SOAS: Seminar 3

Beta Tauri’s claims in relation to the Supply Agreement and Mercedes-Lens’ counterclaims
in relation to the IP Licensing Agreement are ultimately heard before a three-member tribunal
at a 5-day long hearing, following the exchange of two rounds of written submissions,
witness evidence and documentary evidence.

In December 2026, the Tribunal handed down its final award, dismissing Beta Tauri’s claims
in full, and upholding Mercedes-Lens counterclaims, finding that Beta Tauri had breached the
terms of the IP Licensing Agreement and consequently liable for damages.

With respect to Beta Tauri’s claims: The Tribunal found that Mercedes-Lens failed to meet
the agreed delivery schedules for the delivery of the Formula 1 engine and various supply
parts to Beta Tauri. However, it found that the delivery delays in itself did not actually
prevent Beta Tauri from participating in the two scheduled Formula 1 events and
consequently, that Mercedes-Lens was not liable for the financial penalties that Beta Tauri
was subject to for missing these events. In particular, it found that:

 The delivery parts that were delayed were only insignificant parts to Beta Tauri’s
racing car. It determined that Beta Tauri could have easily substituted existing
versions of each part to put together its Formula 1 racing car and participate in the two
scheduled Formula 1 events.

 In any event, by the time the last delivery part had reached Beta Tauri, there was still
adequate time for Beta Tauri to assemble its Formula 1 racing car in time to
participate in the scheduled Formula 1 racing events.

 As such, it was Beta Tauri’s independent and strategic choice to not complete
assembly of its car, and that it was own choice to not participate in the two scheduled
Formula 1 events, which was therefore not directly caused by Mercedes-Lens failure
to meet the agreed delivery schedule. The financial penalties and losses suffered by
Beta Tauri choosing to not participate in the two scheduled Formula 1 calendar events
could not be attributed to Mercedes-Lens’ breach of the Supply Agreement.

With respect to Mercedes-Lens’ counterclaims: The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to
hear the IP dispute, on the basis that those claims were related to the Supply Agreement and
therefore within the scope of disputes that the Parties had submitted to arbitration per their
arbitration clause. It determined that Beta Tauri had breached the terms of the IP Licensing
Agreement, in using Mercedes-Lens formula 1 engine technology to develop its new electric
car model, Beta Mode LITE, which was outside the scope of licensing use purposes per the
IP Licensing Agreement.

Beta Tauri, dissatisfied with the outcome of the Tribunal’s decision, is assessing its recourse
against the Tribunal’s award. It has raised several questions with you, as set out below.

Please consider Beta Tauri’s position by reference to the Parties’ agreed arbitration
agreement and the applicable governing rules; i.e. the English Arbitration Act and the LCIA
Rules.

11/30/2023 21:46
[SOAS - Seminar 3 (30 Nov 2023).docx]
1 Are there any specific requirements under the LCIA Rules and the English
Arbitration Act on the format and content for an arbitral award? What are
these requirements?

2 Beta Tauri is concerned that the Tribunal has made several incorrect references
to the delivery dates of various Formula 1 engine supply parts that were supplied
and delivered by Mercedes-Lens to Beta Tauri.

Is it possible for Beta Tauri to request that the Tribunal correct the delivery
dates mentioned in its award? If so, what is the process for doing so?

3 Beta Tauri is disappointed with the Tribunal’s award. In particular, it is

concerned that the Tribunal has wrongly reviewed the evidence in relation to the
delivery parts which were delayed in delivery, and misunderstood that these
could be easily replaced by Beta Tauri to complete its racing car. Additionally, it
considers that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear Mercedes-Lens’
counterclaim in relation to the IP dispute.

Beta Tauri is considering its recourse against the Tribunal’s decision. What
options of recourse does it have under the Parties’ arbitration agreement?

4 What are the grounds on which an English Court can refuse recognition or
enforcement of the Tribunal’s award?

2
11/30/2023 21:46
[SOAS - Seminar 3 (30 Nov 2023).docx]