2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
c) one of the two respondents was domiciled outside the Netherlands;
d) the contract of affreightment was between parties domiciled outside the Netherlands and related to the carriage of goods by sea between ports which were outside the Netherlands;
e) the most common language in the practice of the international carriage of goods by sea is English;
f) the TAMARA Arbitration Rules deliberately offer the flexibility to conduct the arbitration proceedings in any other language than Dutch;
g) all three arbitrators as well as the lawyers representing the parties were involved in the practice of international transport and shipping and were adequately experienced in using the English language.
The claimants' argument that the choice of Dutch law implied the use of the Dutch language did have some validity, in particular in respect to domestic disputes. However, the Tribunal was of the opinion that this argument was less valid when it related to a contract that had almost no real links with the use of the Dutch language.
