In addition to any other reasons/references/explanations that a candidate ought to / may be required to provide
when addressing questions arising out of the fact matrix below, the answers should also (where possible to do so) give
reasons and refer to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 2006 (UML) and the
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2013 .
QUESTION 1:
(a) You are the Sole Arbitrator in a dispute between two pharma manufacturing companies over an alleged
breach of scope of use of intellectual property (as enshrined in the contract) due to unlawful termination.
During the pre-hearing conference, both parties agreed that instead of oral closing submissions, they
would want to submit post-hearing briefs. As Sole Arbitrator, upon going
through the closing written submissions, it dawns upon you that the Claimant has presented a new
argument in its post-hearing brief.
(i) Upon receiving the Claimant’s said post-hearing brief, the Respondent immediately objected on the
basis this new argument cannot be presented when the Respondent no longer had an opportunity
to respond / rebut this new argument. As Sole Arbitrator, what would you do?
(ii) Based on the above fact scenario, can the Respondent challenge the Award or resist its recognition/enforcement if you allow the Claimant to present this new argument in its post-hearing briefs? If yes, on which ground(s)? Explain in detail.
(b) An Arbitral Tribunal has issued its Final Award which is substantially in favour of the Claimant. The
juridical seat of the arbitration is Italy. The Respondent feels outraged and aggrieved on a number of
grounds: (i) AT has made an error in its calculation of damages, in that it has failed to properly apply a
formula agreed by quantum experts of both the Claimant and Respondent during the hot-tubbing session;
(ii) reasoning appears to be inconsistent and flawed; and (iii) AT appears to have drawn on its own
technical expertise in reaching its conclusion on
an important and high value element of the claim, but it has not put the relevant analysis to the parties
for their consideration and submissions. How and on what basis might the Respondent challenge the
Final Award or resist enforcement, either in the seat of the arbitration or elsewhere?
(c) What are the various points/issues to be covered/identified/discussed by the AT during a Pre-hearing
Conference?
