10) 67. 23 LMAA terms para 6(b)