Hi Course Hero Law Tutors,

Please review and provide feedback to my answers to the below question.

Are Insurance Contracts Act 1984 & Competition and Consumer Act 2010 relevant 'strong grounds' that will lead to non-enforcement of exclusive jurisdiction clause?

Are there any exceptions to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 11(2) where an Australian court can stay the proceedings? Thank-you so much! :)

Carlo Oil, an Australian Company, enters a contract with Orego AG, a German transport company, to transport pipes from China to Australia for its new pipeline facility. The contract contains the following dispute resolution clause: 'all disputes between the parties shall be referred to arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.' The pipes are flown to Australia by plane and during the flight the pipes break loose and are damaged. Carlo Oil commences proceedings for breach of contract in the Federal Court of Australia. (1) On what grounds, if any, can Orego AG seek to stay the proceedings? Are there any grounds on which Carlo Oil can challenge a stay of proceedings? (2) What would happen if the pipes were shipped by sea to the Port of Brisbane instead of transported by plane? Would your answer change?. Akai Pty Ltd v People's Insurance Company Limited - 'strong grounds' for non- enforcement of an exclusive jurisdiction clause. Carlo Oil can seek to challenge the proceedings by establishing that the foreign jurisdiction clause offends Australian public policy. For instance, on the grounds that the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 or Insurance Contracts Act 1984 is non-recognised by the Singapore court for breach of contract. Another strong ground is 'third parties' - manufacturing and safety/liability carrier of goods involves third party from China in transportation. Matters outside the scope of foreign exclusive jurisdiction clause. Orego AG is invited to challenge the proceedings by maintaining the 'exclusivity' and transitive language of the clause designating Singapore. Australian Arbitration Act 1984 - proceedings relating to arbitration are being done in court and capable of settlement by arbitration 10 Mandatory rules render ineffective a jurisdiction clause that limits/precludes an Australian court's jurisdiction over a dispute of goods by sea, from or to an Australian Port . In those circumstances Australian courts must not stay their proceedings. 7 M Davies et al., Nygh's Conflict of Laws in Australia (9th edition, LexisNexis Butterworths Australia 2014) 8 Ibid. " International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) s7(2)(a) ('IAA") 10 IAA, $7(2)(b) 11 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth) s11(2)