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.