Interim Relief Application in Mototête SA v Visorworld Pty Ltd: UNCITRAL Model Law Analysis

In this assignment we will discuss about interim relief application and below are the summaries point:- The interim relief application in the case of Mototête SA v Visorworld Pty Ltd raises valid arguments under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Article 9 of the Model Law supports the application, stating that requests made by either party prior to or during arbitral proceedings are valid and should be granted by the court. Article 17 F of the Model Law allows the arbitral tribunal to request information or facts regarding material changes, which could impact the decision in favor of Visorworld.  

Assignment 2: Interim Relief Application

A] Considering the provided case of Mototête SA v Visorworld Pty Ltd and analyzing associated
facts, it can be stated that there are certain arguments in favor of the application, which must be
considered. The application requested for storage of visor in a neutral place, and asked for
examination of sample visor under question. The application was considered to be unnecessary.
However, in favor of the argument, UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial
Arbitration 1985 Article 9 may be taken into consideration. Under this article, it has been stated
that, request in cases of arbitration agreement by either of the parties, prior or at the time of
arbitral proceedings, and such request to be granted on the part of the court cannot be considered
to be incompatible. This makes interim application in arbitration agreement valid in nature,
under the law. Considering the facts mentioned under this article of UNCITRAL Model Law, it
may be stated that the application made by the Claimant in context to storage of visor is needed
to be taken into consideration1.
In addition to that, Article 17 F of UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial
Arbitration 1985 is also required to be considered, which supports the argument. Under Article
17 F of the Act, it has been stated that arbitral tribunal may ask any party to provide information
or facts associated with material change in context to the circumstances based on which the
measure was grated2. Considering this fact, Mototête may be asked to provide with sample of
visor in the proceedings, which it may be unable to provide. The reason is its storage at a
favorable place of Visorworld. This would result in impacting the decision of the case in favor of
Visorworld and adversely impact the scope of fair judgment. Considering this fact, it may be
stated that the application of Mototête is needed to be considered3.
1 'UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION'
(Uncitral, 2009) <https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/06-54671_Ebook.pdf>
accessed 8 February 2019.
2 Gary b. born, 'International Arbitration: Law And Practice' (2012)
<http://learning.ecupl.edu.cn/pluginfile.php/63812/mod_resource/content/1/International%20Arbitration_
%20Law%20%20-%20Born%2C%20Gary.pdf> accessed 8 February 2019.
3 'UNCITRAL Model Law On International Commercial Arbitration 1985 With Amendments As
Adopted In 2006' (Uncitral, 2009) <https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/07-
86998_Ebook.pdf> accessed 8 February 2019.
2| P a g e

B] In this, if the elements of the contract between Mototête and Visorworld are considered, it
may be noticed that terms of the contract like Visorworld would supply Mototête shatter resistant
visor has been breached. It can be established with the help of the fact that, Aiden who bought
the helmet supplied by Visorworld from Mototête, its visor had shattered at the time of the
accident. Considering this fact, it may be stated that the contractual terms had been breached by
Visorworld.
However, there is a contractual term based on which, the Respondent i.e. Visorworld may
advance. It is the third clause of the contract which states that, the contract would be operational
between Mototête and Visorworld in regards to all the helmet visors as mentioned in the contract
for a duration of one year from the date on which, the contract was signed i.e. 10th May 2015.
This establishes the fact that, terms of the contract would be valid till 10th May 20164. On the
other hand, the delivery of helmets made by Visorworld to Mototête was on 16th January 2017.
Hence, as the contractual terms were not renewed, and the delivery was made by Visorworld
after the completion of one year of the contract, from which Aiden had made the purchase on
22nd February 2017, based on these facts, the respondent may proceed further.
4 Marcel Fontaine and Filip De Ly, Drafting International Contracts (Martinus Nijhoff Pub 2009)
150.
3| P a g e

Bibliography
Garry B. Born, 'International Arbitration: Law And Practice' (2012)
<http://learning.ecupl.edu.cn/pluginfile.php/63812/mod_resource/content/1/International
%20Arbitration_%20Law%20%20-%20Born%2C%20Gary.pdf>accessed 8 February 2019
Fontaine MF De Ly, Drafting International Contracts (Martinus Nijhoff Pub 2009) 150.
'UNCITRAL MODEL LAW ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION'
(Uncitral, 2009) <https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/06-
54671_Ebook.pdf> accessed 8 February 2019
'UNCITRAL Model Law On International Commercial Arbitration 1985 With Amendments As
Adopted In 2006' (Uncitral, 2008) <https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-
arb/07-86998_Ebook.pdf>accessed 8 February 2019
4| P a g e