Reference no: EM133338048
In 2020, Eco Mining LLP from London (England) entered multiple English-law contracts with Hippo Construction PTY LTD from South Africa, including contracts for the construction of Storage Facilities ("Storage Agreement") and removal of waste material ("Waste Management Agreement") at the mine in South Africa operated by Eco Mining.
Both the Storage Agreement and Waste Management Agreement contained the following arbitration clause: "Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach, termination or invalidity thereof, shall finally be settled by arbitration in London (England) by an arbitral tribunal composed of three arbitrators in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The law applicable to the merits of the case and to the arbitration agreement shall be English law".
On 01 September 2021, Hippo Construction commenced two arbitrations, later consolidated, for GBP 1,000,000.00 to recover sums due from Eco Mining under contracts for mining services carried out by Hippo Construction. Eco Mining made a counterclaim and claimed the cost incurred due to remedial works undertaken following Hippo Construction's defective work. It was agreed in the Procedural Order No. 1 dated 15 December 2021 that the merits hearing shall take place between 01 March 2022 to 07 March 2022.
On 02 January 2022 Eco Mining requested that the arbitral proceedings be adjourned until a site visit could take place on the basis that Covid-19 restrictions had prevented the parties' mining experts from visiting the site. Hippo Construction objected, alleging that (i) The Experts agreed in their Joint Report that a site visit was not necessary to form a view and (ii) Eco Mining failed to adduce evidence regarding the remedial works which it alleged were necessary by reason of defective work. The tribunal refused to adjourn the hearing and declined to rule on whether there should be a site visit prior to consideration of the counterclaims.
On 25 February 2022, Eco Mining wrote to the Tribunal to ask for an adjournment of the hearing of two months until May 2022, after its leading barrister contracted Covid-19 and was advised to take several months off work to recover from illness. Hippo Construction objected, alleging that (i) Eco Mining's leading barrister's ill-health and therefore potential unavailability for the hearing had been known at least since the Pre-Hearing Conference on 1 February 2022 and quite probably before then; (ii) Eco Mining was assisted in the proceedings by a highly-qualified legal team from a reputed international law firm, including a senior partner with considerable experience as counsel in international arbitration; (iii) if Eco Mining nonetheless considered it necessary to have the assistance of leading English barrister, it was still in a position to obtain such assistance, provided it acted promptly. The tribunal declined to adjourn the hearing, which went ahead in March 2022.
On 15 July 2022, the Tribunal issued its Final Award. Hippo Construction was awarded all sums claimed and the counterclaims were all dismissed.
Please answer the following questions based on the applicable laws and rules in this Scenario.
1. Who is the Claimant and the Respondent in this Scenario?
2. What are the applicable laws and rules in this Scenario? Please elaborate.
3. Can the Respondent challenge the final award based on the facts given? If yes, based on which ground(s)? What do you think are the chances of success of that challenge?
4. Where and how can the Claimant enforce the final award? Can the Respondent resist enforcement? If yes, based on which ground(s)?