2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
* there was an implicit agreement between the parties regarding the choice of English law;
* as the Tamara Rules contain no provisions regarding the language of the arbitration,international doctrine and other arbitration rules should be used as guidelines in order to establish the language of the arbitration. In that respect article 20 of the ICC rules is relevant. It provides: "In the absence of an agreement by the parties, the arbitral tribunal shall determine the language or languages of the arbitration, due regard being given to all relevant circumstances, including the language of the contract." The fact that the contract of affreightment was in English supported the argument that English should be the language of the arbitration;
* the principle of equality of arms indicates that the language of the arbitration should be English because the respondents' principal expert only spoke English. If Dutch were to be the language of the arbitration, this would give the claimants an unfair advantage, especially during the hearing when relevant points could be lost in translation during the hearing;
* The seventeen claimants were domiciled outside the Netherlands as well as one of the two respondents. It was practically unheard of to conduct such an international arbitration in Dutch. Such international proceedings are invariably conducted in English. There was no valid reason to break with that custom;
'''The procedural order'''
