questions of law authorised the arbitrator to act outside the provisions of Art 23(2) of the Model Law. The arbitrator dismissed the claim by the appellant. He said: agreed list of issues was filed by the parties on 13 May 2010. The hearing of “An evidence commenced on 20 May 2010, and ended on 3 June 2010, with an adjournment to 2 August 2010 for argument. The realistic inference to draw from this background is that GDI changed its mind when it proceeded to prepare its heads of argument, and decided to introduce the defence that the two agreements were illegal and unenforceable. An objection in should be taken by a defendant before plea. Its object is to limine avoid further pleadings and the holding of a trial, and to afford finality to litigation, thereby avoiding the consequential costs.” He goes on to say, regard to both the absence of an application by GDI to or supplement its “Having Amended Statement of Defence, and more importantly, to the excessive delay in raising the illegality defence, the arbitral tribunal considers it now inappropriate to permit GDI to rely on it.” The arbitrator went on to determine the matter on the merits. He found that the first respondent’s witness Mr Liu was an unreliable witness because he was argumentative and evasive when answering questions. He also found that Mr Liu had refrained from disclosing documents containing information on the foreign currency his company had raised from the sale of tobacco during the two periods covered by the agreements. Mr Liu was constrained under cross-examination to admit that there was information relating to the transactions concerned which he had not disclosed. As a result he produced schedules which revealed the actual proceeds of the tobacco sold over the two
questions of law authorised the arbitrator to act outside the provisions of Art 23(2) of the Model Law. The arbitrator dismissed the claim by the appellant. He said: “An agreed list of issues was filed by the parties on 13 May 2010. The hearing of evidence commenced on 20 May 2010, and ended on 3 June 2010, with an adjournment to 2 August 2010 for argument. The realistic inference to draw from this background is that GDI changed its mind when it proceeded to prepare its heads of argument, and decided to introduce the defence that the two agreements were illegal and unenforceable. An objection in limine should be taken by a defendant before plea. Its object is to avoid further pleadings and the holding of a trial, and to afford finality to litigation, thereby avoiding the consequential costs.” He goes on to say, “Having regard to both the absence of an application by GDI to or supplement its Amended Statement of Defence, and more importantly, to the excessive delay in raising the illegality defence, the arbitral tribunal considers it now inappropriate to permit GDI to rely on it.” The arbitrator went on to determine the matter on the merits. He found that the first respondent’s witness Mr Liu was an unreliable witness because he was argumentative and evasive when answering questions. He also found that Mr Liu had refrained from disclosing documents containing information on the foreign currency his company had raised from the sale of tobacco during the two periods covered by the agreements. Mr Liu was constrained under cross-examination to admit that there was information relating to the transactions concerned which he had not disclosed. As a result he produced schedules which revealed the actual proceeds of the tobacco sold over the two
SC-09-13%20GOLD%20DRIVEN%20INVESTMENTS%20PVT%20LTD%20VS%20TELONE%20PVT%20LTD.docx