OTHER RECURRING ISSUES Sample Clauses

OTHER RECURRING ISSUES. Each Party has raised a number of recurring objections to the opposing Party’s Requests. While the Tribunal has considered all of the Parties’ arguments to decide on document production, this section briefly addresses two recurring objections or issues that warrant particular attention in the interest of streamlining the proceedings and of procedural economy. This section thus aims at informing the Tribunal’s decisions on some of the individual Requests while providing guidance to the Parties on the implementation of those decisions and the remaining steps of the jurisdictional/admissibility phase of this arbitration. The Claimant argues that the overarching dispute before the Tribunal commenced with and is determined by the Amendment Act passed by Western Australia (“WA”) in August 2020.31 According to the Claimant, the Amendment Act, through which the Respondent inter alia “terminate[d] the Arbitration Agreement and the Mediation Agreement and the State Agreement Arbitration which the Respondent had just entered into one month earlier”, is what “has given rise to this [a]rbitration”.32 Thus, the Claimant argues that it only seeks “relief in this arbitration in respect of the damages caused to it by the Amendment Act”.33 In this context, with respect to the APO,34 the Claimant contends that, “regardless of the purpose” behind the Restructure, at the time the Restructure was planned or took place “the specific dispute before this Tribunal” (namely the passing the Amendment Act) “was not in existence […] nor was it foreseeable as a reasonable prospect”.35 In consequence, the Claimant submits that the APO 27 Supra, ¶ 13.i. 28 Supra, ¶ 13.ii. 29 Supra, ¶ 13.iii 30 Supra, ¶ 13.v. 31 See inter xxxx XXXX Response, ¶¶ 221, 32 SOPO Response, ¶ 9. 33 See inter xxxx XXXX Response, ¶¶ 221, 34 See supra, ¶ 23. 35 SOPO Response, ¶ 490. See also SOPO Response, ¶ 634. For the avoidance of doubt, the Tribunal takes note that the Claimant also argues that the Restructure was effected for a “genuine commercial purpose” (SOPO Response, ¶ 489). “must fail”.36 This being so, several of the Claimant’s Requests seek documents to prove that the Amendment Act was not and could not have been foreseeable before the Restructure occurred (the “Foreseeability Requests”).37 The Respondent objects to the Foreseeability Requests inter alia on the basis that the documents sought are not relevant and material to the Claimant’s defense against the APO, because “the foreseeability test for th...