You can download the solution to the following question for free. For further assistance in Law assignments please check our offerings in Law assignment solutions. Our subject-matter experts provide online assignment help to Law students from across the world and deliver plagiarism free solution with free Grammarly report with every solution.
(ExpertAssignmentHelp does not recommend anyone to use this sample as their own work.)
Question 1: Define and distinguish between domestic law, public, private international business law and explain their interaction?
Question 2: Provide an account of what riba is and why it is prohibited by Islamic Law?
Question 3: Find the following judgement, Hebei Jikai Industrial group co. ltd. vs Martin  FCA 228 and answer the following question:
Question 4: Bell ltd. is a legal Queensland importer and distributor of mining equipment to wishes to import a US $2,000,000 excavator, they communicate with a US company, based in Alabama, who, subsequently supply the excavators. Bell seeks your advice as an advisor on the following key level aspects of its proposal purchase. The Alabama based company utilizes a standard form contract based on US Law, with no arbitration clause, but is amenable to negotiation on key legal issues in exchange of Bell making payment in full, prior to shipment.
Review your requirements with our FREE Assignment Understanding Brief and avoid last minute chaos.
We provide you services from PhD experts from well known universities across the globe.
No more plagiarism worries. We give you a FREE Grammarly report with every assignment.
Find the following judgement, Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Ltd v. Martin  FCA 228, and answer the following questions:
Hebei Jikai Industrial Group Ltd and Mr. Vincent Martin were shareholders of RUS Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd (RUS Holdings). Mr. Martin has worked as a director at RUS Holdings. To avoid the settlement of the commercial dispute through the court proceedings, the two parties concluded a Deed of Settlement (Deed) that also contained an arbitration agreement. Pursuant to the Deed, if the Audit Report concluded a basis of breach of legal duty by Mr. Martin and if such a finding was disputed by Mr. Martin, he was entitled to refer the matter to arbitration. The Arbitrator so appointed upheld the claim of Mr. Martin.
HJI requested the Court to set aside the arbitral award as the arbitral proceeding was not conducted as per the Agreement and it also resulted in the breach of natural justice. Alternatively, it sought a declaration that the Audit Report must not be considered as an Audit Report as per the Deed.
Mr. Martin, pursuant to the vindication of his stance by the arbitrator, has sought the payment of the retained funds as per the Deed.
There are four major issues raised by the Applicant in its challenge to the arbitral award under the Model law in the present dispute:
Whether the arbitrator decided jurisdiction as a threshold issue and whether the applicant's challenge was maintainable as per article 34(2) (a) (ii) of the Model Law.
HJI has based its claim under this provision as the arbitrator did not conduct the hearing on the merits of the case and therefore, the Applicant was not given an opportunity to present its case. However, the Court has dismissed this claim on the ground that the arbitrators were justified to rule on his jurisdiction and further determine the threshold issue as per Article 19 of the Model Law. After complying with the ruling of the arbitrator to invite written submissions with regard to the threshold issue, the Applicant had waived its right to object to the procedure followed by the arbitrator. Moreover, during the process of determination of questions for the arbitrator, HJI did not contend that the evidence given by the Audit report was unnecessary.
Whether the conduct of the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties and hence, could be set aside as per article 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Model Law.
The Court upheld the consistency of the Agreement with the arbitral proceeding adopted as per the IAMA rules that were included in the Agreement. By incorporating the IAMA rules, the parties empowered the arbitrator to rule on his jurisdiction and also decide the procedure to be followed while conducting the proceeding. HJI allowed the determination of the threshold issue by the arbitrator without any objection till the issue was ruled in the favour of Mr. Martin. Now, to set aside an arbitral award as per article 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Model Law, HJI needs to discharge a heavy burden of proof to establish that the arbitral procedure was in accordance with the agreement. As per its submissions, the Court concluded that it has failed to discharge the burden of proof. The Applicant's contention was furthered weakened by its failure to demonstrate any opposition to the determination of the threshold issue by the tribunal.
Whether the arbitrator breached the principles of natural justice while deciding the award as per article 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Model Law.
This issue was not discussed in detail in the judgement as it was already explained. Therefore, the Court did not find any breach of principles of natural justice and hence, there was no conflict between the arbitral award and public policy of Australia. It is for these reasons that the Court dismissed the claim of HJI.