Upload
phamkiet
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
B1408-R
THE 9TH LAWASIA INTERNATIONAL MOOT
IN THE KUALA LUMPUR REGIONAL CENTRE FOR ARBITRATION
BANGKOK, THAILAND
2014
___________________________________________________________________________
BETWEEN
THE INTERNATIONAL COLLECTIVE IN SUPPORT OF TEXTILE WORKERS (ICSTW)
(CLAIMANT)
AND
SPEAR SHIRTS INC.
(RESPONDENT)
___________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
___________________________________________________________________________
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................vii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ..................................................................................... viii
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ..................................................................................................ix
STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... 1
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS .............................................................................................. 3
PLEADINGS .......................................................................................................................... 4
I THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE
BETWEEN MAE SOT CLOTHING LTD. AND SPEAR SHIRTS INC………………..4
A Source of jurisdiction
B Applicable law
II THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT ADMIT A LARGE NUMBER OF
CLAIMANTS TO JOIN IN A SINGLE ARBITRATION……………………………….4
A The arbitral tribunal should not admit Class action without mention for the current
Thai Civil Procedure Code………………………………………………………...4
B Even if the Arbitral Tribunal refer to United States Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure which is modeled by the draft law, the Claimant did not satisfy the
necessary conditions of Class action………………………………………………5
iii
1 There is a draft law that is being waited for the introduction of the National
Legislative Assembly as a Bill of Law. ………………………………………5
2 United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is modeled by the draft law...5
3 The Claimant did not satisfy Rule 23(a)(2) of the United States Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure “there are questions of law or fact common to the class”…7
4 The Claimant satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) of the United States Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy”………………………………………………….8
4.1 The damage in the present case occurred to the class member cannot
prove by evidence to be common to the whole class……………………8
4.2 The calculation of the damage cannot be consistent with its liability
case………………………………………………………………………9
III THE RESPONDENT DID NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR INJURIES AND DEATHS
OF MAE SOT CLOTHING’S EMPLOYEES…………………………………….…...10
A The Respondent did not have any legal relation to be held liable for the injuries and
deaths of Mae Sot Clothing’s employees…………………………………………10
1 The Respondent, a mare customer, do not have any responsibility to supervise
iv
Mae Sot……………………………………………………………….…….10
2 The insurance coverage which the Respondent carries does not extend to
employees of Mae Sot Clothing…………………………………………….11
B The Respondent does not have any power or contractual right………………….11
C The Claimant failed to show any evidence which says the fire directly caused by
the Respondent…………………………………………………………………...11
D The Respondent trusted Mae Sot…………………………………………………12
1 The Respondent has been purchasing men’s shirt from Mae Sot for about 10
years…………………………………………………………………………12
2 Thai government entity inspected the factory for safety concerns prior to the
fire and for underage workers but there was no problem……………………12
3 The Respondent did not possibly think that Mae Sot made wretched
environment………………………………………………………………….13
IV EVEN IF THE RESPONDENT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAE SOT, THE
RESPONSIBILITY THE RESPONDENT HAVE SHOULD BE LIMITED TO LOSS OF
FUTURE WAGES, DISFIGUREMENT AND FUNERAL EXPENSES………………13
A Even if the arbitral tribunal admit the Respondent have any relationship with the
injuries and deaths of Mae Sot Clothing’s employees, the responsibility the
Respondent have should be limited to loss future wages, disfigurement and funeral
v
expenses…………………………………………………………………………13
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER OF RELIEF ....................................................................... 15
vi
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes and Treaties
Arbitration Guide IBA Arbitration Committee THAILAND 4
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH FORMS 5,6,7
December 1, 2013
THAILAND Labour Protection Act of 1998 10
THAILAND Civil and Commercial Code 13
Cases
In re FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, Petitioner. 9
In re PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION, Petitioner. In re ACANDS, INC.,
Petitioner Nos. 89-4937, 89-4945, 90-4015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 893 F.2d 706; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 915; 15 Fed. R. Serv. 3d
(Callaghan) 1147 January 25, 1990
COMCAST CORPORATION, 8
et al., Petitioners v. CAROLINE BEHREND et al. No. 11-864 SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES 133 S. Ct. 1426; 185 L. Ed. 2d 515; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2544; 81 U.S.L.W.
4217; 2013-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P78,316; 85 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 118; 24 Fla. L.
Weekly Fed. S 125; 57 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 1487 November 5, 2012, Argued March 27,
2013, Decided
Sallie J. Ward et al., Plaintiffs v. Curtis C. Luttrell , etc., et al., Defendants 7
Civil A. No. 67-1622
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
LOUISIANA, NEW ORLEANS DIVISION
292 F. Supp. 165; 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8730; 12 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 392;
69 L.R.R.M. 2595; 1 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 437; 59 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P9210; 1
Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P9967
October 4, 1968
vii
Scholarly Work and Articles
Analysis on the Basic Requirements for Class Certification; 7
Numerosity and Common Questions specified in Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule23(a)(1)and (2)
Hiroyuki YUZURIHA
viii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The International Collective in Support of Textile Workers (ICSTW) (“the Claimant”) and
Spear Shirts Inc. (“the Respondent”) have agreed to submit this dispute to binding arbitration
in Bangkok in accordance with the KLRCA Arbitration Rules.
The dispute includes issues on the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Both parties shall accept the judgment of the arbitral tribunal as final and binding and execute
it in good faith in its entirety
ix
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1 May a large number of claimants (victims and their families) be joined in a single
arbitration?
2 Even if the arbitral tribunal admit a single arbitration which is joined a large number of
claimants, does the Claimants meet requirements of Class action?
2.1 Does the Claimant satisfy Rule 23(a)(2) of the United States Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “there are questions of law or fact common to the class”?
2.2 Does the Claimant satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) of the United States Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy”?
3 Should the Respondent be held liable for the injuries and deaths of Mae Sot Clothing’s
employees?
3.1 What is the Respondent for Mae Sot? : a mere customer or an employer?
4 Even if the Respondent is obligated to reimburse them for their injuries and deaths, what
types of monetary damages may the victims and their families recover?
1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE CLAIMANT
The Claimant ICSTW is the NGO based in India which investigates and reports on working
conditions in factories throughout Asia. It represents the victims and their families in the fire
in Mae Sot Clothing Ltd. Among the surviving victims, the injuries were suffered differently.
Any claims weren’t made by the victims or their families against other shirt companies which
purchased shirts from Mae Sot.
THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent Spear Shirts Inc. is the company which sells clothing throughout the United
States and much of the world and has its principle place of business in Los Angeles,
California.
MAE SOT CLOTHING LTD.
Mae Sot Clothing Ltd is the largest of the more than 100 clothing factories located in or near
Mae Sot. It produces clothing which carries some of the world’s most famous brands,
including Spear Shirts. It makes shirts for other clothing companies.
THE FIRE
On October 15, 2013, a fire raced through the Mae Sot factory. The fire apparently started
from an overheated textile machine and quickly spread through the factory. It is unknown that
the machine which started the fire was being used at the time to shirts for the Respondent as
2
documents showing what work was being done on each machine when the fire started was
destroyed.
Fifty employees – all women - lost their lives in the fire and more than 100 more were
seriously injured. Mae Sot Clothing was making shirts for at least five other shirt companies
when the fire occurred and some victims in the fire were assigned to the production of shirts
for other customers.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND MAE SOT CLOTHING
The Respondent has been purchasing men’s shirt from Mae Sot Clothing for about 10 years.
The Respondent doesn’t own shares or any other form of interests in Mae Sot Clothing and
doesn’t have any power or contractual rights to appoint the Director(s) of Mae Sot Clothing
and to suggest the working condition and workers’ welfare. The Respondent only has the
power to deal with production deadlines and quality control.
SAFTY CONCERNS IN MAE SOT FACTORY
Four years ago, Thai government entity has inspected the factory for safety concerns and the
Report did not disclose any major deficiencies.
3
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
I THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE
BETWEEN MAE SOT CLOTHING LTD. AND THE RESPONDENT
II THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT ADMIT A LARGE NUMBER OF
CLAIMANTS TO JOIN IN A SINGLE ARBITRATION. The current Thai Civil Procedure
Code is silent about Class action. Even if the Arbitral Tribunal refers to United States Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure which is modeled by the draft law, the Claimant did not satisfy the
necessary conditions of Class action.
III THE RESPONDENT DID NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR INJURIES AND
DEATHS OF MAE SOT CLOTHING’S EMPLOYEES. The Respondent did not have any
legal relation to be held liable for the injuries and deaths of Mae Sot Clothing’s employees.
The Respondent does not have any power or contractual right. The Claimant failed to show
any evidence which says the fire directly caused by the Respondent.
IV EVEN IF THE RESPONDENT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAE SOT, THE
RESPONSIBILITY THE RESPONDENT HAVE SHOULD BE LIMITED TO LOSS OF
FUTURE WAGES, DISFIGUREMENT AND FUNERAL EXPENSES
4
PLEADINGS
I THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE DISPUTE
BETWEEN MAE SOT CLOTHING LTD. AND THE RESPONDENT
A Source of jurisdiction
The Office of the Arbitration Tribunal attached to Thai Arbitration Institute
(hereunder,"TAI") 1has the jurisdiction over the dispute between Mae Sot Clothing Ltd. and
the Respondent The Arbitral Tribunal has the authority to rule on its own jurisdiction. The
decision is final and binding on the Parties.
B Applicable law
Since both the parties have expressly agreed to submit this dispute to binding arbitration in
Bangkok2, The Thai Civil Procedure Code shall be the applicable law to the disputes
presented before the arbitral tribunal because Seat of Arbitration is Thai.
II THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT ADMIT TO JOIN A LARGE
NUMBER OF CLAIMANTS IN A SINGLE ARBITRATION
A The arbitral tribunal should not admit Class action without mention for the
current Thai Civil Procedure Code
In the present case, the arbitral tribunal has the authority to decide whether Class action is
permitted or not under the Thai Civil Procedure Code. However, there are no specific
1 First Clarifications, D1, p3, Arbitration Guide IBA Arbitration Committee THAILAND 2 Moot problem, p3
5
provisions indicating how to conduct the taking of evidence in the Thai Civil Procedure Code.
The Thai Civil Procedure Code is silent about whether Class action is permitted or not. The
arbitral tribunal should not admit Class action without mention for the current Thai Civil
Procedure Code.
B Even if the Arbitral Tribunal admit Class action, the Claimant did not fulfill the
necessary conditions of Class action
1 There is a draft law that is being waited for the introduction of the National
Legislative Assembly as a Bill of Law
There is a draft law of Thai Civil Procedure Code including Class action clause that is being
waited for the introduction of the National Legislative Assembly as a Bill of Law. There is a
draft law that is being waited for the introduction of the National Legislative Assembly as a
Bill of Law. The draft law has already been considered by the Committee for Revision of the
Civil Procedure Code. The Respondent submits that the United States Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure can be applied in this case. According to these Rules, Class action should not be
considered by the arbitral tribunal.
2 United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is modeled by the draft law
The United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure3 was the basis of the draft law for Class
actions in the Thailand Civil Procedure Code. Rule 23(a) of the United States Federal Rules
3 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH FORMS DECEMBER 1, 2013 UNUME PLURIBUS
6
of Civil Procedure provides that one or more members of a class may sue or be sued as
representative parties on behalf of all members only if:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Moreover, Rule 23(b)(3) of the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also provides
that the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters
pertinent to these findings include:
A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of
separate actions;
B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by
or against class members;
C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the
particular forum; and
D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.
7
In the present case, victims did not have questions of law or fact common to the class. Even if
the arbitral tribunal admits the victims have questions of law or fact common to the class, the
questions of law or fact common to class members do not predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and a class action is not superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.
3 The Claimant did not satisfy Rule 23(a)(2) of the United States Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure “there are questions of law or fact common to the class”
The Class needs to have questions of law or fact common to the class, but it tends to be
difficult to acknowledge that question of fact or law is common. To acknowledge that
question of fact or law is common needs to consider facts that class member’s claims.4 If a
question of law is common but a question of fact laying a question of law is not common,
class does not satisfy Rule 23(a)(2)5. In the present case, the class’s question of law is that
whether the Respondent is held liable for the injuries and deaths of Mae Sot Clothing’s
employees and it is common to the class. However a question of fact is not common. All
victims did not injure and death caused by the Respondent. The Class in the present case does
not satisfy Rule 23(a)(2) a question of fact to common to the class.
4 Sallie J. Ward et al., Plaintiffs v. Curtis C. Luttrell , etc., et al., Defendants Civil A. No.
67-1622 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, NEW ORLEANS DIVISION 292 F. Supp. 165; 1968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8730; 12
Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 392; 69 L.R.R.M. 2595; 1 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 437; 59
Lab. Cas. (CCH) P9210; 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P9967 October 4, 1968 5 Analysis on the Basic Requirements for Class Certification; Numerosity and Common
Questions specified in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule23(a)(1)and (2) Hiroyuki
YUZURIHA
8
4 The Claimant satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) of the United States Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy”
Even if the arbitral tribunal the victims have questions of law or fact common to the class,
the questions of law or fact common to class members do not predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and a class action is not superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. When a class satisfy Rule
23(b)(3) of the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is need that
a. the damage occurred to the class member can prove by evidence to be common to the
whole class; and
b. the calculation of the damage must be consistent with its liability case6.
4.1 The damage in the present case occurred to the class member cannot prove by
evidence to be common to the whole class.
In the present case, the damage occurred to the class member cannot prove by evidence to
be common to the whole class. All victims in the fire did not assign to the production of shirts
for the respondent. Mae Sot was making shirts for several shirts companies including the
6 COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Petitioners v. CAROLINE BEHREND et al. No. 11-864
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 133 S. Ct. 1426; 185 L. Ed. 2d 515; 2013 U.S.
LEXIS 2544; 81 U.S.L.W. 4217; 2013-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P78,316; 85 Fed. R. Serv. 3d
(Callaghan) 118; 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 125; 57 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 1487 November 5, 2012,
Argued March 27, 2013, Decided
9
Respondent when the fire occurred7. It means that some Mae Sot worker did not made shirts
for the Respondent but for other companies. The victims include workers who did not
produced shirts for the Respondent. The legal relation between such workers and the
Respondent is unclear. There is also no evidence that the machine which started the fire was
being used at the time to shirts for the Respondent. Which machine started the fire is
unknown because documents showing what works were being done on each machine were
destroyed when the fire started. It is possible that the machine which caused the fire may be
making the shirt for other companies. The Claimant failed to identify who produce the shirts
for the Respondent and which machine was the cause of the fire.
The Claimant failed to prove by evidence to be common to the whole class.
4.2 The calculation of the damage cannot be consistent with its liability case
In the present case, the calculation of the damage cannot be consistent. The victims include
deaths8 and injuries that the degree of the burn is wide
9. The damages of the injuries who
suffered a burn of the different degree cannot calculate by consist method10
. Moreover, the
damages of deaths and of injuries cannot calculate in a same way.
7 First Clarifications, C1, p3 8 Moot problem, p4 9 Further Clarifications, A The Victims, p2 10 In re FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, Petitioner. In re PITTSBURGH CORNING
CORPORATION, Petitioner. In re ACANDS, INC., Petitioner Nos. 89-4937, 89-4945, 90-4015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 893 F.2d 706; 1990 U.S.
App. LEXIS 915; 15 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1147 January 25, 1990
10
III THE RESPONDENT DID NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR INJURIES AND
DEATHS OF MAE SOT CLOTHING’S EMPLOYEES
A The Respondent did not have any legal relation to be held liable for the
injuries and deaths of Mae Sot Clothing’s employees
1 The Respondent, a mare customer, do not have any responsibility to supervise Mae
Sot
The Respondent concluded a sales contract using the standard Purchase Order used by the
Respondent with Mae Sot,11
so the Respondent is a mere large customer of Mae Sot. It is not
illegal that the Respondent concluded a sales contract and buys the products from Mae Sot.
Mae Sot is not a subsidiary of another company12
and does not have any divisions or
subsidiaries.13
The Respondent is not a subsidiary company and a parent company of Mae
Sot.
Moreover, Mae Sot is not the main contractor of the Respondent who is under the labor
protection law. Section 5 of Labor Protection Act of 199814
shows "First level contractor"
means a person who agrees to undertake to carry out all or part of a job for the benefit of the
employer. However the Respondent is a wholesaler15
and its job is to sale clothing, not to
produce. So Mae Sot did not undertake to carry out all or part of a job for of the Respondent.
11 First Clarifications, B1, p2 12 First Clarifications, A Mae Sot1, p1 13 First Clarifications, A Mae Sot3, p1 14 Labour Protection Act of 1998, THAILAND 15 Moot problem, p1
11
The Respondent, a mare customer, do not have any responsibility to supervise Mae Sot
2 The insurance coverage which the Respondent carries does not extend to employees
of Mae Sot Clothing
The Respondent carries insurance which covers injuries or deaths of its employees. However,
this coverage does not extend to employees of its suppliers, such as Mae Sot Clothing Ltd.16
B The Respondent does not have any power or contractual right
The Respondent does not have any power or contractual rights to appoint the Director(s) of
Mae Sot.17
Moreover, the Respondent also does not have any influence on the company
management, particularly the working condition and workers’ welfare or they a.re mere
suggestions on the production of garments.18
It has only suggested several suggestions all of
which were subsequently made, such as production deadlines and quality control.19
The Respondent does not have any power or contractual right to suggest on working
condition of Mae Sot.
C The Claimant failed to show any evidence which says the fire directly caused by
the Respondent
The Claimant lose documents showing what work was being done on each machine when the
fire started20
and cannot identify which victims were making the production of shirts for the
16 Moot problem,p1 17 First Clarifications, B3, p2 18 Further Clarifications, E1, p5 19 First Clarifications, B3, p2 and Further Clarifications, E1, p5 20 First Clarifications, C2, p3
12
Respondent when the fire occurred21
. The unsubstantiated information that the machine
which started the fire being used at the time is likely to make shirts for the Respondent cannot
consider as provisions. The Respondent does not be held liable for the injuries and deaths of
Mae Sot Clothing’s employees by such unsubstantiated information.
D The Respondent trusted Mae Sot
1 The Respondent has been purchasing men’s shirt from Mae Sot for about 10 years
The Respondent decides Mae Sot as the company which manufactures the Respondent
products for ten years.22
This fact show that Mr. Baydon, Vice President of Purchasing in the
Respondent decides with responsibility23
because he rely on the results of Mae Sot that there
were no accident and injustice so far.
2 Thai government entity inspected the factory for safety concerns prior to the fire and
for underage workers but there was no problem
Thai government entity inspected the factory for safety concerns prior to the fire four years
ago, but the Report did not disclose any major deficiencies.24
Thai government entity also inspected the factory for underage workers every year, but no
evidence of underage workers was found during the most recent inspection.25
In ten years the Respondent buys the production of shirts for from Mae Sot, there are at least
21 First Clarifications, B9, p2 22 First Clarifications, B4, p2 23 Further Clarifications, A Spear Shirts 2,p1 24 First Clarifications, A Mae Sot 5, p1 25 First Clarifications, A Mae Sot 6, p1
13
one times the government inspection of safety concern and 10times it of underage worker.
3 The Respondent did not possibly think that Mae Sot made wretched environment
Based on the above facts, the Respondent established great trust in Mae Sot.
IV EVEN IF THE RESPONDENT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAE SOT, THE
RESPONSIBILITY THE RESPONDENT HAVE SHOULD BE LIMITED TO LOSS OF
FUTURE WAGES, DISFIGUREMENT AND FUNERAL EXPENSES
A Even if the arbitral tribunal admit the Respondent have any relationship with
the injuries and deaths of Mae Sot Clothing’s employees, the responsibility the
Respondent have should be limited to loss future wages, disfigurement and funeral
expenses.
Even if the arbitral tribunal admits the Respondent have any relationship with the injuries
and deaths of Mae Sot Clothing’s employees, the Respondent case comes under Section 443
and 444 of Civil and Commercial Code26
. Section 443 of Civil and Commercial Code
provides that in the cause of causing death, compensation shall include funeral and other
necessary expenses and that if death did not ensue immediately, compensation shall include
in particular expenses for medical treatment and damages for the loss of earning on account
of the disability to work. Section 444 of Civil and Commercial Code provides that in the case
of an injury to the body or health, the injured person is entitled to receive reimbursement of
26 Civil and Commercial Code, General Reference List
14
his expenses and damages for total or partial disability to work, for the present as well as for
the future.
The responsibility the Respondent have should be limited to funeral expenses, expenses for
medical treatment and damages for the loss of earning on account of the disability to work
and reimbursement of his expenses and damages for total or partial disability to work.
15
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER OF RELIEF
Based on the above submissions, the Respondent respectfully requests this Tribunal to
arbitrate and declare as follows on the Questions Presented:
A Thai Arbitration Institute has jurisdiction under in accordance with the KLRCA
Arbitration Rules. The Thai Civil Procedure Code and Thai civil Code shall be applied as
the applicable law.
B That under the Thai Code,
1 Class action should not be admit
2 Even if Class action is admitted, the Claimant does not satisfy the requirement of
Class action
3 The Respondent does not be held liable for the injuries and deaths of Mae Sot
Clothing’s employees.
4 Even if the Respondent is held liable for the victims, the responsibility the
Respondent have should be limited to loss of future wages, disfigurement and
funeral expenses.