TEAM CODE: JNMC 42

10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2023

BEFORE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

CENTRE

UNDER

The Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, 2016

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN –

Artificiana Pvt Ltd. AI Innovations Corp.

(CLAIMANT) V. (RESPONDENT)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1|Page
1|Page
1|Page
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... 1

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................... 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................... 3

TIMELINE OF EVENTS .............................................................................. 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................ 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................ 8

ISSUES RAISED ............................................................................................ 9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................. 10

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................... 12

1. The Arbitral Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear the
dispute ......................................................................................................... 12

2. The Arbitral Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear the
dispute ......................................................................................................... 18

3. The claimant does not have ownership and proprietary rights over the
Intellectual Property Rights of MindFlayer ................................................ 23

4. The Respondent has not breached the Agreement, thereby the

claimant is not entitled to seek damages .................................................... 26

5. The Printscreen produced by the Respondent at the Stage of hearing is

admissible ................................................................................................... 29

PRAYER ....................................................................................................... 32

1|Page
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2023

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS WORDS

§ Section

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

SCC Supreme Court Cases

v. Versus

& And

ICA Indian Contract Act 1872

SIAC Singapore International Arbitration Centre

IBA International Bar Association

2|Page
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDIAN CASES

Abdul Kadir Shamsuddin Bubere vs Madhav Prabhakar Oak AIR 406, SCR Supl. (3)
702
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd 2010 (8) SCC 24

Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited 2020
SCC OnLine SC 656
A Ayyasamy v. A Paramasivam & Ors (2016) 10 SCC 386
Haldiram Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd 2012 SCC OnLine
Del 2139

Radhakrishnan v Maestro Engineers (2010) 1 SCC 72

Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited vs. Northern Coal Field Limited
2019 SCC OnLine SC 1518
Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain V. Wadhwani Parmeshwari Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. 2019 Latest
Caselaw 582 SC

3|Page
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2023

INTERNATIONAL CASES

BQP v BQQ (2018) SGHC 55

CBS v. CBP (2021) SGCA

CFJ v. CFL

DDB Technologies, L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P

Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada ICSID

Emirates Trading Agency LLC v. Prime Mineral Exports (P) Ltd.

Hrvatska Elektropriveda v. Slovenia (ICSD)

Hancock v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd

4|Page
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2023

DATA BASES REFERRED

www.indiankanoon.com

www.lexisnexis.com

www.manupatra.com

www.scconline.com

www.casemine.com

www.livelaw.com

www.icaindia.co.in

www.blogipleaders.com

BOOKS

LAW OF ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION AND ADR BY AVTAR SINGH

IBA Guidelines

CONTRACT & SPECIFIC RELIEF BY AVTAR SINGH

BARE ACT FOR ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT

BARE ACT INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872

5|Page
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
2023

TIMELINE OF EVENTS

DATES’ EVENTS OCCURED

i. 15TH MARCH, 2022: PARTIES ENTERED INTO COLLABORATION

ii. 13TH JUNE, 2022: MR. BRENNER’S INTERVIEW

iii. 24TH JUNE, 2022: PUBLISHMENT OF INTERVIEW

iv. 29TH JUNE, 2022: CLAIMANT REACHED TO RESPONDENT

v. 11TH JULY,2022: STATEMENT “TECHNICAL SUPPORT PARTNER”

vi. 15TH JULY, 2022: CLAIMANT SENT FORMAL LETTER

vii. 10TH OCTOBER,2022: RESPONDENT’S REACHED OUT

viii. 15TH NOVEMBER,2022: CLAIMANT INVOKED ARBITRATION

ix. 29TH NOVEMBER, 2022 RESPONDENT ANSWERED TO NOTICE

x. 15TH DECEMBER, 2022: APPOINTMENT OF MS. ERICA SINCLAIR

xi. 5TH JANUARY, 2023: RESPONDENT CHALLENGED APPOINTMENT

xii. 4TH JUNE, 2023: RESPONDENT PRODUCED PRINTSCREEN

6|Page
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent humbly submits this memorandum before the Singapore International
Arbitration Centre under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules, 2016.

7|Page
10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND
Indovia, a vibrant and culturally diverse country has become a hub for innovation
companies due to its rich history and technological advancements and has aimed to
leverage its skilled workforce and market potential in the technological world.

Robonation, a land of opportunity and innovation which delivers robust and ground
breaking AI innovations who wishes to push towards the edge of ground breaking
discoveries and has witnessed spectacular AI research and development firms to rise
into the horizon.
PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE

AI Innovations Corp (To be known as ‘Claimant’ from here on) is an established

Corporation based in Robo Nation striving itself in developing cutting –edge algorithms
to bring change in diverse sectors.
Artificiana Pvt.Ltd ((To be known as ‘Respondent’ from here on) is a global
powerhouse based in Indovia providing transformative solutions across industries.
INTRODUCTION
Artificiana Pvt. Ltd. (Artificiana) and AI Innovations Corp. (AI Innovations) entered
into a Collaboration Agreement to create an innovative AI-powered software
application called 'Mind Flayer.' Amidst the collaboration between Artificiana Pvt. Ltd.
(Artificiana) and AI Innovations Corp. (AI Innovations) to develop the innovative
'Mind Flayer' software, a dispute arises when AI Innovations claims ownership rights,
accusing Artificiana of a breach.
CAUSE OF ACTION
The Claimant invoked arbitration under SIAC Rules, 2016. However, the Respondent
raises a valid concern about the Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction, contending that the
arbitration agreement might be invalid. The central issue involves the determination of
ownership and whether the presented evidence complies with legal standards amongst
other related issues, highlighting the need for a thorough examination.

8|Page
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether the Arbitral Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the dispute?

II. Whether the challenge raised by the Respondent over Ms. Erica’s appointment
maintainable?

III. Whether the Claimant has ownership and proprietary rights over the Intellectual
Property Rights of MindFlayer?

IV. Whether the Respondent has breached the Agreement, thereby entitling the
Claimant to seek damages?

V. Whether the Printscreen produced by the Respondent at the stage of hearing,

admissible?

9|Page
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1) The Arbitral Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear the dispute

The Respondent vehemently contests the jurisdiction of this Arbitral Tribunal in the
present dispute, advancing a fourfold objection. The Respondent contends that the
Collaboration Agreement between the Parties is void from its inception, as it was tainted
by fraudulent misrepresentations by the Claimant, rendering the formation of the
Agreement legally defective. Furthermore, the prerequisite condition of engaging in
negotiations, as unequivocally mandated by the Agreement, was not fulfilled by the
Claimant before invoking arbitration, thus violating a fundamental procedural
requirement. Due to the grave allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, the
Respondent emphasizes the necessity of open court adjudication within the Indovian
legal system, the governing law of the Agreement. Lastly, concerns surrounding the
impartiality and fairness of the SIAC arbitration proceedings have led the Respondent
to question the efficacy of procedural rules, emphasizing the importance of a balanced
assessment of facts and fairness in the arbitration process.

2) The challenge raised by the Respondent over Ms. Erica’s appointment is

maintainable

The Respondent's challenge to Ms. Erica Sinclair's appointment as chairperson of the

Arbitral Tribunal is well-founded and maintainable based on the grounds that there is a
presence of personal interest due to her spouse's significant connection with the
Claimant therefore raising doubts about her independence and impartiality; second, it
contravenes the IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interest, as she failed to disclose
information crucial for impartiality; third, it violates Section 12 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, which prohibits arbitrators with close family relationships with
the parties; and fourth, it breaches SIAC Rules, 2016, regarding the need for prompt
and full disclosure.

3) The claimant does not have ownership and proprietary rights over the
Intellectual Property Rights of MindFlayer

The Claimant's assertion of exclusive ownership and proprietary rights over

MindFlayer's intellectual property rights lacks validity. The terms and overall context

10 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
of the collaboration agreement clearly suggest a shared and equitable distribution of
IPR between the Claimant and the Respondent. This understanding is reinforced by the
collaborative actions taken by both parties. Furthermore, the Claimant's attempt to
secure individual patents resulted in both financial and non-financial losses for the
Claimant.

4) The Respondent has not breached the Agreement, thereby the claimant is not
entitled to seek damages

The Respondent, contrary to the Claimant's accusations, has not violated any provisions
of the collaboration agreement. From the outset, the Respondent demonstrated goodwill
and fulfilled all contractual requirements. The Respondent accurately portrayed the
Claimant's contributions following the regrettable CEO interview's publication. The
Respondent met its financial obligations as stipulated by the agreement until they
discovered the use of outdated technology's by the Claimant on the new software
development, leading to the withholding of payment.

5) The Printscreen produced by the Respondent at the Stage of hearing is

admissible

The screenshot presented by the Respondent serves as vital evidence for establishing a
key aspect of the case. Furthermore, the SIAC rules of 2016 grant the arbitrator the
discretion to admit evidence in arbitration proceedings along with other international
rules. Therefore, to uphold the principles of justice and fairness, this evidence should
be admitted.

11 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. The Arbitral Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear

the dispute

I. It is humbly submitted before the arbitral tribunal of the SIAC that the arbitral tribunal
does not have jurisdiction in this particular dispute between the claimant and
respondent. At the outset, the Respondent submits the grounds in support of the
Respondent’s objection against the jurisdiction and competence of the Arbitral Tribunal
as follows: [A] Formation of the Agreement through Fraud and Misrepresentation [B]
Non-Fulfilment of Prerequisite Conditions [C] Jurisdiction of Indovian Courts [D] The
award shall be ineffective in Indovia as it is contrary to Public Policy

[A] Formation of the Agreement through Fraud and

Misrepresentation

II. The Collaboration Agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent shall be
deemed to be void due to the presence of 'fraud' and 'misrepresentation' as outlined
under Section 17 and Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, rendering the
formation of the agreement legally defective from the beginning.
III. While entering into the joint venture agreement, the respondent consistently upheld
a bonafide approach, prioritizing collective harmony and cooperation between the
parties. In contrast, the claimant adopted an approach centred on individual
success, which ran in direct contradiction to the respondent's collaborative values.
Moreover, the claimant, during the agreement's formation, engaged in malicious
misrepresentation of its technological capabilities and financial standing with the
intent of inducing the respondent into the collaboration.
IV. All agreements are contracts, if they are made by the free consent of parties,
competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and are
not hereby expressly declared to be void1. Therefore, §10 of the Indian Contract

1
Indian Contract Act 1872, §10, No.9, Acts of Parliament, 1872, (India)

12 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Act, of 1872, unequivocally emphasizes that all agreements can qualify as contracts
if they fulfil specific prerequisites, among which is the fundamental requirement
that they must be entered into with the free consent of the parties involved.
V. §14 of the same Act further elucidates what constitutes 'free consent.' It enumerates
several factors, including coercion, undue influence, fraud defined in §17,
misrepresentation as defined in §18, and mistake, subject to the provisions of the
act as grounds opposed to ‘free consent.’
VI. In light of these provisions, the Respondent contends that the collaborative
agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent should be deemed void due
to the fraudulent misrepresentation perpetrated by the Claimant. This action of
misrepresentation and fraud, led to the absence of free consent, a critical element
in the formation of a valid contract, and therefore, warrants the contract's
annulment. Hence, the arbitration agreement contained within it is rendered invalid
as well.
VII. The term ‘fraud’ as per the Companies Act, 2013, is defined as fraud in relation to
affairs of a company or anybody corporate, includes any act, omission,
concealment of any fact or abuse of position committed by any person or any other
person with the connivance in any manner, with intent to deceive, to gain undue
advantage from, or to injure the interests of, the company or its shareholders or its
creditors or any other person, whether or not there is any wrongful gain or wrongful
loss.2
VIII. The misrepresentations by the claimant led the respondent to enter into an
agreement that it might not have considered under truthful circumstances. The legal
and financial implications of this breach of trust are extensive, and they directly
affect the viability of the collaboration agreement.
IX. In Abdul Kadir Shamsuddin Bubere v. Madhav Prabhakar Oak3, serious
allegations of fraud were held by the Court to be a sufficient ground for not making
a reference to arbitration.
X. In Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers4, a 2 judge bench of the Supreme Court
of India, while adjudicating on an application under section 8 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 held that an issue of fraud is not arbitrable.

2
Companies Act, 2013, §447, No.18, Acts of Parliament, 2013 (India)
3
Abdul Kadir Shamsuddin Bubere vs Madhav Prabhakar Oak AIR 406, SCR Supl. (3) 702
4
Radhakrishnan v Maestro Engineers (2010) 1 SCC 72

13 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
XI. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam
Limited vs. Northern Coal Field Limited5 mentioned that the doctrine of
kompetenz-kompetenz or jurisdiction of the arbitral body is subject to the
exception when the arbitration agreement itself is impeached as being procured by
fraud or deception.
XII. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd 6 it was
observed that cases involving serious and specific allegations of fraud, fabrication
of documents, forgery, impersonation, coercion, etc. and cases involving
prosecution for criminal offences were considered to be not suitable for ADR
process having regard to their nature.
XIII. Thus, it can be concluded in the particular case that the collaboration agreement
is invalid due to the presence of ‘fraud’ and ‘misrepresentation.’ Thereby,
rendering the arbitration clause within it as also ineffective.

[B] Non-Fulfilment of Prerequisite Conditions

XIV. The Collaboration Agreement firmly establishes that negotiations are a

compulsory and indispensable step preceding any arbitration procedure. Clause
25.1 of the Agreement unequivocally dictates that the Parties shall engage in direct
negotiations, in a spirit of goodwill and sincerity, for the resolution of any Dispute
that arises within the scope of this Agreement. These negotiations are not merely
recommended but are obligatory, serving as a fundamental prerequisite that must
be fulfilled prior to initiating any arbitration proceedings. The Parties are expected
to share information, engage in meaningful dialogue, and sincerely endeavour to
reach a mutually agreeable resolution during this negotiation period. Only when
the negotiation process proves unsuccessful may the Parties consider invoking
arbitration as an alternative means of dispute resolution according to Clause 25.2
and 25.3.
XV. In the case at hand, the respondent’s legal representative, Ms. Nancy Hopper, took
the initiative on October 10, 2022, to initiate private negotiations with Mr. Steeve

5
Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited vs. Northern Coal Field Limited 2019 SCC OnLine
SC 1518
6
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd 2010 (8) SCC 24

14 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Byers from The claimant. These actions exemplify the respondent’s commitment
to resolve the dispute through amicable means in accordance with the principles of
the Collaboration Agreement.
XVI. However, the response from the claimant was anything but cooperative. Despite
having acknowledged the respondent's sincere efforts to engage in negotiations on
November 15, 2022, the claimant abruptly served a notice to invoke arbitration.
This abrupt shift in approach not only contradicted the essence of Clause 25.1 of
the Collaboration Agreement but also demonstrated a lack of prompt and good-
faith participation in the negotiation process.
XVII. In the case of Emirates Trading Agency LLC v. Prime Mineral Exports (P)
Ltd.7, the court upheld the enforceability of a time-limited clause that required
parties to engage in friendly discussions. The court provided several compelling
reasons to support this position. Firstly, the use of the term "shall" in the clause
indicated its mandatory nature. Secondly, the requirement was considered
commercially sensible, as it encouraged parties to resolve disputes amicably and
avoid costly and time-consuming arbitration proceedings. Thirdly, the court
emphasized that commercial entities expect the judicial system to uphold
obligations they willingly undertake. Fourthly, the primary objective of such a
clause is to prevent protracted and expensive arbitration, making it a matter of
public interest. The court concurred with an Australian precedent, asserting that
such clauses are enforceable and not vague or incomplete. It further distinguished
between an "agreement to agree" and an "agreement to hold negotiations in good
faith." The latter represents a commitment by one party to conduct discussions in
a specific manner, rendering it legally enforceable.
XVIII. The court in the case of Haldiram Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. DLF Commercial
Complexes Ltd.8 an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, to refer the suit to arbitration was in question. The agreement required
discussion for amicable settlement prior to requesting arbitration. The requirement
of discussion was prefaced with the word “shall”. The requirement was held to be
mandatory.

7
Emirates Trading Agency LLC v. Prime Mineral Exports (P) Ltd (2014) EWHC 2104
8
Haldiram Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. v. DLF Commercial Complexes Ltd 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2139

15 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
XIX. Hence, one can infer that the negotiations remain unfinished, and it's only upon
their successful conclusion that the parties can move forward with arbitration.

[C] Jurisdiction of Indovian Courts

XX. The presence of serious fraud and misrepresentation in the development of the
collaboration agreement between the Claimant and Respondent underscores the
necessity of addressing these fraud allegations through open court adjudication of
Indovia.
XXI. The Claimant maliciously misrepresented its technological capabilities and
financial standings during the collaboration agreement negotiations. This not only
undermined the free consent required for a valid contract but also cast a shadow of
deceit on the entire agreement.
XXII. The misrepresentations by the Claimant led the Respondent to enter into an
agreement that it might not have considered under truthful circumstances. The legal
and financial implications of this breach of trust are extensive, and they directly
affect the viability of the collaboration agreement.
XXIII. The claimant's actions have not only resulted in significant financial losses but
have also triggered a series of events with far-reaching consequences. The
culmination of these events, including the publication of the article 'AI Arm-
Wrestle: Tech Titans Grapple for Supremacy' in a highly regarded magazine, has
had a detrimental impact. It has not only tarnished the reputation and goodwill of
Respondent , a leading player in the Indovian tech landscape but has also cast a
shadow on the entire nation of Indovia, which stands as a global technology
powerhouse known for attracting innovative companies aiming to harness its
skilled workforce and expansive market potential.
XXIV. This damaging sequence of events has severely affected the public perception
of both Respondent and Indovia, leading to a substantial detriment to their
collective image and reputation.
XXV. In addition to the gravity of the fraud allegations, the fact that the collaborative
agreement is governed by Indovian laws further supports the contention that the
dispute should be adjudicated in open court. The choice of Indovian law as the
governing law in the collaboration agreement implies that both parties intended to

16 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
have Indovian courts adjudicate any disputes, including those related to fraud and
misrepresentation.
XXVI. In the landmark case of Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. v. HSBC PI
Holdings (Mauritius) Limited9, which very much corresponds to the facts of this
particular case, the Supreme Court emphasized that when serious allegations of
fraud are made against a party, and that party seeks an open court trial, it constitutes
sufficient cause for the court to refrain from enforcing an arbitration agreement and
to proceed with a court-based resolution. The case underscores the importance of
trying matters involving significant fraud allegations in open court, thereby
aligning with the respondent’s stance in the present dispute.
XXVII. In the case of A Ayyasamy v. A Paramasivam & Ors10, the court set out
that serious allegations of fraud comprise scenarios where there are intricate claims
of forgery. Furthermore, they encompass situations in which fraud is alleged to
taint not only the contract itself but also the very agreement to arbitrate. Therefore,
it is imperative that issues of this magnitude be addressed in open court, aligning
with the respondent’s assertion that the present dispute, riddled with such serious
allegations of fraud, merits court-based resolution.
XXVIII. In the light of the above mentioned arguments the respondent contends
that the present dispute shall be handled by courts under Indovian jurisdiction.

[D] The award shall be ineffective in Indovia as it is contrary to

Public Policy

XXIX. Enforcement of an arbitral award may also be refused if the Court finds that—
(b) the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of India. 2
[Explanation 1.—For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an award is in
conflict with the public policy of India, only if,— (ii) it is in contravention with the
fundamental policy of Indian law; or (iii) it is in conflict with the most basic notions of
morality or justice.11

9
Avitel Post Studioz Limited & Ors. v. HSBC PI Holdings (Mauritius) Limited 2020 SCC OnLine SC
656
10
A Ayyasamy v. A Paramasivam & Ors (2016) 10 SCC 386
11
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, §48, 26, Acts of Parliament, 1996 (India

17 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
XXX. The enforcement of an arbitral award in Indovia must conform to the principles
of public policy, as outlined in § 48(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Act specifically states that an award can be refused enforcement if it is contrary to
the public policy of Indovia.
XXXI. In the present case, the appointment of Ms. Erica Sinclair as an arbitrator,
without disclosing her substantial interest in the claimant's company, goes against the
fundamental principles of Indian law and public policy. Indovian law requires
arbitrators to be impartial and independent, as it is essential for ensuring a fair and
unbiased arbitration process.
XXXII. The failure to disclose this substantial interest has created justifiable doubts
about Ms. Sinclair's impartiality, and her subsequent role as an arbitrator has tainted the
entire arbitration process. Arbitrators must remain impartial and free from any bias or
interest in the outcome of the case. This requirement is foundational to the principles
of Indovian arbitration law and is upheld to maintain the integrity and fairness of the
process.
XXXIII. Furthermore, enforcing an award that was obtained through a process marred
by a lack of impartiality and independence would be in direct violation of the most basic
notions of morality and justice. It would be fundamentally unfair and unjust to uphold
an award that was influenced by an arbitrator's concealed association with one of the
parties.

2. The Arbitral Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear the dispute

XXXIV. It is humbly submitted before the arbitral tribunal of the SIAC that the challenge
raised by the respondent over Ms. Erica’s appointment is maintainable and can be
supported on several grounds. The premise of this issue is in [A] Presence of Personal
Interest [B] Violation under Various Arbitration Laws [C] Violation [D] Reservations
about SIAC Arbitration.

[A] Presence of Personal Interest

XXXV. On December 15, 2022, the SIAC appointed Ms. Erica Sinclair as the
chairperson at the claimant's request, as the parties' co-arbitrators had not reached an
agreement. Subsequently, on January 5, 2023, the respondent raised a challenge to Ms.

18 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Erica Sinclair's appointment, citing the significant connection between Ms. Erica
Sinclair's spouse, Mr. Murray, and the claimant.
XXXVI. Mr. Murray Sinclair, was the chairman of the board of Data-mension, a
Japanese-incorporated company that held 99% of Algorithmia, a company incorporated
in England, and which, in turn, held 57% of The claimant’ shareholding.
XXXVII. The pre-existing and undisclosed connection between the Chairman, Ms. Erica
Sinclair, and the claimant remained concealed until brought to light by the respondent,
strongly suggesting an element of foul play.
XXXVIII. The connection between Ms. Erica Sinclair’s spouse and the claimant denotes a
lack of Ms. Erica’s independence and impartiality. Hence, this is a violation of the
conduct of arbitration under various statutes.
XXXIX. In the case of Hancock v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd12, the New South Wales
Supreme Court considered a challenge to an arbitrator appointment under the
Commercial Arbitration Act 2012.The circumstances in the challenge centred around
the arbitrator’s relationship with his spouse. The arbitrator’s spouse was employed in
the past by the law firm representing the defendant.
XL. Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd13, The UK Supreme Court
has delivered its long-awaited decision in Halliburton v Chubb regarding an arbitrator's
duty to disclose multiple appointments in related arbitrations. In a decision of
significance to the international arbitration community, the UK Supreme Court
affirmed that arbitrators have a legal duty to disclose circumstances that would or might
give rise to doubts as to an arbitrator's impartiality, which may include acceptance of
multiple appointments in overlapping arbitrations.
XLI. In Hrvatska Elektropriveda v. Slovenia (ICSD)14 it established the test for
apparent bias as whether "an informed and reasonable third party would conclude, on a
balanced assessment of the facts, that there exists a real possibility that the arbitrator
was biased." This principle strongly aligns with the respondent's contention regarding
the importance of fairness within the arbitration process.

12
Hancock v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd, (2022) NSWSC 724
13
Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd (2020) UKSC 48
14
Hrvatska Elektropriveda v. Slovenia (ICSD) 2015 IIC 753

19 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

[B] Violation under Various Arbitration Laws

XLII. The appointment of Ms. Ericla Sinclair can be constituted as against the
principles and conduct of arbitration according to various laws due to the
substantial interest of Ms. Sinclair in the case leading to a lack of impartiality and
fairness. This can be divided into 3 sections mainly: (i) Under IBA Guidelines on
Conflict of Interest (ii) As per Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (iii) In light
of SIAC RULES 2016.

i. Under IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interest

XLIII. As per the IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interest General Standard 2(a)
imposes a duty on the arbitrator to decline to accept the appointment or, if the
arbitration has already been commenced, refuse to continue to act as an arbitrator,
if he or she has any doubt as to his or her ability to be impartial or independent.
XLIV. Furthermore, General Standard 2(b), mandates that the same principle applies
if facts or circumstances arise, which, when viewed by a reasonable third party
with knowledge of the relevant details, would give rise to justifiable doubts
regarding the arbitrator's impartiality or independence. This standard is crucial to
ensure a fair and unbiased arbitration process. If doubts about an arbitrator's
impartiality persist, it is incumbent upon the arbitrator to step down from their role.
XLV. The duty of an arbitrator to disclose information, as outlined in General
Standard 3(a) of the IBA Guidelines, is grounded in the principle that transparency
is of paramount importance in arbitration. Parties involved in an arbitration process
have a legitimate interest in being fully informed of any facts or circumstances that
could be relevant in their perspective. General Standard 3(d) explicitly underscores
that any uncertainty about whether particular facts or circumstances should be
disclosed should be resolved in favour of disclosure.
XLVI. The situation wherein the arbitrator shares a close family relationship with a
party, a manager, director, or a member of the supervisory board, an individual
exercising significant control over a party, or an affiliate of a party, or is closely
connected with legal counsel representing a party, is classified within the 'waivable
Red List' as denoted by Part II: Practical Application of the General Standards,
specifically Section 2.3.8.

20 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
XLVII. In the case of CFJ v. CFL,15 a significant judgment was delivered by
the Singapore International Commercial Court (Court) regarding the issue of
apparent bias of an arbitrator in a Singapore-seated arbitral proceeding. The case
gave rise to the fact of appointment of an informed and fair-minded observer and
set up a precedent of effective two-stage check on the arbitration proceeding, which
will eventually make the process more equitable.

ii. As per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

XLVIII. Section 12 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the
"Grounds for challenge." According to this section when an individual is
approached regarding their potential appointment as an arbitrator, they must
provide a written disclosure of any circumstances that might create reasonable
doubts about their independence or impartiality. The Fifth Schedule, as explained
in Explanation 1, serves as a reference to identify whether such circumstances
exist, leading to justifiable doubts about the arbitrator's independence or
impartiality wherein
XLIX. Moreover, Section 12(5) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, states
that regardless of any previous agreement between the parties, individuals with
specific relationships with the parties, their counsel, or the subject matter of the
dispute, as outlined in the Seventh Schedule, are ineligible to be appointed as
arbitrators.
L. The Seventh Schedule, particularly item (9), specifies that the arbitrator is eligible
if has a close family relationship with one of the parties and in the case of
companies with the persons in the management and controlling the company. In
addition, item (13) denotes that a close family member of the arbitrator has a
significant financial interest in the outcome of the dispute also renders the same
effect on the arbitrator. This aligns with the situation in the case of Erica Sinclair,
whose husband is a significant share of the claimant's company. Based on this
provision, her appointment as an arbitrator is to be considered ineligible.
LI. In Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain V. Wadhwani Parmeshwari Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.16 The
Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the challenge against the arbitrator on

15
CFJ v. CFL (2023) SGHC (I)
16
Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain V. Wadhwani Parmeshwari Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. 2019 Latest Caselaw 582 SC

21 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
the grounds of potential perceived bias, held that there should be no room for even
a perception of bias against the arbitrator.

iii. In light of SIAC Rules, 2016

LII. §13.1 emphasizes that any arbitrator appointed in an arbitration under the SIAC
Rules, 2016 must remain independent and impartial at all times. However, this
fundamental principle stands compromised in the case of Ms. Erica Sinclair's
appointment.

LIII. §13.2 mentions that when appointing an arbitrator under these Rules, the
President of the SIAC shall consider qualifications required by the parties'
agreement and factors relevant to the arbitrator's impartiality or independence.

LIV. §13.4 requires that a nominated arbitrator should disclose any circumstances
that may raise doubts about their impartiality or independence to the parties and
the Registrar as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case, before their
appointment. In the present proceedings, the failure of Ms. Erica Sinclair to make
the necessary disclosures as required by this rule raises significant concerns about
her ability to remain impartial and fair in the arbitration proceedings. The absence
of such disclosure threatens the integrity of the arbitration process and undermines
the confidence of the parties involved.

LV. As per §15.1 of the rules, a party planning to challenge an arbitrator must promptly
submit a notice of challenge to the Registrar. This notice should adhere to the
guidelines outlined in Rule 15.2. The time limit for filing such a challenge is within
14 days following the reception of the notice regarding the appointment of the
arbitrator under consideration for the challenge. Alternatively, the 14-day limit also
applies from the time the party became aware of the circumstances as described in
Rule 14.1 or Rule 14.2, or when such circumstances should have been reasonably
known to that party.

LVI. In the present case, the respondent filed their challenge to Ms. Erica Sinclair's
appointment on January 5, 2023. Despite this challenge occurring 20 days after her
appointment, it falls within the time period of 'should have reasonably known' due
to the respondent's discovery of Ms. Sinclair's underlying relations with the
claimant on January 4, 2023.

22 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

3. The claimant does not have ownership and proprietary rights

over the Intellectual Property Rights of MindFlayer

LVII. The claimant’s contention that it has complete ownership and proprietary rights
over the intellectual property rights of MindFlayer is prima facie invalid itself. The
premise of this issue is three-fold [A] The Claimant's Restricted Ownership and
Proprietary Rights within the Collaboration Agreement [B] Acceptance of Joint
Ownership [C] Counterclaim for misrepresentation.

[A] The Claimant's Restricted Ownership and Proprietary Rights

within the Collaboration Agreement

LVIII. The collaborative agreement between the parties has risen on the basis of joint
efforts and the development of the software application ‘MindFlayer.’ Moreover,
it is the claimant who had approached the respondent in order to join forces and
develop groundbreaking Artificial Intelligence (AI) products for the global market

LIX. The collaborative agreement between the parties has risen on the basis of joint
efforts and the development of the software application ‘MindFlayer.’ Moreover,
it is the claimant who had approached the respondent in order to join forces and
develop groundbreaking Artificial Intelligence (AI) products for the global market

LX. Clause 20.1 of the collaborative agreement states that AI Innovation shall retain all
rights to any intellectual property (“IP”) created or developed during the course of
the project till the completion of the project. It underscores that the project does
not automatically lead to exclusive ownership by the claimant, which may be more
in line with the collaborative nature of the agreement.

LXI. Clause 20.2 of the Collaboration Agreement reflects the acknowledgement of

mutual contributions from both parties. This clause states that both the respondent
and the claimant may make contributions to the IP. This further highlights the
collaborative nature of the project, where both parties are expected to bring their
expertise to the table.

LXII. The collaborative accord forms the bedrock upon which 'MindFlayer' stands as
a testament to the shared commitment of The claimant and Respondent to redefine
the AI landscape and propel the realm of financial analysis into an era of

23 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
unprecedented innovation.

LXIII. Furthermore, the Agreement firmly established the concept of fair sharing of
Intellectual Property, guaranteeing that any innovative solutions originating from
their partnership would be owned jointly and protected collectively.

LXIV. Moreover, the Collaboration Agreement lacks clauses that explicitly grant
exclusive ownership to Respondent or The claimant. The absence of such clauses
indicates that the default position was shared ownership or retention of IP by both
parties. Legal principles often presume that ownership rights are not transferred
automatically unless explicitly stated. Since the Collaboration Agreement lacks
such explicit language, it can be argued that the claimant does not automatically
gain exclusive ownership rights.

LXV. In DDB Technologies, L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P.17 this case
involved a dispute over patents related to streaming media content. Despite the
presence of specific agreements, the court determined that both parties had made
substantial contributions to the invention, leading to joint ownership.

[B] Acceptance of Joint Acknowledgment

LXVI. The claimant approached the respondent in order to join forces and develop
groundbreaking Artificial Intelligence (AI) products for the global market marking
the beginning of a series of clear events denoting joint acknowledgment of the
development of the product.

LXVII. It is evident that the collaborative project between the claimant and the
respondent was fundamentally aimed at enhancing the financial decision-making
process for the respondent’s clients. This objective signifies a shared vision and
purpose in the development of the 'MindFlayer' software.

LXVIII. Post the release of the article in the magazine ‘MindVerse’ where the
claimant alleged that the respondent had misrepresented the efforts by the claimant,
the claimant took a proactive approach to rectify the misrepresentation of their
contributions in the collaboration. It emphasizes the fundamental importance of
recognizing and acknowledging the significant role of both parties in the joint

17
DDB Technologies, L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P (2006) 465 F. Supp. 2d 657

24 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
venture.

LXIX. On July 15, 2022, the Claimant sent a formal letter to the Respondent
emphasizing their multifaceted contributions to the development of the project.
This correspondence underscores the Claimant's perspective on their involvement
and contribution to the collaboration. The letter serves as another instance of joint
acknowledgement by the Claimant, reflecting their understanding of the
collaborative nature of the project and the significance of their contributions.

LXX. The respondent’s willingness to acknowledge the oversight related to the

interview and the omission of The claimant' contributions resulted in the
respondent releasing a statement acknowledging the efforts of the claimant.
Although the claimant alleges that the respondent has downplayed the pivotal role
of the respondent in the collaborative project, it further implies a shared
responsibility for the misrepresentation.

[C] Counterclaim for misrepresentation

LXXI. The respondent's approach to the Collaboration Agreement has consistently

been characterized by good faith and a commitment to fostering a cooperative and
harmonious working relationship with the claimant. Throughout the course of their
collaboration, the respondent placed a strong emphasis on interpersonal
relationships and collective harmony, aligning with the cultural and legal
landscapes of Indovia.

LXXII. The respondent's sincere and well-intentioned efforts were met with
covert actions taken by the claimant. In the midst of the ongoing dispute between
the two parties, the claimant made discreet attempts to secure patents and
Intellectual Property Rights, effectively laying claim to the respondent's
contributions as if they were their own.

LXXIII. The Collaboration Agreement, as per Clause 20, emphasizes the

principle of equitable IP sharing. The claimant’s attempt to secure exclusive
patents and IPR for 'MindFlayer' is in conflict with this principle and is a breach of
the agreement. It could be seen as an attempt to assert exclusive ownership,
contrary to the joint ownership clause.

LXXIV. Clause 20.1 of the agreement states that the claimant would retain rights

25 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
to any intellectual property created during the course of the project until its
completion. The claimant’s by initiating the patent application process while the
project was ongoing, is in violation of this clause, as it suggests an intent to assert
exclusive ownership before the agreed-upon timeline.

LXXV. The claimant's actions had a detrimental impact on the collaborative

spirit of the agreement. Instead of pursuing an amicable resolution through
negotiation or arbitration, the claimant chose to secure patents, thus furthering the
dispute. Consequently, an article was published in a respected magazine that
tarnished the reputation and values of the respondent something which the
respondent lays great importance upon.

LXXVI. Consequently, the respondents in this case are the true aggrieved parties,
bearing the impact of both financial and non-financial losses caused by the actions
of the claimant.

4. The Respondent has not breached the Agreement, thereby the

claimant is not entitled to seek damages

LXXVII. The claimant’s allegation that the respondent has breached the
agreement is baseless and a longshot attempt at making the most out of favourable
circumstances for the claimant, as a result, the claimant is not entitled to damages.
The premise of this issue is three-fold: [A] Fair and Accurate Representation by
the respondent [B] Non-employment of the latest technology by the claimant [C]
The respondent is entitled to damages.

[A] Fair and Accurate Representation by the respondent

LXXVIII. The claimant’s allegation that the respondent had breached clause 5.3 of
the collaboration agreement is baseless and shall be disregarded.

LXXIX. The respondent's newly appointed CEO, Mr. Jim Brenner, participated
in an interview with a business magazine called 'MindVerse.' During the interview,
Mr. Brenner discussed the development of 'MindFlayer.' Subsequently, the
magazine, MindVerse, published this interview under the headline "Artificiana's
New Mind-Flaying Invention! A Game Changer." Upon discovering Mr. Jim

26 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Brenner's interview, the claimant became aggrieved due to the absence of mention
of The claimant or the claimant.

LXXX. In this scenario, it is important to note that the respondent had no ill
intentions and no control over the article's publication. The magazine 'MindVerse'
had full authority over the article's headline and content. Furthermore, the timing
of the interview, conducted shortly after the appointment of the new CEO, Mr. Jim
Brenner, suggests that the interview primarily centred around introducing the new
CEO. However, due to external factors beyond the respondent's control, the focus
of the interview shifted towards the new software. Therefore, the respondent
maintains that this incident was an unfortunate occurrence.

LXXXI. Respecting the concerns of their collaborative partner, a principle that

Respondent has always upheld, the respondent acknowledged the oversight and
made the decision to release a statement with genuine intent.

LXXXII. On July 15, 2023, the respondent released a public statement to rectify
the prior incident and explicitly acknowledged their collaboration with The
claimant, referring to them as a "technical support partner." However, the claimants
have contended that this reference downplayed the significance of The claimant'
contributions.

LXXXIII. The respondent contends that their inadvertent reference to the claimant
as a "technical support partner" does not constitute a violation of clause 5.3. This
reference accurately represented the roles defined in the collaborative agreement,
where the claimant was responsible for providing technological expertise, while
the respondent contributed market insights and domain knowledge.

LXXXIV. Clause 5.2 of the collaborative agreement explicitly outlines The

claimant' role as providing technological expertise. The use of the phrase "technical
support partner" does not diminish the claimant's contributions. Any
misinterpretation or the claimant's desire for a different portrayal of their role
should not be construed as a violation of clause 5.3.

LXXXV. The respondent, guided by its moral principles, made efforts to resolve
the dispute through negotiation and maintain the relationship. In contrast, the
claimant escalated the dispute by initiating arbitration and capitalizing on a series
of unfortunate events to their advantage. The respondent's actions throughout these

27 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
events demonstrate a commitment to positive and morally upright intentions, which
stand in contrast to the actions of the claimant.

[B] Non-employment of the latest technology by the claimant

LXXXVI. The respondent's decision to withhold payments was not arbitrary but
was necessitated by the significant concerns raised about the claimant’s use of
outdated and obsolete technology. The Collaboration Agreement explicitly
outlined the need for state-of-the-art technology to develop 'MindFlayer.' However,
the claimant consistently utilized outdated technology, which not only hindered
project progress but also jeopardized the quality and effectiveness of the product.

LXXXVII. The respondent’s decision to withhold payments can be understood as a

precautionary measure to ensure that the collaborative project adhered to the
agreed-upon standards of innovation. The respondents were committed to
delivering a cutting-edge solution, and concerns about the technological foundation
of the project were valid reasons for delaying payments until these issues were
addressed. This decision was made in the best interest of the project's success,
reflecting the respondent’s commitment to delivering a high-quality product.

LXXXVIII. The claimant's acknowledgement and acceptance of the respondent's

allegation regarding their use of outdated technology is evident in an internal email
produced by the respondent. In this email, Mr. Steeve Byers from The claimant
communicated with the CEO of AI Innovation, discussing his interaction with Ms.
Hopper and referencing the claimant's request for updated technology by the
respondent. This email serves as clear evidence of the claimant's acknowledgement
of their technology situation.

LXXXIX. Therefore, the respondent’s decision to withhold payments due to

concerns about the use of outdated technology was made with the project's best
interests in mind.

[C] The respondent is entitled to damages.

XC. The respondent approached the collaboration with a bona fide spirit and
emphasized the importance of maintaining a strong interpersonal relationship. The
claimant's actions of clandestinely applying for patents is a breach of trust. This, in

28 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
turn, led to the publication of an article in a reputable magazine that tarnished the
reputation and principles of the respondent.

XCI. The collaborative agreement highlights the principle of equitable Intellectual

Property (IP) sharing. The respondent has a vested interest in ensuring that their
innovative solutions, developed in collaboration with the claimant, are jointly
owned and protected. The attempts by the claimant to secure exclusive ownership
or patents without the respondent’s consent infringe the rights of the respondent.
This constitutes a breach of the agreement and affects the respondent’s interests.

XCII. Furthermore, the respondent, as the party that provided substantial financial
support for the development of the 'MindFlayer' project, is particularly aggrieved
by the actions of the claimant. The financial investments made by the respondent
were based on the understanding that both parties would jointly benefit from the
project's success. However, the unilateral attempts by the claimant to secure
exclusive ownership and patents not only jeopardize the equitable distribution of
intellectual property rights but also put the respondent’s financial interests at risk.
These actions have led to real, quantifiable losses for the respondent, making them
the aggrieved party in this dispute.

5. The Printscreen produced by the Respondent at the Stage of

hearing is admissible

XCIII. The printscreen produced by the respondent during the hearing of merits is fully
admissible and serves as a crucial form of evidence in determining the outcome of
the case. The premise of this issue is in three-fold [A] Discretion of the arbitrator
[B] The evidence is not obtained illegally.

[A] Discretion of the arbitrator

XCIV. The admission of evidence according to SIAC Rules, 2016 boils down to the
discretion of the arbitrator. On that basis, the arbitrator is bound to admit a crucial
piece of evidence in order to uphold the principle of justice and fairness in the
proceedings.

XCV. Rule 19.2 of the SIAC Rules, 2016 states that the tribunal shall determine the
relevance, materiality and admissibility of all evidence. The Tribunal is not

29 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
required to apply the rules of evidence of any applicable law in making such
determination.

XCVI. Rule19.4 states that the Tribunal may, in its discretion, direct the order of
proceedings, bifurcate proceedings, exclude cumulative or irrelevant testimony or
other evidence and direct the parties to focus their presentations on issues the
decision of which could dispose of all or part of the case.

XCVII. The tribunal can order parties to disclose documents in their possession
or control that the Tribunal considers relevant to the case and material to its
outcome according to Rule 27(f) of SIAC Rules 2016

XCVIII. In this context the printscreen produced by Respondent serves as a

pivotal piece of evidence, shedding light on the acknowledgement and acceptance
of certain allegations, which have a direct bearing on the dispute between the
parties. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 19.2 and Rule 19.4 of the SIAC Rules,
2016, the tribunal should exercise its discretion to admit this printscreen.

XCIX. Article 18 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules Equal treatment of parties the
parties shall be treated with equality and each party shall be given a full opportunity
to present his case

C. Article 27(4) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules gives the tribunal the broadest
authority to decide on evidentiary matters, stating: ‘The arbitral tribunal shall
determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence
offered.’

CI. In CBS v. CBP18, the Singapore Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator, in
requiring parties to show that their evidence had ‘substantive’ value before
deciding whether to allow it through an oral hearing, had committed a material
breach of the rules of natural justice. The Court of Appeal thus upheld the High
Court’s decision to set aside the final arbitral award in favour of the appellant.

CII. In BQP v BQQ19, The Singapore High Court stated that the tribunal shall
determine the relevance, materiality, and admissibility of all evidence. Evidence
need not be admissible in law. The learned Judge’s view made it clear that

18
CBS v. CBP (2021) SGCA 4
19
BQP v BQQ (2018) SGHC 55

30 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
evidential questions of admissibility, relevance and materiality were therefore
clearly “within the sole province of the tribunal”

CIII. In Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada 20case under the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In this case, the tribunal emphasized
that a broad approach to evidence admissibility was essential to fulfil the tribunal's
mandate to render a just and fair decision.

[B] The evidence shall be admitted

CIV. Under the SIAC Rules 2016, the admissibility of evidence is entrusted to the
discretion of the arbitral tribunal. Notably, these rules do not explicitly disallow
the admission of confidential communications. In exercising this discretion, the
tribunal is not mandated to apply the rules of evidence of any applicable law,
emphasizing the flexibility accorded to arbitral tribunals.

CV. It is crucial to recognize that the overarching principle guiding these rules is the
pursuit of justice and fairness. Excluding evidence, such as the email
communication in question, which is not obtained illegally and bears direct
relevance to the dispute, would not align with the principles of justice and fairness
that are at the heart of arbitration.

CVI. To deny the admission of a piece of evidence that is essential to comprehend

the factual background of the case would not only be inconsistent with the SIAC
Rules but would also hinder the tribunal's ability to render a just and equitable
decision.

CVII. The claimant has not provided concrete evidence or legal arguments supporting
their assertion that the email was obtained illegally. If there's no clear proof of
illegality, mere allegations alone are insufficient to demonstrate an illegal act.

CVIII. In Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima the Court of Appeal

considered whether email correspondence obtained by hacking could be admissible
at trial, and concluded it was.

20
Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2

31 | P a g e
 10TH JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the Counsel on behalf of the Respondent humbly prays before the Arbitration Tribunal
of Singapore that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on this matter thus reject all
jurisdictional claims.
2. The Challenges made by the Respondent are valid, invalidating Ms. Erica
Sinclair’s Appointment.
3. The Claimant is not in Ownership & Proprietary Rights over the Intellectual
Property Rights of Mind Flayer.
4. The Respondent have not bought addition of losses on the Claimant, hence
denying any relief or remedies sought by the claimant.
5. Admit the Printscreen evidence as relevant and admissible in the arbitration
proceedings.

and/or
Pass any other order, direction or relief that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity,
fairness and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Respondent shall duty bound forever pray

Place: SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE

Date: 05.11.2023 COUNSELS for the

Respondent

32 | P a g e