2016 M R annual international maritime law arbitration moot 2016 _____ memorandum for respondent

  • View
    219

  • Download
    4

Embed Size (px)

Text of 2016 M R annual international maritime law arbitration moot 2016 _____ memorandum for respondent

  • SEVENTEENTH ANNUAL

    INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT

    2016

    __________________________________________________________________________________

    MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY

    TEAM 11

    __________________________________________________________________________________

    ON BEHALF OF: AGAINST:

    Hestia Industries Zeus Shipping and Trading Company

    RESPONDENT CLAIMANT

    COUNSEL

    Rahul Maria Eric Harry

    Arora Mellos Shi Stratton

  • TEAM 11 MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    II

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    ABBREVIATIONS V

    LIST OF AUTHORITIES VI

    STATEMENT OF FACTS 1

    ARGUMENTS ON JURISDICTION 2

    I. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE RESPONDENTS

    DEFENCE OF FRUSTRATION AND THEREFORE CLAIMANTS PLEADING FOR DEMURRAGE

    2

    A. The law of Western Australia governs the arbitration agreement 2

    i. The law of Western Australia has the closest and most real connection to

    the arbitration agreement

    3

    ii. The choice of London as the arbitral seat does not mean that English law

    governs the arbitration agreement

    4

    B. The arbitration agreement does not grant the Tribunal jurisdiction over

    RESPONDENT's defence of frustration and therefore CLAIMANT's pleading for

    demurrage

    4

    i. It is reasonable for parties to limit the scope of their arbitration agreement 4

    ii. The language of the agreement indicates that frustration is not arbitrable 5

    iii. The Parties decision to delete certain words indicates frustration is not

    arbitrable

    6

    iv. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear CLAIMANTs pleading for

    demurrage because RESPONDENTs defence of frustration is not arbitrable

    6

  • TEAM 11 MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    III

    ARGUMENTS ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM 7

    II. RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY DEMURRAGE 7

    A. The Athena left the Loading Place before laytime expired 7

    B. The Athena left the Loading Place despite her interception and subsequent return

    to port

    9

    C. Laytime was interrupted when the Athena was intercepted by the Hades Coast

    Guard

    11

    i. The delay was by reason of public enemies 12

    ii. The delay was by reason of arrests 12

    III. RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY DEMURRAGE BECAUSE A FORCE MAJEURE

    EVENT LISTED IN CLAUSE 19 CAUSED THE DELAY

    13

    A. The delay was caused by a Force Majeure Event listed in Clause 19 14

    i. RESPONDENT is not liable to pay demurrage because of the exemptions

    listed in Clause 19(c) of the Charterparty

    14

    ii. RESPONDENT is not liable to pay demurrage because of the exemptions

    listed in Clause 19(d) of the Charterparty

    15

    B. The Parties intended for Clause 19 to cover long or indefinite delays 17

    IV. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY DEMURRAGE BECAUSE

    THE CHARTERPARTY WAS FRUSTRATED AT COMMON LAW

    18

    A. The Parties could not have foreseen the detention of the Athena for 358 days 18

    B. The delay rendered performance radically different from what the Parties

    intended

    19

  • TEAM 11 MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    IV

    ARGUMENTS ON THE MERITS OF THE COUNTER-CLAIM 20

    V. RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM SALVAGE REWARD 20

    A. The Athena and its cargo were in danger 21

    B. The Athena and its cargo were recognised subjects of salvage 21

    C. RESPONDENT was not a volunteer 22

    i. RESPONDENT did not act under a pre-existing contractual duty which

    would preclude a salvage claim

    22

    ii. RESPONDENT did not act under a pre-existing statutory duty which would

    preclude a salvage claim

    22

    iii. In the alternative, RESPONDENT went beyond the scope of its duty so as to

    convert the pre-existing towage contract into a salvage service

    23

    D. The salvage services were successful 25

    REQUEST FOR RELIEF 25

  • TEAM 11 MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    V

    ABBREVIATIONS

    Charterer Hestia Industries

    Charterparty The voyage charterparty between CLAIMANT and

    RESPONDENT

    CLAIMANT Zeus Shipping and Trading Company

    Force Majeure Event An event listed in Clause 19 of the Charterparty

    HLNG Hades Liquefied Natural Gas

    LNG Liquefied Natural Gas

    Loading Place Port of Hades

    Master Captain Marcus Yi

    New York Convention Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement

    of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958)

    Parties CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT

    Record 2016 International Maritime Law Arbitration

    Moot Scenario

    RESPONDENT Hestia Industries

    The Athena The MV Athena

  • TEAM 11 MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    VI

    LIST OF AUTHORITIES

    CASES AND ARBITRAL AWARDS REFERRED TO AT PAGE:

    Academy of Health and Fitness Pty Ltd v Power [1973] VR 254 7

    Akai Pty Ltd v Peoples Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 188 CLR 418 2

    Amin Rasheed Shipping Corp v Kuwait Insurance Co [1984] AC 50 2

    Andreas Sobonis v The National Defender [1980] 1 Lloyds Rep 40 21

    Anglo-Northern Trading Co v Emlyn Jones [1917] 2 KB 78 20

    Arnold v Britton and others [2015] UKSC 36 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17

    Atlantic Maritime Co v Gibbon [1954] 1 QB 88 20

    Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co v King [1919] 1 KB 307 15

    Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Rights

    Association (1973) 129 CLR 99

    12

    Award in ICC Case No. 1434, 103 J.D.I. (Clunet) 978, 982 (1976) 13

    Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Capel & Co [1919] AC 435 20

    Bonython v Commonwealth (1950) 81 CLR 486 2

    Brett v Barr Smith (1919) 26 CLR 87 15

    Burke v State Bank of New South Wales (1994) 37 NSWLR 53 9

    C v D [2007] EWCA Civ 1282 3

    Carboex SA v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA [2013] 2 WLR 754 10

    Chapmans Ltd v Australian Stock Exchange Ltd (1996) 67 FCR 402 15

    Coast Lines Ltd v Hudig & Veder Chartering NV [1972] 2 WLR 280 3

    Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales

    (1982) 149 CLR 337

    5, 6, 18

    Comandate Marine Corp v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd (2006) 157

    FCR 45

    2, 4, 5, 6

    Compania Naviera Aeolus SA v Union of India [1962] 3 All ER 670 9

  • TEAM 11 MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    VII

    Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell (2000) 176 ALR 693 10

    Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of

    Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297

    8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17

    Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Co v Ministry of Religious Affairs of the

    Government of Pakistan [2011] 1 AC 763

    2

    Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500 5

    Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] AC 696 5, 18, 19

    Denny, Mott & Dickson Ltd v James B Fraser & Co Ltd [1944] AC 265 20

    Dias Compania Naviera SA v Louis Defus Corp [1978] 1 All ER 724 9

    Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith (Motors) Ltd [1965] 1 WLR

    623

    7

    Dovuro Pty Ltd v Wilkins (2000) 105 FCR 476 15

    E L Oldendorff & Co GmbH v Tradax Export SA [1974] AC 479 10

    Edwinton Commercial Corp v Tsavliris Russ (Worldwide Salvage &

    Towage) Ltd (The Sea Angel) [2007] EWCA Civ 547

    18

    Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd & Others

    (2014) 251 CLR 640

    10

    Ellul v Oakes (1972) 3 SASR 377

    Eridania SpA v Oetker (The Fjord Wind) [2000] 2 Lloyds Rep 191 5

    Esso Australia Ltd v Australian Petroleum Agents & Distributors

    Association [1999] 3 VR 642

    6

    Fisher v The Oceanic Grandeur (1972) 127 CLR 312 20, 21

    Franklins Pty Ltd v Metcash Trading Ltd (2009) 264 ALR 15 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17

    Gardiner v Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 235 14

    Goldberg v Ng (1995) 185 CLR 83 5

    Gollin & Co Ltd v Karenlee Nominees Pty Ltd (1983) 153 CLR 455 9, 10, 12, 13, 17

    Great Elephant Corporation v Trafigura Beheer BV, The Crudesky [2012]

    EWHC 1745 (Comm)

    13, 17

    Guthiel v Ballarat Trustees, Executors & Agency Co Ltd (1922) 30 CLR

    293

    15

  • TEAM 11