moot research
Team 11C
3rd National Law School International Arbitration Moot Court Competition, 2010
Court of International Arbitration, Gregaria City, Gregaria
Mallory Advisory Services Ltd.………………………………………………………Claimant
v. Shawcross Solutions Pvt. Ltd…………………………………………………….Respondent 1
Comet (Shawcross) Solutions Pvt. Ltd…………………………………………...Respondent 2
(Arb/Cas/0410/2009)
Memorandum for Claimant
Table of Contents
Table of Contents i
Table of Abbreviations iv
Index of Authorities vii Cases vii Statutes x Treatises x Articles xi
Statement of Jurisdiction xii
Questions Presented xiii
Statement of Facts xiv
Summary of Arguments xvii
Arguments Advanced 1
I. The Tribunal has jurisdiction over Respondent 1 under settled principles of arbitration law and in any event, the corporate veil between Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 must be lifted. 1
A. The Tribunal has the authority to determine its own jurisdiction. 1
B. Respondent 1 is bound to the arbitral proceedings. 2
1. The corporate veil between Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 must be lifted to bind Respondent 1 to the arbitral proceedings. 2
2. Respondent 1 is bound by the arbitration clause in equitable estoppel. 3
II. The fraudulent acts of Mr. Romanovich cannot be attributed to Claimant; in any case, the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is inapplicable in these circumstances and does not bar Claimant’s action. 4
A. The fraudulent acts of Mr. Romanovich cannot be attributed to Claimant. 4
B. In any case, the defence of ex turpi causa is inapplicable in these circumstances and does not bar Claimant’s action. 5
1. Claimant’s vicarious liability is insufficient to raise the defence of ex turpi causa. 6
2. In the alternative, Respondents’ complicity with the fraud precludes them from raising the illegality defence. 7
III. Respondents are liable under Sections 15 and 16 of the Frugalian Sale of Goods Act, 1930. 7
A. The Transaction is governed by provisions
3rd National Law School International Arbitration Moot Court Competition, 2010
Court of International Arbitration, Gregaria City, Gregaria
Mallory Advisory Services Ltd.………………………………………………………Claimant
v. Shawcross Solutions Pvt. Ltd…………………………………………………….Respondent 1
Comet (Shawcross) Solutions Pvt. Ltd…………………………………………...Respondent 2
(Arb/Cas/0410/2009)
Memorandum for Claimant
Table of Contents
Table of Contents i
Table of Abbreviations iv
Index of Authorities vii Cases vii Statutes x Treatises x Articles xi
Statement of Jurisdiction xii
Questions Presented xiii
Statement of Facts xiv
Summary of Arguments xvii
Arguments Advanced 1
I. The Tribunal has jurisdiction over Respondent 1 under settled principles of arbitration law and in any event, the corporate veil between Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 must be lifted. 1
A. The Tribunal has the authority to determine its own jurisdiction. 1
B. Respondent 1 is bound to the arbitral proceedings. 2
1. The corporate veil between Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 must be lifted to bind Respondent 1 to the arbitral proceedings. 2
2. Respondent 1 is bound by the arbitration clause in equitable estoppel. 3
II. The fraudulent acts of Mr. Romanovich cannot be attributed to Claimant; in any case, the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio is inapplicable in these circumstances and does not bar Claimant’s action. 4
A. The fraudulent acts of Mr. Romanovich cannot be attributed to Claimant. 4
B. In any case, the defence of ex turpi causa is inapplicable in these circumstances and does not bar Claimant’s action. 5
1. Claimant’s vicarious liability is insufficient to raise the defence of ex turpi causa. 6
2. In the alternative, Respondents’ complicity with the fraud precludes them from raising the illegality defence. 7
III. Respondents are liable under Sections 15 and 16 of the Frugalian Sale of Goods Act, 1930. 7
A. The Transaction is governed by provisions