Milton Mowbray Real State Case Study, Investment Market In London - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task

Presentation assignment 

Milton Mowbray is a real estate investor and international businessman. His interests run across infrastructure, leisure and retail properties around the world, with a particular focus on northern Europe. His primary development vehicle is a company call PiePark plc (“PiePark”), of which he is a major shareholder. It is listed on the alternative investment market in London. At the beginning of 2020, PiePark were preparing for the commencement of construction on their latest major development which was a large retail centre based around the port city of Bjornberg, on the Baltic coast.

The contract (which is under English law) is with a French contractor, Lorraine SA (“Lorraine”). Lorraine’s chief executive is Ferdinand Pollo. The parties agree that disputes will be resolved by arbitration, under the Arbitration Act 1996 and that the seat of any arbitration would be in England. The works on the Bjornberg retail centre were heading for completion but had been delayed by what Milton thought was poor site management by Lorraine and the knock on effects of an insolvency in Lorraine’s supply chain. In March 2020 with about 5 weeks of work to complete (but running substantially over the contractual completion date), Bjornberg went into a “lockdown” as a result of the spread of COVID-19 in the area. Lorraine SA were ordered to cease work. Milton was frustrated by this and while he accepted it was unavoidable, he made clear to the PiePark commercial managers who were running the project that he wanted them to take a hard line to drive completion as quickly as possible once work could restart. Taking their lead from Milton, the commercial team did just that. This did not achieve significant additional progress but it did sour relationships on site – and between the respective management teams of PiePark and Lorraine.

 The works concluded and PiePark submitted a claim for the delay. Lorraine disputed this and the matter was referred to arbitration. PiePark nominated Mike Cheddar, who has a history in property management and investment as well as a track record in commercial arbitration as their choice and Lorraine nominated Dani Champagne, an experienced construction engineer, as theirs. The parties failed to agree on the third arbitrator. They sought a nomination from the chair of the Bjornberg branch of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. They wrote a joint letter and, in it, they said that they have agreed that the nominee should be a member of the Baltic Institute of Delay Analysts (“BIDA”). The chair appointed Otso Piirakka. Otso is not a member of the BIDA but does have an international reputation in delay analysis. There are no members of BIDA who are able to take on the brief at this point. Almost immediately on appointment, the tribunal ordered that both parties should provide their full delay analyses within 21 days. The order was agreed by Otso and Dani Champagne but Mike Cheddar disagreed. Milton is immediately troubled, he has never heard of Otso and so immediately jumps to the conclusion that he is not an appropriate arbitrator and is biased. He instructs his team to investigate Otso and they come up with the following information. 

1. Otso is regularly engaged on a consultancy basis by a large civil engineering company. That civil engineering company is currently bidding for work which ParkPie are tendering. 

2. Otso was in the same University master class as Dani Champagne. There were around 20 other students in their year. 

3. Otso has been on the supply chain dispute board for the project in Bjornberg. 

4. At the outset of his career, Otso applied for an internship at one of Milton Mowbray’s other companies but did not get it. Milton has no recollection of this, and it is unlikely that he would have been consulted (or that Otso would have known of Milton’s involvement). 

5.Milton wants to get Otso removed. He instructs his representatives to raise an objection to the appointment of Otso as umpire and seeks Otso’s recusal. Lorraine responds that the appointment is appropriate and Otso should remain. 

6.The tribunal seeks a hearing on the matter. Both parties agree, subject to reservation of their positions on the issues pending the hearing.

Question: 

You represent one of the parties at the hearing and should present the arguments in favour of that parties’ position. This presentation should be 10 minutes long and uploaded onto the system 

The party which you will represent depends on your group and will be as follows: 

In favour of the Milton/PiePark position 

• - Catherine Rogers Group 
• - Emilia Onyema Group 

This Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment Experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction