Mototête SA v Visorworld Pty Ltd

This document provides the witness testimonies and questions from the arbitration case between Mototête SA and Visorworld Pty Ltd. It includes the statements of Mr. Bruce Barnaby, Professor Patrick Limerick, and Aiden O'Reilley. The document also presents two scenarios for the resolution of the case.

Mototête SA v Visorworld Pty Ltd
Arbitration 8
Answer 1: Mr Bruce Barnaby (Respondent’s witness)
Question: Please can you repeat your name for the record
Answer: Bruce Edward Barnaby.
Question: After a direct examination of your statement, you clearly state that Mototête
approached you back in the year 2014, but you are not sure of the month or date, correct?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Is it, therefore, wrong for me to say that you are currently in front of this jury
proceeding because you just want to protect your business relations with Mototête and not
necessarily to provide the truth?
Answer: No
Question: Please can you look at the third paragraph of your statement .Is it right to Say that
you never followed up to confirm that your requirements were considered by Madame
Mangetout?
Answer: Yes.
You clearly understand when you testified to the Jury that you were swearing that the
statement you provided was true. Correct?
Yes.
Witness 2: Professor Patrick Limerick (Respondent’s witness)
Question: Can you confirm that you are a witness to the respondent sir?
Answer: Yes.
Question: Is it true that you feel that you feel Mr. O’Reilley was not sincere?
Answer: Yes
Question: Is it true that you have never contacted Mr. O’Reilley regarding the initial offer of
$2 million?
Answer: Yes.

Question: We can confirm that we don’t have any proof that you read about the case in a
newspaper or directly from the Respondent. Correct?
Answer: Yes
Question: Can you confirm, you are not benefiting in any way from Mototête. Correct?
Answer: No.
Witness 3: Aiden O’Reilley (Claimant’s witness)
Question: Can you confirm that you are Aiden Thomas O’Reilley .Correct?
Answer: Yes.
Question: You never were provided with any risk assessment results from the manufacturer,
were you?
Answer: No
Question: Your opinions are based on a number of assumption, Right?
Answer: No
Question: You cherry picked only the supportive perspective, didn’t you?
Answer: No
Question: There were a number of tests you could have performed on the helmet, weren’t
there?
Answer: No
Arbitration 9
Scenario 1
In an avowed desire not to replicate the case between Mototête v Visorworld through
the courts, can be motivated by the UNCITRAL Model. The main objective is to restrict the
enforcement of the award and at the same time achieve, a fair and final resolution of the

dispute (Kathpalia, 2012). I may attempt to do this by applying the model law to argue my
position about Professor Tomlinson.
According to the Singapore International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), (2002), Only
the most exceptional serious cases can be restricted in case there are serious procedural
irregularities that have occurred .By contrast, The model law observed by Professor
Tomlinson, following the literal text in his selection, and thus breached the natural justice in
relation to making the award contrary to the laws that should have governed the process
(Newman, & Hill, 2014).
If the appeal is decided in my favor, there are explicit insights into the ethos of the
international states Acts that I would use to elaborate restricted curial interventions and why
Professor Tomlinson cannot try to enforce the award in another country. The general
consideration arises from the UNCITRAL Model whereby, the expression of purposes by the
claimant in the first case violated the standing orders of the UNCITRAL Model
laws .Therefore, foreign judgement should not be recognised (Caron, & Caplan, 2013).
Scenario 2
On liability, the jury was right to find for the claimant. However, if I found that the
claimant lodged inflated public accounts, I would file a case seeking the enforcement of
liability but be allowed only on the issue of damages incurred by the claimant to the extent
that might be proposed by the jury (Hanotiau, 2014).This would be in consideration of the
actions of the respondent in moving the jury to obtain an injunction to mitigate his
security .The claimant understood well that by his unlawful actions, the respondent won’t be
in a position to stand trial and that should be the reason why he (respondent) was keen about
the public accounts.

References
Caron, D. D., & Caplan, L. M. (2013). The UNCITRAL arbitration rules: a commentary.
Oxford University Press.
Hanotiau, B. (2014). The law applicable to arbitrability. SAcLJ, 26, 874.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/saclj26&div=48&id=
&page=
Kathpalia, S. (2012). Is arbitration being colonized by litigation? Practitioners’ views in the
Singapore context. Discourse and Practice in International Commercial Arbitration:
Issues, Challenges and Prospects. Farnham: Ashgate, 263-281.
Newman, L. W., & Hill, R. D. (2014). Leading Arbitrators' Guide to International
Arbitration. Juris Publishing, Inc.