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

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

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

  • 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 CLAIMANT

    Counsel for CLAIMANT

    TEAM 02

    UNIVERSITY OF VERSAILLES · PARIS SACLAY

    Houda NAJI · Nicoleta IFTODI · Eyram APETOGBOR · Leonte READ

  • MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT

    II

    TABLE OF CONTENT

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

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

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

    I. THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO RULE OVER THE CLAIMS ................... 3

    A. The applicable law to the arbitral proceedings ...................................................................................... 3

    1. English law applies to the Charterparty................................................................................................ 3

    2. The Arbitration Act 1996 and the London Maritime Arbitration Association Terms 2017 govern

    the arbitral proceedings according to the Charterparty ............................................................................... 4

    B. The Arbitral Tribunal is competent pursuant to Clause 80 of the Charterparty ............................... 5

    1. The Arbitral Tribunal is competent over the claims ............................................................................. 5

    2. The Arbitral Tribunal is regularly constituted ..................................................................................... 5

    C. The Arbitral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the Cargo Claim under the Bill of Lading

    6

    D. Cargo Claim is time-barred ..................................................................................................................... 6

    1. Inter-Club NYPE Agreement 1996 governs the Cargo Claim between the Parties ............................ 6

    2. Cargo damage allegation is time-barred pursuant to the ICA ............................................................. 7

    II. ALTERNATIVELY, RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE

    CARGO ................................................................................................................................................................. 8

    A. Cargo Claim does not arise out of unseaworthiness and/or error or fault in navigation or

    management of the vessel ................................................................................................................................. 8

    1. The vessel was seaworthy ...................................................................................................................... 9

    2. Cargo damage was not caused by error or fault in the navigation or management of the Vessel ... 10

    B. Cargo damage would fall under Clause 8(b) of the ICA ................................................................. 11

  • MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT

    III

    III. RESPONDENT FAILED TO PERFORM HULL CLEANING PRIOR TO RE-DELIVERY ....... 12

    A. The right to attempt a lump sum offer is granted upon RESPONDENT being prevented to carry

    Hull Cleaning .................................................................................................................................................. 12

    B. The quotation of North Titan does not relieve RESPONDENT from its obligation to perform Hull

    Cleaning ........................................................................................................................................................... 13

    1. CLAIMANT did not reject RESPONDENT’s offer to have the Vessel’s hull cleaned at North Titan

    14

    2. The quotation of North Titan is not accurate ..................................................................................... 15

    C. RESPONDENT is liable for all direct and indirect costs as a result of the Vessel’s defouling after

    late re-delivery ................................................................................................................................................ 16

    1. RESPONDENT was aware of the consequences of re-delivering the Vessel dirty ........................... 16

    2. RESPONDENT cannot limit their liability for the cleaning cost to USD33,000 .............................. 17

    D. RESPONDENT was never relieved from its obligation to perform Hull Cleaning .......................... 18

    1. Evidence of the Parties’ intention or willingness to make a new binding contract upon Hull

    Cleaning ....................................................................................................................................................... 18

    2. CLAIMANT withdrew their acceptance upon new agreement as respondent did not arrange

    inspection ..................................................................................................................................................... 19

    IV. CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DAMAGES FOR LATE RE-DELIVERY AND LOSS

    OF HIRE ............................................................................................................................................................. 19

    A. RESPONDENT failed to comply with its obligation of re-delivery under the Charterparty .......... 20

    1. RESPONDENT failed to re-deliver the Vessel prior to the expiry of the maximum period of the

    Charterparty ................................................................................................................................................. 20

    2. Alternatively, RESPONDENT cannot trigger the off-hire clause ..................................................... 22

    B. CLAIMANT is entitled to claim loss of hire ........................................................................................ 24

    PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................................................... 25

  • MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT

    IV

    INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

    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

  • MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT

    V

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

    CASE LAW

    Case Law Quoted on page:

    A.

    Adamastos Shipping v Anglo Saxon Petroleum, [1959] A.C. 133 13

    Africa Express Line Ltd v Socofi S.A., [2009] EWHC 3223 (Comm) 6

    Arnold v Britton, [2015] UKSC 36 23

    Astra Trust Ltd v Adams and Williams, [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 19

    Asty Maritime Co Ltd and Panagiotis Stravelakis v Rocco Giuseppe & Figli,

    S.N.C. And Others (the “Astyanax”), [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109

    19

    B.

    Bank Line Ltd v Arthur Capel and Co, [1919] A.C. 435 23

    C.

    Cable & Wireless plc v IBM United Kingdom Ltd, [2002] EWHC 2059 14

    Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] UKHL 38, 1 A.C. 1101 23

    Comptoir Commercial Anversois v Power Son and Co, [1920] 1 K.B. 868 13

    D.

    Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council, [1956] UKHL 3 23

    Delaware North Marine Experience Pty Ltd v The ship “eye-spy”, [2017]

    FCA 708

    21

    G.

    Golden Ocean v Salgaocar Mining, [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. (C.A.) 542 16

    Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kaisha (the “Golden Victory”), [2005] 2

    Lloyd’s Rep. 23

    17

  • MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT

Recommended

View more >