NOTE THAT YOUR ANSWERS TO PART ONE AND PART TWO ARE TO BE
SUBMITTED AS SEPARATE DOCUMENTS
You will recall that Singapore Wholesale Foods Ltd (“SWF”) is a Singapore based company. On 21 January 2019 SWF entered into a 5 year supply contract the supply contract with Yum Cha Ltd YC a company based in Queensland which operates Yum Cha style Chinese restaurants throughout Australia.The supply contract provided for the purchase of significantly discounted Asian food products including canned food products by YC from SWF for a fixed price of SD$300,000 per annum payable in advance every year, for a term of 5 years from 21 January 2019 to 20 January 2024.
7512 LAW International Commercial Arbitration Assignment-Australia.
You will also recall that in August 2020, YC wrote to SFW avoiding the supply contract. YC stated that it no longer had a need for the quantity of goods that it had agreed to purchase under the contract due to the permanent closure of 60% of its restaurants following COVID-19 lock downs. SFW commenced arbitral proceedings claiming breach of contract for wrongful termination.
The supply contract contained the following arbitration clause:
Any dispute arising out of a breach of the written terms of this contract without reasonable excuse under the applicable substantive law, including any question regarding its existence,validity or termination shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre SIAC Rules for the time being in force which rules are deemed to be incorporated by reference in this clause.
The seat of arbitration shall be Singapore.
The tribunal shall consist of one arbitrator except that if the amount in dispute exceeds SD$500,000 the tribunal shall consist of three arbitrators.
The language of the arbitration shall be English.
Applicable law: This contract is governed by the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”).
FOB (Port of Singapore) Incoterms 2010
Sammy Lee QC has now been appointed arbitrator to hear the dispute, following a successful challenge against Veronica Tan QC.
Having initially decided not to challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal on the basis of contractual inarbitrability, YC has now sought to raise, following the conclusion of the pleadings,a challenge to the jurisdiction of a sole arbitrator to hear this dispute due to the amount of the monetary damages claims which exceeds SD$500,000.
7512 LAW International Commercial Arbitration Assignment-Australia.
Part One
In relation to the arbitration proceedings on foot:
1.Has YC followed the correct procedure for challenging the jurisdiction of Sammy Lee QC as the sole arbitrator under the lex arbitri and the procedural rules? If the correct procedure had been followed, would Sammy Lee QC be able to hear and consider the challenge to his jurisdiction as sole arbitrator himself and if so in accordance with which provisions of the lex arbitri and procedural rules?
2.In any event, if the arbitration proceeds with Sammy Lee QC as sole arbitrator is there any risk that YC would have grounds to successfully oppose enforcement of any arbitral award made against it, or to apply to set aside any award rendered against it? In what jurisdiction would each of those applications be brought and on what possible ground(s)?
Part Two
You have become aware through your contacts in Singapore that the lawyer representing SWF in the arbitral proceedings had encouraged the CEO of SWF to destroy correspondence regarding a range of supply contracts that SWF entered into with Chinese companies after YC sought to avoid its contract with SWF, as the correspondence had noted that SWF had found an alternative market for its products and mitigated the amount of damages suffered as a result of YC s actions. This occurred notwithstanding that Sammy Lee QC had ordered all relevant correspondence to be produced including correspondence relevant to the amount of damages claimed, in accordance with the arbitrator’s discretion under Article 19 SIAC Rules and in accordance with the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration which Sammy Lee QC had determined would be applied to the arbitration.
7512 LAW International Commercial Arbitration Assignment-Australia.
1.Outline the relevant provisions applicable to this arbitration in relation to the provision/taking of evidence. Is Sammy Lee able to order the production of relevant correspondence and if so, on what basis?
2.Explain what steps might be taken in relation to the professional misconduct by SWF’s lawyer, and whether your answer would have been different had the LCIA Rules, rather than the SIAC Rules, applied.
Take Home Exam – worth 60%
You will be given a set of hypothetical facts. You are required to provide legal advice based upon the course content, in response to specific questions.
The exam will be divided into two parts each worth 30%.
Submit Parts 1 and 2 separately
See below for the submission points for each part of the exam.
Refer to the Course Content to answer the questions
7512 LAW International Commercial Arbitration Assignment-Australia.
Please note that you will be able to answer the questions by reference only to the course content.
You are not expected to undertake additional research in order to answer the exam questions.
Word Count Maximum 3000 words