CLAIMANTS

2a. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE

WITH SIAC RULES?

It is humbly submitted by the Claimant that the issue raised by the respondent is altogether a
different dispute and cannot be introduced in the arbitration by an amendment.
Rule 4: Response to the Notice of Arbitration
4.1 The Respondent shall file a Response with the Registrar within 14 days of receipt of the Notice of
Arbitration. The Response shall include:
a. a confirmation or denial of all or part of the claims, including, where possible, any plea that the
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction;
b. a brief statement describing the nature and circumstances of any counterclaim, specifying the
relief claimed and, where possible, an initial quantification of the counterclaim amount;
c. any comment in response to any statements contained in the Notice of Arbitration under Rule
3.1 or any comment with respect to the matters covered in such Rule;
d. unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the nomination of an arbitrator if the arbitration
agreement provides for three arbitrators or, if the arbitration agreement provides for a sole
arbitrator, comments on the Claimant’s proposal for a sole arbitrator or a counter-proposal; and

e. payment of the requisite filing fee under these Rules for any counterclaim.

4.2 The Response may also include the Statement of Defence and a Statement of Counterclaim, as
referred to in Rule 20.3 and Rule 20.4.

According to Rule 4 of SIAC arbitration rules the response to the notice of arbitration has to be
sent within 14 days of the notice of arbitration but the letter sent by the respondent was dated 28 th
June which was not within 14 days of the Notice of Arbitration.

It is humbly submitted that the raised by the Respondents is a new issue which has arisen after the
appointment of the arbitrator. This signifies the fact that the same issue cannot be included in the
present arbitration. It has to be raised in a separate Arbitration proceeding.

It is also humbly submitted that the SIAC rules does mention anything in relation to the joinder of
issues or amendment in Response to the Notice of Arbitration as it specifically mentions about the
joinder of parties. Therefore, the amendment is ultra vires to the SIAC Rules of Arbitration.
RESPONDANTS
Issue 6

Whether the Tribunal has temporal jurisdiction to consider breach of clause 15 of the Contract?

In the present case, the commencement letter to the parties were sent on 3rd June 2019 and the
response was filed by the respondent’s on 14th June 2019, which is within the time limit
prescribed by the SIAC. However, the respondent on 28th June sent notice of breach via e-mail to
the claimant as well as to the tribunal and seek leave to file for a counterclaim.

4.1 The Respondent shall file a Response with the Registrar within 14 days of receipt of the
Notice of Arbitration. The Response shall include:

b. a brief statement describing the nature and circumstances of any counterclaim, specifying the
relief claimed and, where possible, an initial quantification of the counterclaim amount;

e. payment of the requisite filing fee under these Rules for any counterclaim.

4.2 The Response may also include the Statement of Defence and a Statement of Counterclaim, as
referred to in Rule 20.3 and Rule 20.4.

Considering the above-mentioned Rule 4 of the SIAC Rules the tribunal does not have the
temporal jurisdiction to accept the counterclaim.

It is explicitly mentioned that the counterclaim is to be included in the response which the
respondent failed to comply with. Admission of the counterclaim at this stage would significantly
derail the current arbitration proceedings. The rule 4 of the SIAC Rules requires the respondent for
payment of the requisite filing fee for any counterclaim, which the respondent has failed to
perform and since the payment of the filing of counterclaim was not made within the prescribed
time limits, the counterclaim shall not be permitted.
Instituting the counterclaim would delay the arbitration proceedings. Time is of the essence in
international commercial arbitrations, since an egregious amount of money involved and the
delay in judgement would only increase the uncertainty the claimant is suffering through.
Instituting the counterclaim at this stage would amount to prejudice against the claimant.