2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
On 7 November 2012 the claimants submitted their statement arguing that the language of the arbitration should be Dutch because:
* the contract of affreightment under which the dispute had arisen contained a choice of Dutch law and Tamara arbitration in Rotterdam, the Netherlands;
* the proceedings were under Tamara rules, which are of Dutch origin;
* the three arbitrators were Dutch;
* the principle of equality of arms led to the application of Dutch law because the respondents' lawyer was bilingual (English and Dutch) whereas the claimants' lawyer was not. This gave the respondents an unfair advantage.
On 27 November 2012 the respondents argued that English law should apply because:
'''The procedural order'''
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.