EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW eighteenth annual international maritime law arbitration

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW eighteenth annual international maritime law...

  • EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL

    INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT

    2017

    MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT

    NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA

    TEAM 02

    ON BEHALF OF: AGAINST:

    FURNANCE RESOURCES TRADING PTE. LTD. INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD

    &

    IDONCARE BERJAYA UTAMA PTY. LTD.

    COUNSEL

    ANKITA ANKITA TANMAY VISHESH

    DHABU SEN BHATNAGAR MEHROTRA

  • TEAM 02 -TABLE OF CONTENTS-

    MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT Page I

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ________________________________________________ V

    LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS _____________________________________________ XVI

    ISSUES RAISED ________________________________________________________ XIX

    STATEMENT OF FACTS ___________________________________________________ 1

    ARGUMENTS ADVANCED _________________________________________________ 3

    [ISSUE I.] CL. 29 OF THE HEAD VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY BETWEEN CLAIMANT AND

    RESPONDENT NO. 1 IS TO BE MADE APPLICABLE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 ______________ 3

    A. THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE COMPETENCE TO DECIDE ON ITS OWN JURISDICTION. ______ 3

    B. CL. 29 OF THE FIXTURE RECAP, READ TOGETHER WITH CL. 26(C) OF THE STANDARD

    CHARTERPARTY CONSTITUTE THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE OF THE HEAD VOYAGE

    CHARTERPARTY. ________________________________________________________ 4

    C. THE BILL OF LADING INCORPORATES ARBITRATION CLAUSE OF THE HEAD VOYAGE

    CHARTERPARTY. ________________________________________________________ 4

    C.1 Absence of details required to identify a charter does not invalidate its

    incorporation. ________________________________________________________ 5

    C.2 The Charterparty incorporated in the bill of lading is the head voyage

    Charterparty. ________________________________________________________ 5

    C.3 The incorporation clause in the bill of lading expressly incorporates the

    arbitration clause. ____________________________________________________ 7

  • TEAM 02 -TABLE OF CONTENTS-

    MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT Page II

    D. THE DISPUTES IN THE PRESENT CASE ARISE OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE HEAD

    VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY. _________________________________________________ 8

    [ISSUE II.] THE CLAIMANT’S EXERCISE OF LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHT IS VALID ______ 8

    A. FURNACE, IS THE CARRIER OF THE GOODS IN THE PRESENT CASE. ________________ 8

    A.1 Mere mention of the name of the headowner on the bill of lading is not

    conclusive proof regarding the identity of the carrier. ________________________ 9

    A.2 Due regard must be given to other factors like, the construction of the bill of

    lading, functions carried on by the time charterer. ___________________________ 9

    [I.] Importance must be given to the construction of the bill of lading. ________ 9

    [II.] Importance must be given to the functions carried on by the time charterer

    Furnace. __________________________________________________________ 10

    B. FURNACE, BEING THE CARRIER CAN RIGHTFULLY CLAIM FREIGHT THAT IS UNPAID BY

    THE IDONCARE. _________________________________________________________ 12

    C. IN ARGUENDO, FURNACE HAS A LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHT BY WAY OF EQUITABLE

    ASSIGNMENT. __________________________________________________________ 12

    [ISSUE III.] THE CLAIMANT’S EXERCISE OF LIEN ON CARGO IS VALID __________ 13

    A. FURNACE HAS A POSSESSORY LIEN ON THE CARGO ON BOARD MV TARDY TESSA. __ 13

    A.1 Furnace has a valid right to exercise lien on cargo. ___________________ 13

    A.2 Furnace has fulfilled the two basic requirements for exercise of lien on

    cargo. ______________________________________________________________ 14

  • TEAM 02 -TABLE OF CONTENTS-

    MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT Page III

    [I.] Furnace has a valid demand for the amount with regard to which the lien is

    sought to be exercised. _______________________________________________ 14

    [II.] Furnace can exercise such right by virtue of its constructive possession of the

    cargo. ____________________________________________________________ 15

    B. IN ARGUENDO, FURNACE HAS A RIGHT TO DETAIN THE POSSESSION OF CARGO. ____ 15

    C. FURNACE IS ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM INFERNO, THE COSTS OF EXERCISING THE

    LIEN ON THE CARGO. _____________________________________________________ 16

    [ISSUE IV.] THE CLAIMANT HAS VALIDLY TERMINATED THE HEAD VOYAGE

    CHARTERPARTY DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 __________________________________ 17

    A. INFERNO HAS COMMITTED REPUDIATORY BREACH OF THE HEAD VOYAGE

    CHARTERPARTY. _______________________________________________________ 17

    A.1 Inferno has renounced the head voyage Charterparty. _________________ 17

    A.2 The breach of the Charterparty by Inferno is of a nature that would deprive

    Furnace of the substantial benefits agreed under the Charterparty. ____________ 18

    B. FURNACE HAS ACCEPTED THE REPUDIATION AND HAS THEREFORE VALIDLY

    TERMINATED THE HEAD VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY. _____________________________ 20

    C. FURNACE CLAIMS DAMAGES FROM INFERNO, ON ACCOUNT OF THE REPUDIATORY

    BREACH. ______________________________________________________________ 21

    [ISSUE V.] THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE CLAIMANT FOR SALE OF CARGO IS TO

    BE GRANTED __________________________________________________________ 22

    A. THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE JURISDICTION TO ORDER FOR SALE OF CARGO PENDENTE

    LITE. _________________________________________________________________ 22

  • TEAM 02 -TABLE OF CONTENTS-

    MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT Page IV

    B. FURNACE CONTENDS THAT, IT IS JUST, NECESSARY AND URGENT FOR THE TRIBUNAL

    TO ORDER FOR THE SALE OF THE CARGO ON BOARD. _____________________________ 23

    B.1 In the present facts and circumstances the cargo demands for an urgent

    sale. __________________________________________________________ 23

    B.2 The sale of the cargo is just and necessary. _______________________ 23

    C. THE RIGHT TO LIEN ON CARGO GETS TRANSFORMED INTO A RIGHT TO PROCEEDS OF

    THE SALE OF CARGO. _____________________________________________________ 24

    PRAYER _______________________________________________________________ XX

  • TEAM 02 -INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-

    MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT Page V

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

    CASES AND ARBITRAL AWARDS

    “The Berkshire”, [1974]1 Lloyd’s Rep 185, 188 11

    Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation v. Henry Stephens Shipping Co Ltd

    And Tex-Dilan Shipping Co Ltd (“The SLS Everest”), [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep 389,

    391

    5,12

    Bayoil SA v. Seawind Tankers Corp. (“The Leonidas”), [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep

    533, 536

    4

    Beverly Hills National Bank Trust Co. v. Compania De Navegacione Almirante

    S.A., Panama, (1971) 437 F. 2d 301, 302

    15

    Canficorp (Overseas projects) Ltd. v. Cormorant Bulk-Carriers Inc. (F.C.A),

    [1984] F.C.J. No. 528, 8.

    11

    Castleton Commodities Shipping Company Pte Ltd. v. Silver Rock Investments,

    [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1, 4

    25

    Cehave N.V. v. Bremer Handelsgesellschaft m.b.h (“The Hansa Nord”), [1976] 1

    QB 44, 59

    17

    China Pacifiic v. Food Corporation Of India (“The Winson”), [1982] 1 Lloyd’s

    Rep 117, 124

    17

    Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v. Swissmarine Services SA (“The Lowlands

    Orchid”), [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 317, 323.

    4

  • TEAM 02 -INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-

    MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT Page VI

    Coulter v. Chief Constable Of Dorset Police, [2004] EWCA Civ. 1259, 1263 13

    Damayanti Kantilal Doshi v. Indian Bank, [1998] 3 SLR(R) 851 13

    Decro-Wall International SA v. Practitioners In Marketing Ltd., [1971] 1 WLR

    361, 380

    19

    Emilia Shipping Inc v. State Enterprise For Pulp And Paper Industries, [1991] 2

    MLJ 379, 386

    23

    Engineering Company v. Engineering Company, Producer, Final Award, ICC

    Case No. 6515 and 6516, Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Vol. XXIV (1999).

    3

    Ethiopian Oilseeds & Pulses Export Corporation v. Rio Del Mar Foods Inc,

    [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 86, 97

    8

    Faith Maritime Co. Ltd. v. Feoso (Singapore)Pte Ltd, [2002] SGHC 229, 243 24

    Federal Bulk Carriers Inc v. C. ITOH & Co. Ltd. And Others (The “Federal

    Bulker”), [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 103, 105

    7

    Federal Commerce And Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Molena Alpha (The” Nanfri”,

    “Benfri” and “Lorfri”), [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 132, 139

    6

    Federal Commerce And Navigation Ltd. v. Molena Alpha Inc. (The”Nanfri”,

    “Benfri” and “Lorfri”), [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201, 207

    19

    Federal Commerce And Navigation Ltd. v. Molena Alpha Inc. (The”Nanfri”,

    “Benfri” and “Lorfri”), [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201, 208

    18

  • TEAM 02 -INDEX OF AUTHORITIES-

    MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT Page VII

    Fetim B.V. v. Oceanspeed Shipping Ltd. (“The Flecha”), [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep

    612, 618

    10

    Five Ocean Corporation v. Cingler Ship Pte Ltd. (PT Commodities & Energy