MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT - Pace University

QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF LAW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... VI!
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................ VIII!
TABLE OF CASES ........................................................................................................ XIV!
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................................ 1!
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 2!
PART ONE: THE TRIBUNAL LACKS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PARTIES’
DISPUTE. ........................................................................................................................... 2!
I. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT CONSTITUTED ACCORDING TO THE PARTIES’ AGREEMENT. ..... 2!
A.! The Council did not comply with the Parties’ Agreement in denying
confirmation of Mr. Y. ................................................................................................ 3!
1.! Both Parties waived any objection to Mr. Y’s qualified statement of
independence. ............................................................................................ 3!
2.! The Parties’ mutual decision to accept Mr. Y’s appointment as
presiding arbitrator was entitled to deference from the Council. ..... 3!
3.! The Council should have regard for the Parties’ expectations and
should have applied the IBA Guidelines to confirm Mr. Y. .............. 4!
4.! The Council’s decision to deny Mr. Y’s confirmation was
premature. .................................................................................................. 5!
B.! The Council did not comply with the Parties’ Agreement in appointing Mr. Z
as presiding arbitrator. ................................................................................................. 5!
1.! The Council did not have authority to substitute a replacement
arbitrator because there was no replacement arbitrator. .................... 5!
2.! The Council should have invited the party-appointed arbitrators to
make another appointment. .................................................................... 6!
II. RESPONDENT DID NOT WAIVE ITS RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE
TRIBUNAL. ........................................................................................................................................... 6!
A.! Respondent was unaware of the improper constitution of the Tribunal when it
submitted its Statement of Defence. ......................................................................... 7!
B.! The time between the improper constitution and Respondent’s objection does
not amount to undue delay. ........................................................................................ 7!
C.! Respondent’s objection is not disruptive of the arbitral proceedings. ................ 7!
III. IF THE TRIBUNAL AFFIRMS ITS JURISDICTION, AN EVENTUAL AWARD IS AT RISK OF
BEING SET ASIDE OR DENIED RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT. .......................................... 8!
PART TWO: CLAIMANT BREACHED ITS DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY. .......... 9!
I. THE 2010 MILAN RULES APPLY TO THE ISSUE OF CONFIDENTIALITY. ................................ 10!
A.! The Tribunal should follow the presumption that the most recent version of
the Milan Rules governs the dispute. ...................................................................... 10!
B.! Even if the 2004 Milan Rules apply to substantive duties, the confidentiality
duty is procedural in character, and so the 2010 Milan Rules apply. ................. 11!
ii