Competition Case File-2019

ADVOCATE MAXIMUS
Ratan K. Singh Arbitration-Mediation Competition,

New Delhi
7h – 10th DECEMBER 2019
COMPETITION CASE FILE

“HYPERLOOP”
Authors: Prateek Bagaria and Tigmika Srivastava
Created and hosted by:
The Peacekeeping and Conflict Resolution Team (The PACT)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. NOTICE OF ARBITRATION ................................................................................................ 3
2. EXHIBIT C-1 ......................................................................................................................... 10
3. EXHIBIT C-2 ......................................................................................................................... 12
4. EXHIBIT C-3 ......................................................................................................................... 13
5. EXHIBIT C-4 ......................................................................................................................... 14
6. EXHIBIT C-5 ......................................................................................................................... 15
7. EXHIBIT C-6 ......................................................................................................................... 16
8. EXHIBIT C-7 ......................................................................................................................... 18
9. EXHIBIT C-8 ......................................................................................................................... 19
10. COMMENCEMENT LETTER TO PARTIES .................................................................... 19
11. RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF ARBITRATION .................................................................. 25
12. PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 1 ........................................................................................... 28
13. NOTICE OF BREACH ......................................................................................................... 30
14. REPLY TO NOTICE OF BREACH ..................................................................................... 32
15. PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 2 ........................................................................................... 34
© Authors and The PACT. All rights reserved.

NOTICE OF ARBITRATION
(Pursuant to Rule 3 of the SIAC Rules 2016)
IN THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN
Hyperloop Technologies Private Limited
[Claimant]
AND
Joint Hyperloop Transportation Authority
[Respondent]
30 May 2019
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Hyperloop Technologies Private Limited. (“Claimant”), files this Notice of Arbitration

(“Notice”) against Joint Hyperloop Transportation Authority (“Respondent”) pursuant to Rule
3.1 of the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (6 th Edition, 1
August 2016) (the “SIAC Rules”).
2. The purpose of this Notice is to demand that the disputes between the Claimant and the
Respondent be referred to arbitration under the SIAC Rules. In terms of SIAC Rule 3.2, it
includes the Claimant’s Statement of Claim referred to in Rule 20.2.
II. THE PARTIES AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES
A. The Claimant
3. The Claimant is a company incorporated under the laws of Wisteria and is engaged in the
business of designing, constructing, and operating hyperloops. It is one of the handful
companies in the world pioneering in the technology of hyperloops.
4. The Claimant’s registered office is located at:

Hyperloop Technologies Private Ltd
#560, 1 Business Park,
Wicker Boulevard, Wisteria City,
Wisteria- 100203
5. The Claimant’s representatives to whom all the communication should be sent in this
arbitration are:
Ms. Sheila Fordham, Mr. James Archibald, and Ms. Natalie Gold
Fordham & Brown Law Offices
21 C, Pacific Tower, Wisteria City, Wisteria- 120110
Email: sheila.fordham@fnblawoffices.com; james.archibald@fnblawoffices.com;

natalie.gold@fnblawoffices.com
B. The Respondent
6. The Respondent is an intergovernmental authority established by a bilateral agreement

between Wisteria and its neighbouring country Sparta, to jointly administer and implement
hyperloop projects.
7. The Respondent is jointly funded by the transportation ministries of Wisteria and Sparta and
is headed by officials deputed from the transportation ministries of both countries.
8. The Respondent’s contact information is as follows:

#7, Ocean Financial Center,
Marina Street, Athenis,
Sparta- 808 902
9. The Respondent’s representatives are:
Ms. Amelia Clark, Ms. Sydney Rivers, and Mr. Clint Campbell
Clark Rivers & Associates
8th Floor, Capitol One Building,
Sparta- 808 900

Email: aclark@crassociates.com; srivers@crassociates.com; ccampbell@crassociates.com
III. CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES
10. The present dispute arises out of a Contract dated 25 February 2017 between the parties for (i)
construction a hyperloop station in Athenis, capital of Sparta and (ii) refurbishment of a
hyperloop station in Wisteria City, capital of Wisteria (“Contract”) (see relevant extracts of the
contract at Exhibit C-1).
11. Clause 12 contains the arbitration agreement and reads as below:
12.1 If any dispute or difference arises between the Parties in respect of the interpretation
of this Agreement or of the rights and liabilities of any Party or in respect of anything done
or omitted herein, such dispute or difference shall, so far as possible, be decided amicably
by the Parties acting in good faith.
12.2 In the event that such dispute or difference cannot be so settled, such dispute or
difference shall be referred to an arbitration held in accordance with the arbitration rules
of Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), as amended from time to time,
which rules are deemed to be incorporated by reference into this Clause.
12.3 For the purpose of this arbitration, an arbitration tribunal consisting of three (3)
arbitrators shall be constituted (“Arbitral Tribunal”) of which one arbitrator shall be
appointed by [the Claimant] and one arbitrator shall be appointed by [the Respondent].
The two arbitrators shall then jointly appoint a third arbitrator, who shall serve as the
chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal.
12.4 All arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language.
12.5 The seat of arbitration shall be Cassilac.
(Note: the law governing international commercial arbitration in Cassilac is a verbatim

adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985, as
amended in 2006)
IV. STATEMENT OF DISPUTE

12. In 2017, the Respondent floated a tender for: (i) construction of Hyperloop Central Station
(“HCS”) in Athenis; and (ii) refurbishment of Main Junction (“Main Junction”) in Wisteria
City (the “Project”). The Claimant was the successful bidder for this Project.
13. The tender required the bidder to construct HCS from scratch. While Main Junction, which
had been defunct for a period of three years, required minor repair and refurbishment works in
order to make it functional to serve as a hyperloop station again.
14. The Project was for a duration of twenty-four months, with commencement date of the Project
being 1 April 2017, and the completion date of the Project being be 30 March 2019.
15. The tender included a copy of a survey report by the Respondent’s consultant Nine Moons,
detailing the existing design and working specifications of Main Junction and identifying the
scope of repair and refurbishment of the Main Junction (“Survey Report”).
16. While bidders were required by the tender to conduct their own independent survey of the
Main Junction before submitting bids, at the time of pre-bid meetings the bidders had raised
concern on lack of proper access to Main Junction and noted that they could only conduct a
peripheral external survey.
17. On the basis of the Survey Report and an external survey of the Main Junction conducted by
the Claimant’s team, the Claimant submitted its bid for the project.
18. On 20 February 2017, Claimant was awarded the tender and consequently, the parties entered
into the Contract on 25 February 2017.
19. The Total Contract Price was fixed at US$ 1 Billion on lump sum basis, for the entire scope of
works of the Project. This included US$ 10 million for the repair and refurbishment of Main
Junction.
20. Payments under the contract were on a milestone basis, i.e. the Claimant at the completion of
a milestone would release a corresponding invoice known as a Running Account Bill (“RA
Bill”) to the Respondent, and Respondent after verifying the completion of the milestone
would release the payment in a span of 7 days.
21. The works of the Project were on schedule, and 86.3% of the work scope had been completed
until 1 January 2019. The Claimant was to now complete the final scope of being repair and
refurbishment of Main Junction.

22. On 28 January 2019, the Claimant, after carrying out a detailed engineering survey of the Main
Junction discovered that:
a. it was structurally weak and would not have the structural integrity to sustain the weight of
the proposed new hyperloop system, and
b. several specifications in the Survey Report of the Main Junction were incorrect
23. This necessitated major structural repairs and refurbishment works on Main Junction
increasing the cost of refurbishment from US$ 10 million to US$ 40 million.
24. Therefore, on 1 February 2019 the Claimant issued a variation request in terms the Contract
(“Request for Variation and Extension of Time”) asking for:
a. increasing the contract price by additional US$ 30 million, and
b. an extension of time of 45 days to carry out the additional repair and refurbishment works
i.e. to extend the completion date of the Project to 15 May 2019 (see copy of this letter at
Exhibit C-2)
25. On 3 February 2019, the Respondent rejected the Request for Variation and Extension of Time,
stating that the request was not in accordance with the Contract and asked the Claimant to meet
Project completion by 1 April 2019, as scheduled. (see copy of this letter at Exhibit C-3)
26. The Claimant continued to perform the works in good faith. However, the completion of the
works was delayed as anticipated.
27. On 28 April 2019, the Claimant raised RA Bills 20 and 21, totaling US$ 50 million (not
inclusive of the price of the extra works) for the works completed till then. However, the
Respondent only cleared an amount of US$ 30 million within stipulated time and withheld the
balance US$ 20 million, as deduction for liquidated damages on account of the delay.
28. Due to this deduction of liquidated damages, and the non-acceptance of variation request of
US$ 30 million for the additional works; the Claimant experienced a severe cash flow issues
and was unable to continue performance work on the Project.
29. On 5 May 2019, when the Project was 98% complete, the Claimant issued a notice of
suspension of works to the Respondent (“Notice for Suspension of Works”) and noted that the

works would resume only once the balance payment of RA Bills 20 and 21 were released, as
the deduction of liquidated damages was wrongful. (see copy of this letter at Exhibit C-4)
30. On 6 May 2019, the Respondent issued a Remedial Notice to the Claimant, rejecting the
Claimant’s Notice for Suspension of Works and stating that the same was a breach of the
Contract. The Respondent directed the Claimant to forthwith commence completion of works
or face termination of the Contract. (see copy of this letter at Exhibit C-5)
31. On 7 May 2019, the Claimant responded to the Respondent’s Remedial Notice, stating that the
breaches of the Contract as identified by the Respondent are incurable as the Claimant did not
have the financial capability to complete the of scope works owing to the Respondent’s own
breaches of the Contract. (see copy of this letter at Exhibit C-6)
32. On 21 May 2019, the Respondent wrongfully terminated the Contract by issuing a notice of
termination. (see copy of this letter at Exhibit C-7)
33. On 22 May 2019, the Claimant rejected the notice of termination and informed the Respondent
of its intention to initiate arbitration. (see copy of this letter at Exhibit C-8)
34. Aggrieved by the aforesaid wrongful termination of the Contract, the Claimant initiated the
present arbitration.
V. STATEMENT OF CLAIM
35. The Claimants state that the Respondent has breached the Contract by:
a) failing to release $ 20 million under RA Bills 20 and 21 within stipulated time;
b) rejecting variation request for the repair and refurbishment of the Main Junction;
c) failing to grant an extension of time for the for completion of the additional works on the
Main Junction;
d) wrongfully deducting liquidated damages from RA Bills 20 and 21;
e) wrongfully terminating the Contract.
36. In view of the above facts and legal conclusions, the Claimant seeks reliefs against the
Respondent, including:
a) An order directing the Respondent to:

(i) clear all pending RA Bills;
(ii) refund all monies withheld on account of liquidated damages;
(iii) pay US$ 30 million on account of the Request for Variation and Extension of Time;
(iv) grant an extension of time of 45 days in terms of Request for Variation and Extension
of Time.
b) Damages on account of wrongful termination of Contract (to be assessed at a later stage);

c) Pre- arbitration, pendente lite, and post award interest.
d) Costs.
VI. NOMINATION OF ARBITRATOR
37. The Claimant hereby nominates Dr. Sophie Rogers to the three-member panel of arbitrators.
The Claimant has been informed by Dr. Sophie Rogers that she has no conflict of interest and
is able to accept the appointment.
Counsel for the Claimant

Fordham and Brown
Fordham & Brown Law Offices

EXHIBIT C-1
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT
CLAUSE 1 DEFINITIONS
1.1 “Contractor” means Hyperloop Technologies Private Ltd., a company incorporated under the
laws of Wisteria, having its office at #560, 1 Business Park, Wicker Boulevard, Wisteria City,
Wisteria- 100203.
1.2 “Employer” means Joint Hyperloop Transportation Authority, a company incorporated under
the laws of Sparta, having its office at #7, Ocean Financial Center, Marina Street, Athenis, Sparta-
808 902.
CLAUSE 4 TIME FOR COMPLETION
4.1 The Contractor shall commence the Works on 1 April 2017 and shall proceed expeditiously
and without delay and shall complete the Works on or before 30 March 2019.
4.2 Subject to Clause 6.3, the Contractor shall be entitled to an extension to the time for completion
if he is, or will be, delayed by any of the Employer’s liabilities.
4.3 On receipt of an application from the Contractor, the Employer shall consider all supporting
details provided by the Contractor and may extend the time for completion as appropriate.
CLAUSE 5 PAYMENT TERMS
5.1 Within 7 days of receipt of an RA Bill, the Employer shall pay to the Contractor the amount
shown in the Contractor's statement.
5.2 The Contractor shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 10% for each day the Employer fails
to pay beyond the prescribed payment period.
5.3 The Contractor will be entitled to suspend the performance of Works if the Employer fails to
clear RA Bills within the specified period after issuing a Notice for Suspension of Works.
CLAUSE 6 VARIATIONS AND CLAIMS
6.1 The Employer may instruct Variations.

6.3 A Party shall notify the other as soon as he is aware of any circumstance which may delay or
disrupt the Works, or which may give rise to a claim for additional payment. The notifying party
shall, however, take all reasonable steps to minimize these effects.
6.4 The Contractor's entitlement to extension to the time for completion or additional payment
shall be limited to the time and payment which would have been due if he had given prompt notice
and had taken all reasonable steps.
6.4 If the Contractor incurs costs as a result of any of the Employer's liabilities, the Contractor
shall be entitled to the amount of such cost. If as a result of any of the Employer's liabilities, it is
necessary to change the Works, this shall be dealt with as a Variation.
6.5 The Contractor shall submit to the Employer an itemized make-up of the value of Variations
and claims within 10 days of the instruction or of the event giving rise to the variation. The
Employer shall check and, if possible, agree to the value. In the absence of an agreement, the
Employer shall determine the value.
CLAUSE 10 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND TERMINATION
10.1 Time is the essence of the contract. If the Contractor fails to complete the entire Work by the
scheduled completion Date or the extended date, the Employer may without prejudice to any other
right or remedy available to it as under the Contract/Law:
a. Recover from the Contractor, as ascertained and agreed, Liquidated Damages (“LD”) and not
by way of penalty, sum equivalent to 0.5% (half percent) of the Total Contract Price for each
week of delay occurred or part thereof beyond the scheduled completion date subject to a
maximum of 10% of the Total Contract Price even though the Employer may accept delay in
Completion of work after the expiry of the Scheduled completion date.
AND/OR
b. Terminate the Contract or a portion or part of the Work thereof. The Employer shall give 14
days’ Remedial Notice to the contractor of its intention to terminate the Contract and shall so
terminate the Contract unless during the 14 days’ notice period, the Contractor initiates
remedial action acceptable to the Employer.
10.2 In case the Contractor is unable to complete the work by the schedule completion date, it may
request the Contractor before expiry of the scheduled completion date, to allow further time for

performance of the contract indicating its willingness to pay the LD amount as agreed at (i) above.
The Contractor may at its discretion allow further time as requested by the Contractor with or
without levy of LD.
CLAUSE 13 GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement and any consequences arising from this Agreement shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of Wisteria.
(Note: the general contract law of Wisteria is a verbatim adoption of the UNIDROIT Principles on
International Commercial Contracts, 2016)
CLAUSE 15 MATERIALS ON SITE
15.1 At the completion of the Project/ termination of the Contract as per clause 10, or suspension
of Works by Contractor under clause 5.7, or suspension of Works by the Employer; the Materials
are to remain on Site until further instructions regarding the Materials from the Employer.
EXHIBIT C-2
1 February 2019
To,
Ms. Sarah Davenport,
Sparta- 808 902

Sub: Request for Variation and Extension of Time
Dear Ms. Davenport,
Hope this letter finds you well.
As you are aware, the progress of the Project in last 1.5 years has been very positive and we are at 86.3%
completion. The major remaining balance work is the repair and refurbishment of Main Junction. In light
of the same, on 28 January 2019, our team concluded a detailed survey at Main Junction and discovered
that it was structurally weak and would not have the structural integrity to sustain the weight of the proposed
hyperloop system. These findings are contrary to the Survey Report provided to us during the bidding
process.
It is now estimated that the Main Junction requires heavy repair and refurbishment to strengthen its
functional structure and enable it to meet the requirements to carry the hyperloop.
In light of the above survey, we have estimated an additional cost requirement of US$ 30 million to carry
out the repair and refurbishment works, and an extension of time of 45 days to finish the requisite works.
We request approval of the same at the earliest so that we can commence the works.
Looking forward to your response,
Charles Stinson,
Project Manager,
EXHIBIT C-3
3 February 2019
To,
Mr. Charles Stinson,

Hyperloop Technologies Private Ltd.
Wisteria- 100203
Subject: In re: Request for Variation and Extension of Time

Dear Mr. Stinson,
This is in reference to your letter dated 1 February 2019, for a request of variation and extension of time.
We have noted your aforementioned request and find the same untenable as per the conditions of the
Contract. The above request would not amount to a variation, as it is within the scope of the tender document
and the Contract.
We direct the Contractor to finish the works as per the timelines provided and achieve completion by the
scheduled completion date.
Yours Sincerely,
Sarah Davenport,
EXHIBIT C-4
5 May 2019
To,
Sarah Davenport,
Sparta- 808 902
Sub: Notice of Suspension of Works
Dear Ms. Davenport,
As you are aware, on 28 April 2019, the Contractor had issued RA Bills 20 and 21 amounting to US$ 50
million to the Employer. However, the same were not cleared in their entirety, and we were informed that

the Employer had deducted US$ 20 million on account of liquidated damages for delay caused in the repair
and refurbishment of Main Junction.
The Contractor states that the deduction of liquidated damages is wrongful, as the delay in the completion
of the Project is on account of the Employer.
The above withholding of payment of RA Bills, and the deduction of liquidated damages has created severe
cash flow issues for the Contractor. We are now unable to continue performance of the works, as we lack
the requisite funds for the completion of the Project.
In light of the above, we will be constrained to suspend works if the Employer continues to withhold
wrongly deducted liquidated damages and does not approve our Request of Variation and Extension of
Time.
Looking forward to your response,
Charles Stinson
Project Manager,
EXHIBIT C-5
6 May 2019,
To,
Mr. Charles Stinson,

Wisteria- 100203
Sub: Remedial Notice
Dear Mr. Stinson,
This is in reference to your letter dated 5 May 2019, issuing a Notice for Suspension of Works.
The Employer rejects this Notice for Suspension of Works. The non-payment of RA Bills 20 and 21 was
on account of legitimate deduction of liquidated damages due to the delay caused by the Contractor in
completion of works.

This suspension of works by the Contractor is a breach of the Contract. Therefore, the Employer directs the
Contractor to forthwith recommence performance of works and cure these breaches within 14 days; at the
failure of which, the Employer shall be constrained the terminate the Contract as per clause 10 of the
Contract.
In the meantime, the Employer requests the Contractor to participate in without prejudice discussions in
good faith in order to find an amicable solution to the disputes at hand, and depute a representative of the
Contractor for the same.
Yours Sincerely,
Sarah Davenport,
EXHIBIT C-6
7 May 2019
To,
Sarah Davenport,
Sparta- 808 902
Sub: In re Remedial Notice
Dear Ms. Davenport,
This is in reference to your letter dated 6 May 2019 issuing a Remedial Notice to the Contractor.
In this regard the Contractor notes that unless the Employer agrees to the payment of dues and approval of
the Request for Variation and Extension of Time, it will be unable to commence works or commence and/or
participate in any fruitful discussion amongst the Employer and Contractor.
Yours Sincerely,
Charles Stinson,

Project Manager,

EXHIBIT C-7
21 May 2019
To,
Charles Stinson,
Wisteria- 100203
Sub: Notice of Termination
Dear Mr. Stinson,
This is in reference to our letter dated 6 May 2019, issuing the Remedial Notice.
The Employer notes that the Contractor has failed to cure its breaches under the Contract, and as a
consequence the work on the Project has remained on a standstill.
The Contractor has even failed to depute a representative to the amicable discussions suggested by the
Employer.
The inability of the Contractor to cure the above breaches is leading to further delay in the completion of
works, and the Employer finds no willingness on the part of the Contractor to re-commence and complete
the Project.
Therefore, in accordance with clause 10 of the Contract, the Employer forthwith terminates the Contract.
Yours Sincerely,
Sarah Davenport,

EXHIBIT C-8
22 May 2019,
To,
Sarah Davenport,
Sparta- 808 902
Sub: In re: Notice of Termination
Dear Ms. Davenport,
This is in reference to the Employer’s Notice of Termination dated 21 May 2019.
The Contractor rejects this Notice of Termination, and states that the same is wrongful.
The delay in the Contract is a result of the Employer’s non-approval of a legitimate variation request, and
wrongful deduction of liquidated damages.
As a result of the above wrongful termination, the Contractor has been constrained to serve its unequivocal
intention to refer the disputes between the Employer and Contractor to arbitration in accordance with clause
12 of the Contract.
Yours Sincerely,
Charles Stinson,
Project Manager,
COMMENCEMENT LETTER TO PARTIES
Our Ref: ARB 90/2019/CFH

CLAIMANT
HYPERLOOP TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD By Courier

Wisteria- 100203
Attn: Mr. Charles Stinson
CLAIMANT’S COUNSEL
FORDHAM & BROWN LAW OFFICES By Courier
21 C, Pacific Tower,
Wisteria City, Wisteria- 120110
Attn: Ms. Sheila Fordham/ Mr. James Archibald/
Ms. Natalie Gold
RESPONDENT
JOINT HYPERLOOP TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
#7, Ocean Financial Center, By Courier

Sparta- 808 902
Attn: Ms. Sarah Davenport
RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL
CLARK RIVERS & ASSOCIATES By Courier
8th Floor, Capitol One Building,

Sparta- 808 900
Attn: Ms. Amelia Clark/ Ms. Sydney Rivers/
Mr. Clint Campbell
3 June 2019
Dear Sirs,

SIAC ARBITRATION NO. 90 OF 2019 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
UNDER THE ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL
ARBITRATION CENTRE (6TH EDITION. 1 AUGUST 2016) BETWEEN HYPERLOOP
TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD. (“CLAIMANT”) AND JOINT HYPERLOOP
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (“RESPONDENT”)
1. We acknowledge receipt of and/or refer to the following:

(i) the Claimant’s email dated 30 May 2019 containing the Notice of Arbitration dated 30 May
2019 (“Notice”); and
(ii) the Case Filing Fee in the amount of SGD 2,140.00 paid by bank transfer, received on 1
June 2018.
2. Pursuant to Rule 3.3 of the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre
(6th Edition, 1 August 2016) (“SIAC Rules”), the above-captioned arbitration is deemed to
have commenced on 15 December 2018. This matter has been assigned the case number ARB
90/19/CFH. Please quote this reference for future communications with SIAC and the Tribunal
(upon its constitution). A copy of the SIAC Rules may be obtained from the SIAC website at
http://www.siac.org.sg.
3. A copy of the Notice is enclosed for the Respondent.
4. For our records, we would be grateful if the Parties could provide us with their facsimile
number(s), if any, and if the Claimants could provide us with their email address(es). We would
also be grateful if the Parties’ Counsel could provide us with their respective facsimile
numbers, if any.
5. We hereby draw the Parties’ attention to the following matters for the further conduct of these
arbitrations.
Response to the Notice of Arbitration
6. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the SIAC Rules, the Respondent shall file a Response to the Notice of
Arbitration (“Response”) with the Registrar within 14 days from the date of receipt of the
Notice. The Respondent shall, at the same time as it files the Response with the Registrar, send
a copy of the Response to the Claimants, and shall notify the Registrar that it has done so,
specifying the mode of service employed and the date of service.
7. The Response must include:

(i) a confirmation or denial of all or part of the claims, including, where possible, any plea
that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction;
(ii) any comment in response to the statements in the Notice or any comment with respect to
the matters covered under Rule 3.1 of the SIAC Rules;
(iii) any envisaged counterclaim, including a brief statement of the nature, circumstances and
quantification of any counterclaim; and
(iv) payment of the requisite filing fee for any counterclaim to SIAC.
Constitution of the Tribunal
8. We note that Article 12 of the Contract dated 25 February 2017 executed amongst the Parties
provides as follows:
CLAUSE 12 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
12.1 If any dispute or difference arises between the Parties in respect of the interpretation
of this Agreement or of the rights and liabilities of any Party or in respect of anything done
or omitted herein, such dispute or difference shall, so far as possible, be decided amicably
by the Parties acting in good faith.
12.2 In the event that such dispute or difference cannot be so settled, such dispute or
difference shall be referred to an arbitration held in accordance with the arbitration rules
of Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), as amended from time to time,
which rules are deemed to be incorporated by reference into this Clause.
12.3 For the purpose of this arbitration, an arbitration tribunal consisting of three (3)
arbitrators shall be constituted (“Arbitral Tribunal”) of which one arbitrator shall be
appointed by [the Claimant] and one arbitrator shall be appointed by [the Respondent].
The two arbitrators shall then jointly appoint a third arbitrator, who shall serve as the
chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal.
12.4 All arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language.
12.5 The seat of arbitration shall be Singapore.
9. We note that the above arbitration agreement provides for the appointment of a three-member
tribunal. We also note from paragraph 37 of the Notice that the Claimants have nominated Dr.

Sophie Rogers. We invite the Respondent to provide us with the name and contact details of
its nominee together with its Response.
10. Please note that in all cases, any arbitrator nominated by the Parties, or by any third person,
including by the arbitrators already appointed, shall be subject to appointment by the President
of the Court of Arbitration of SIAC at his discretion in accordance with Rule 9.3 of the SIAC
Rules.
Communications
11. For the sake of convenience, we request that all correspondence between the Parties, SIAC and
the Tribunal (upon its constitution) be via fax or email. Henceforth, all communications should
be copied to the Parties, SIAC and the Tribunal (upon its constitution).
12. We also request that all written statements, submissions and accompanying enclosures be sent
to us in electronic format only. Should the capacity of the documents exceed the mailbox limit,
kindly send us the documents on an external storage device.
Financial Matters
13. We draw the Parties’ attention to the Practice Note for Administered Cases (PN - 01/14, 2
January 2014), which applies to all cases administered by SIAC under its rules of arbitration.
It governs the appointment of arbitrators, arbitrator’s fees and the financial management of the
arbitration.
14. The costs of the arbitration, as defined in Rule 35.2 of the SIAC Rules, include the following:
(i) the Tribunal’s fees and expenses and the Emergency Arbitrator's fees and expenses, where
applicable;
(ii) SIAC’s administration fees and expenses; and
(iii) the costs of any expert appointed by the Tribunal and of any other assistance reasonably
required by the Tribunal.
15. The Tribunal's fees and SIAC’s administration fees are ascertained in accordance with the
Schedule of Fees in force at the time of commencement of the arbitration. The Schedule of
Fees is posted on our website at www.siac.org.sg under “SIAC Schedule of Fees”, a copy of
which is also attached. We invite the Parties to refer to Rules 34 to 37 of the SIAC Rules for
further information on costs.

Assignment of Case
16. We have assigned the following to administer this arbitration:

Ms. Charlotte Forsyth Email: charlotte.forsyth@siac.org.sg
Associate Counsel Fax: +65 6353 9808
Tel: +65 6897 4685
Email: naina.lal@siac.org.sg
Ms. Naina Lal
Fax: +65 6794 4945
Case Management Officer
Tel: +65 6742 0924
17. If you have any questions concerning the administrative process, please feel free to contact us.
Thank you.
Yours Sincerely,
G. Ford
Gillian Ford
Deputy Registrar

RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF ARBITRATION
SIAC ARBITRATION NO. ARB 90/2019/CFH
[Claimant]
AND
[Respondent]
14 June 2019
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Joint Hyperloop Transportation Authority (“Respondent”) submits this Response to

Notice of Arbitration (“Response”) pursuant to Rule 4 of the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore
International Arbitration Centre (6th Edition, 1 August 2016) (the “SIAC Rules”). In terms of
SIAC Rule 4.2, it includes the Respondent’s Statement of Defense referred to in Rule 20.3.
2. Unless expressly admitted in this Response, each paragraph of the Notice of Arbitration and
all the claims made therein are denied.
II. JURISDICTION
3. The Arbitration Tribunal does not have to the jurisdiction to hear this dispute, as the Claimant
has wrongfully invoked the dispute resolution clause in the Contract. The dispute resolution
clause in the Contract requires that prior to referring a dispute to SIAC, the parties shall as far
as possible decide amicably such dispute in good faith. However, in the present case, the

Claimant did not initiate or participate in any good faith negotiations before filing for
arbitration.
III. THE CLAIMANT’S CLAIMS ARE DENIED
Claimant is not entitled to the Request for Variation and Extension of Time
4. The Request for Variation and Extension of Time by the Claimant was untenable as a variation
and not in accordance with the Contract. In terms of the tender, the bidders were required to
estimate their own scope of work for repair and refurbishment of Main Junction and provide
their bids accordingly. The tender explicitly instructed that the bidders to conduct their own
survey of the Main Junction and not rely on the Survey Report to estimate the scope of work
for the Main Junction. The Claimant’s failure to estimate the scope of work correctly at the
time of the bid cannot create a liability for the Respondent in form of a variation. This is more
so because contract was a lumpsum contract. Therefore, The Claimant is not entitled to an
additional US$ 30 million as variation cost, or an extension of time for 45 days.
The deduction of liquidated damages was not wrongful
5. In light of the invalid Request for Variation and Extension of Time by the Claimant, the
Claimant was requested to adhere to the scheduled Project completion date. However, due to
the delay in the repair and refurbishment works at Main Junction, the completion of the Project
was delayed. As a result of the same, the Respondent deducted the applicable liquidated
damaged from the RA Bills 20 and 21 issued by the Claimant.
Termination was not wrongful
6. The Respondent has followed the requisite provisions in the Contract with regard to
termination by first issuing a Remedial Notice in response to the wrongful Notice for
Suspension of Works issued by the Claimant, and then issuing a Notice of Termination in a
period of 14 days after the Claimant’s inability to cure its breaches. Therefore, the Notice of
Termination was validly issued.
IV. NOMINATION OF ARBITRATOR
7. The Respondent hereby nominates Mr. Simon Baker to the three-member panel of arbitrators.
The Respondent has been informed by Mr. Simon Baker that he has no conflict of interest and
is able to accept the appointment.

V. RELIEFS
8. In view of the above, the Respondent seeks following reliefs against the Claimant, including:
(i) Dismiss the present Arbitration proceedings for lack of jurisdiction of the Arbitration
Tribunal.
(ii) In the alternate, a declaration that:
a. the Claimant has breached its obligation to complete the Project by the scheduled
completion date in the Contract;
b. the Request for Variation and Extension of Time is untenable;
c. the deduction of liquidated damages was in accordance with the Contract; and
d. the Contract was validly terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Contract.
(iii) Pre- arbitration, pendente lite, and post award interest.
(iv) Costs.
Counsel for Respondents

Clark Rivers & Associates

PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 1
[Claimant]
AND
[Respondent]
21 June 2019
1. The Tribunal takes note of the following facts:
a. This Tribunal consisting of Ms. Brigitte Chan (Chairperson), Dr. Sophie Rogers
(Claimant’s appointee), and Mr. Simon Baker (Respondent’s appointee) has been
constituted as per clause 12 of the Contract.
b. After both parties filed their respective written statements, the Tribunal invited the Parties
to consult each other with a view to agreeing on an efficient, economical and fair process
for the taking of evidence.
c. To the Tribunal’s surprise, the Parties have come with an understanding that neither of
them wish to file any further evidence or pleadings in the case.
d. The Parties having so decided, the Tribunal has no objection to proceed with a hearing on
the disputes on the basis of written statement and documents submitted. That said, the
Tribunal would like to remind the Parties that the party making an allegation will carry the

burden to prove it. In circumstances where the party carrying the burden of proof is not
able to discharge it, the Tribunal will draw an adverse inference.
e. The Respondent has also challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of the
arbitration being invoked by the Claimant in violation of clause 12.1 of the Contract. The
Claimant states that they will respond to these objections through their written submissions.
2. In light of these considerations, the parties are required to address the Tribunal on the following
issues:
a. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction?
b. Whether the Claimant’s Request for Variation and Extension of Time is tenable?
c. Whether the Respondent’s deduction of liquidated damages is in accordance with the

Contract?
d. Whether the Respondent’s termination of the Contract is valid?
3. The written submissions of the parties are to be submitted no later than November 10, 2019.
4. Both parties are invited to attend the oral hearings scheduled for December 10, 2019 at 4pm.
Parties to make necessary arrangements for the hearing at India International Center, New
Delhi.
Yours Sincerely,
Brigitte Chan
Dr. Brigitte Chan
Chairperson of the Tribunal

NOTICE OF BREACH
28 June 2019,
Charles Stinson,
Project Manager,
Wisteria- 100203
Sub: Notice of Breach
Ref: Arbitration Proceedings ARB 90/2019/CFH
Dear Mr. Stinson,
This is in reference to the captioned Arbitration Proceedings.
It has recently come to the Respondent’s knowledge that the Claimant has removed the materials
kept on Site.
The abovementioned activity by the Claimant is a breach of clause 15 of the Contract, wherein the
Contractor is obligated to leave the materials on site at termination of the Project until further
instructions from the Employer.
As a result, the Respondent seeks leave:
(i) to file a counter-claim in this arbitration (including payment of counter-claims fees); and
(ii) accordingly amend its Response to Notice of Arbitration.
Yours Sincerely,
Sarah Davenport,
Cc.
Dr. Brigitte Chan

#5, Peninsula Tower,
Floriana Lane,
Tukson, Wisteria- 900 899
Mr. Simon Baker

67, Ponds,
Ranger Boulevard
Celtic City, Sparta- 545 324
Dr. Sophie Rogers

5th Floor, Ivory Towers,
Plexus Square,
Flanders, Crimea- 789 671
Ms. Charlotte Forsyth

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
32 Maxwell Road #02-01
Maxwell Chambers
Singapore, 069115

REPLY TO NOTICE OF BREACH
30 June 2019
To,
Sarah Davenport,
Sparta- 808 902
Sub: In re Notice of Breach
Ref: Arbitration Proceedings ARB 90/2019/CFH
Dear Ms. Davenport,
This is in reference to your letter dated 18 April 2019. To refer the alleged breach of clause 15 to
the captioned Arbitration Proceedings.
The Claimant protests to the abovementioned issue being referenced in the captioned arbitration.
This dispute has arisen after the constitution of the Tribunal. Therefore, the present dispute is not
within the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and cannot be introduced into this arbitration by an
amendment.
Further, the Claimant notes that SIAC Rules provide for a manner and timeline within which
counter-claims have to be filed. It further requires filing of counter-claim fees within stipulated
time. Since the Respondent did not raise a counter-claim in their Response to Notice of Arbitraiton
and have not filed counter-claim filing fees, they cannot be permitted to raise counter-claims
through an amendment.
The Claimant therefore requests the Tribunal to dismiss the Respondent’s request for amendment
since:
(i) the proposed amendment is not in accordance with the SIAC Rules.
(ii) the proposed counter-claims are outside the Tribunal’s temporal jurisdiction.

Yours Sincerely,
Charles Stinson,
Cc.
Dr. Brigitte Chan
#5, Peninsula Tower,
Floriana Lane,
Tukson, Wisteria- 900 899
Mr. Simon Baker

67, Ponds,
Ranger Boulevard
Celtic City, Sparta- 545 324
Dr. Sophie Rogers

5th Floor, Ivory Towers,
Plexus Square,
Flanders, Crimea- 789 671
Ms. Charlotte Forsyth

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
32 Maxwell Road #02-01
Maxwell Chambers
Singapore, 069115

PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 2
Hyperloop Technologies Private Limited [Claimant]
AND
Joint Hyperloop Transportation Authority [Respondent]
5 July 2019
1. The Tribunal takes notice of the following developments in reference to the captioned
arbitration:
(i) the Notice of Breach issued by the Respondent to the Claimant; and
(ii) the Response to Notice of Breach issued by the Claimant to the Respondent.
2. In light of the above, at the hearing the parties are required to address the Tribunal on the
following additional issues:
a. Whether the Respondent’s proposed amendment is in accordance with SIAC Rules?
b. Whether the Tribunal has temporal jurisdiction to consider breach of clause 15 of the
Contract?
Thank you.
Yours Sincerely,
Brigitte Chan
Dr. Brigitte Chan
Chairperson of the Tribunal

Competition Case File-2019

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Competition Case File-2019

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ADVOCATE MAXIMUS

Ratan K. Singh Arbitration-Mediation Competition,

COMPETITION CASE FILE

Created and hosted by:

The Peacekeeping and Conflict Resolution Team (The PACT)

1. NOTICE OF ARBITRATION ................................................................................................ 3

2. EXHIBIT C-1 ......................................................................................................................... 10

3. EXHIBIT C-2 ......................................................................................................................... 12

4. EXHIBIT C-3 ......................................................................................................................... 13

5. EXHIBIT C-4 ......................................................................................................................... 14

6. EXHIBIT C-5 ......................................................................................................................... 15

7. EXHIBIT C-6 ......................................................................................................................... 16

8. EXHIBIT C-7 ......................................................................................................................... 18

9. EXHIBIT C-8 ......................................................................................................................... 19

10. COMMENCEMENT LETTER TO PARTIES .................................................................... 19

11. RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF ARBITRATION .................................................................. 25

12. PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 1 ........................................................................................... 28

13. NOTICE OF BREACH ......................................................................................................... 30

14. REPLY TO NOTICE OF BREACH ..................................................................................... 32

15. PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 2 ........................................................................................... 34

© Authors and The PACT. All rights reserved.

(Pursuant to Rule 3 of the SIAC Rules 2016)

IN THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN

Hyperloop Technologies Private Limited

Joint Hyperloop Transportation Authority

1. Hyperloop Technologies Private Limited. (“Claimant”), files this Notice of Arbitration

II. THE PARTIES AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES

4. The Claimant’s registered office is located at:

© Authors and The PACT. All rights reserved.

Email: sheila.fordham@fnblawoffices.com; james.archibald@fnblawoffices.com;

6. The Respondent is an intergovernmental authority established by a bilateral agreement

8. The Respondent’s contact information is as follows:

Joint Hyperloop Transportation Authority

9. The Respondent’s representatives are:

© Authors and The PACT. All rights reserved.

III. CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES

11. Clause 12 contains the arbitration agreement and reads as below:

12.4 All arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language.

12.5 The seat of arbitration shall be Cassilac.

(Note: the law governing international commercial arbitration in Cassilac is a verbatim

IV. STATEMENT OF DISPUTE

© Authors and The PACT. All rights reserved.

© Authors and The PACT. All rights reserved.

a. increasing the contract price by additional US$ 30 million, and

© Authors and The PACT. All rights reserved.

a) failing to release $ 20 million under RA Bills 20 and 21 within stipulated time;

d) wrongfully deducting liquidated damages from RA Bills 20 and 21;

e) wrongfully terminating the Contract.

a) An order directing the Respondent to:

© Authors and The PACT. All rights reserved.

(ii) refund all monies withheld on account of liquidated damages;

b) Damages on account of wrongful termination of Contract (to be assessed at a later stage);

VI. NOMINATION OF ARBITRATOR

Counsel for the Claimant

© Authors and The PACT. All rights reserved.

GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT

CLAUSE 4 TIME FOR COMPLETION

CLAUSE 5 PAYMENT TERMS

CLAUSE 6 VARIATIONS AND CLAIMS

6.1 The Employer may instruct Variations.

© Authors and The PACT. All rights reserved.

CLAUSE 10 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND TERMINATION

© Authors and The PACT. All rights reserved.

CLAUSE 13 GOVERNING LAW