ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION 20th ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT

  • View
    3

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION 20th ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION...

  • 20th ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT

    In the matter of an arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996

    Between

    PANTHER SHIPPING INC

    CLAIMANT / Owners

    - and -

    OMEGA CHARTERING LIMITED

    RESPONDENT / Charterers

    MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    Counsel for RESPONDENT

    TEAM 02

    UNIVERSITY OF VERSAILLES · PARIS SACLAY

    Houda NAJI · Nicoleta IFTODI · Eyram APETOGBOR · Leonte READ

  • MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    II

    TABLE OF CONTENT

    INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ IV

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................................... V

    STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................................................. 1

    I. THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO RULE OVER THE

    CLAIMS ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

    A. The Arbitration Act 1996 and the London Maritime Arbitration Association Terms 2017 gorvern

    the arbitral proceedings according to the Charterparty ............................................................................... 3

    B. The Arbitral Tribunal is competent to assess its own jurisdiction ....................................................... 4

    C. The appointment of Madam Mary Walker as arbitrator by the CLAIMANT is not valid ............... 4

    D. The Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to rule over counterclaims ..................................................... 5

    E. The Cargo Claim was notified within the time and in accordance with Clause 6 of the ICA ........... 6

    II. RESPONDENT IS LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE CARGO ............................. 7

    A. Cargo damage should be apportioned in accordance with Clause 8(a) of the ICA, RESPONDENT

    is 100% responsible for the damages .............................................................................................................. 7

    B. Alternatively, if Cargo Claim were not to be apportioned in accordance with Clause 8(a) of the

    ICA, the Tribunal shall apportion them on a 50/50 basis ........................................................................... 10

    III. RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ANY CLEANING COST UNDER CHARTERPARTY . 11

    A. CLAIMANT is not entitled for damages upon Hull Cleaning ............................................................ 11

    1. Bimco Clause is not applicable ........................................................................................................... 11

    2. Hull Cleaning obligation remains with the CLAIMANT ................................................................... 12

    B. CLAIMANT should bear in the course of trading .............................................................................. 13

    1. CLAIMANT must arrange Hull Cleaning under Charterparty ......................................................... 14

    2. The prolonged stay at Wahanda was due to operational considerations at Wahanda Port ............. 14

    3. RESPONDENT is not liable for the cost of the Vessel’s consumption to South Island ................... 15

  • MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    III

    4. RESPONDENT is not entitled to the cleaning cost of the entire Vessel ........................................... 16

    5. Tribunal shall declare voyage to North Titan not compliant with the (ism) code ............................. 16

    IV. RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE LATE RE-DELIVERY OF THE VESSEL ............. 17

    A. CLAIMANT is solely liable for the late re-delivery of the Vessel ...................................................... 17

    1. The Master’s negligence led to the presence of the Ebola virus on board the Vessel ....................... 18

    2. The Vessel was off-hire during the quarantine period ....................................................................... 19

    i. Inefficiency of the Vessel ...................................................................................................................... 19

    ii. Off-hire event ........................................................................................................................................ 20

    iii. Time deductible following an off-hire event ......................................................................................... 21

    B. CLAIMANT is not entitled to claim loss of hire .................................................................................. 21

    PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................................................... 22

    ANNEXE 1 .......................................................................................................................................................... 23

  • MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    IV

    INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

    Arbitration Act Arbitration Act of England (1996)

    BIMCO Baltic and International Maritime Council

    Cargo A cargo of 1720 x 5mt of English breakfast tea in bags on board of

    the Vessel

    Charterparty The time Charterparty between CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT

    CLAIMANT Panther Shipping Inc

    Comm Commercial Court

    EWHC England and Wales High Court (or, High Court of Justice in

    England)

    FHS Final Hire Settlement

    Ibid. Ibidem

    ICA Inter-Club NYPE Agreement (1996)

    LMAA Terms London Maritime Arbitration Association Terms (2017)

    Next Fixture Charterparty between Panther Shipping Inc and Champion

    Chartering Corp

    NYPE 2015 New York Produce Exchange (2015)

    Parties CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT

    p. / pp. Page / pages

    RESPONDENT Omega Chartering Limited

    Vessel M/V Thanos Quest

    WOG Without guarantee

  • MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    V

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

    CASE LAW

    Case Law Quoted on page:

    A.

    Action Navigation Inc v Bottigliere di Navigazione SpA (the “Kitsa”), [2005] 1

    Lloyd’s Rep. 432

    12, 13

    Actis Co Ltd v Sanko Steamship Co Ltd (the “Aquacharm”), [1982] 1 Lloyd’s

    Rep. 7

    14

    Andre & Cie S.A. v Orient Shipping Rotterdam B.V. (the “Laconian Confidence”),

    [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 139.

    18

    Armonia Shipping and Finance Corporation (the “Ira”), [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 103 17

    Athanasia Comninos, [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 227 13

    Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd, [2009] UKPC 10 10, 11

    B.

    Bulfracht (Cyprus) Ltd v Boneset Shipping Co Ltd (the “Pamphilos”), [2002] 2

    Lloyd’s Rep. 681

    11

    BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings, [1977] 180 CLR 266 10

    C.

    Christopher Brown Ltd v Genossenschaft Oesterreichischer Waldbesitzer

    Holzwirtschaftsbetriebe Registrierte GmbH, [1954] 1 QB 8

    14

    D.

    Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd, [1986] 161 CLR 500 4

    E.

  • MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    VI

    Eastern Mediterranean Maritime (Liechtenstein) Ltd v Unimarine S.A. (the “Marika

    M”), [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 622

    17

    H.

    Hogarth v Alexander Miller Brother & Co, [1891] A.C. 48 H.L. 19

    Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Furness Withy (Australia) Pty (the “Doric

    Pride”), [2006] EWCA Civ 599, [2007] 2 CLC 1042, [2006] 2 All ER (Comm) 188,

    [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 175

    16, 19

    I.

    Imperator I Maritime Co v Bunge SA (the “Coral Seas”), [2016] EWHC 1506 14

    K.

    Kuwait Petroleum Corporation V. I v D Oil Carriers Ltd (the “Houda”), [1994] 2

    Lloyd’s Rep. 541

    17

    L.

    Liverpool City Council v Irwin, [1977] A.C. 239 11

    N.

    Navigas International v TransOffshore Inc (the “Bridgestone Maru” (No. 3), [1985]

    2 Lloyd’s Rep. 62

    18

    New A Line v Erechthion Shipping Co S.A (the “Erechthion”), [1987] 2 Lloyd’s

    Rep. 180

    13

    O.

    Ocean Glory Compania Naviera S.A. v A/S P.V. Christensen (the “Ioanna”), [1985]

    2 Lloyd’s Rep. 164

    18

    R.

  • MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    VII

    Rahcassi Shipping Co SA v Blue Star Line Ltd, [1969] 1QB 173 4

    Royal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (the “Illissos”), [1948/49] 82

    Lloyd’s Rep.196

    19

    S.

    Sidermar Spa v Apollo Corporation (the “Apollo”), [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 200 18

    Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd v Homer Hulbert Maritime Co Ltd, [2017] EWHC 44

    (Comm)

    4

    Sim Chay Koon v NTUC Income Insurance Cooperative Ltd, [2016] 2 SLR 4

    T.

    Transgrain Shipping (Singapore) PTE Ltd v Yangtze Navigation (Hong Kong) Ltd,

    [2016] EWHC 3132 (Comm)

    7, 9

    Triad Shipping Co v Stellar Chartering and Brokerage Inc (the “Island Archon

Recommended

View more >