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