INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION 2020. 10. 13.¢  the eighteenth annual international maritime

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION 2020. 10. 13.¢  the eighteenth annual international...

  • THE EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL

    INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT

    NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE, SINGAPORE

    IN A MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

    MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

    ON BEHALF OF

    INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD

    (RESPONDENT)

    IDONCARE BERJAYA UTAMA PTY.

    LTD

    (RESPONDENT)

    AGAINST

    FURNACE TRADING PTE LTD

    (CLAIMANT)

    TEAM NO. 21 ALBERTUS SUKARDI – JEVON HOLLY

    TRYSA ARIFIN – URSULLA PANGARIBUAN

  • TEAM NO. 21 – MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

    i

    MEMORANDUM FOR

    THE RESPONDENT

    TEAM NO. 21

  • TEAM NO. 21 – MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

    ii

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... II

    LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. IV

    LIST OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................... VI

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

    ARGUMENTS PRESENTED................................................................................................. 3

    I. THE TRIBUNAL MAY ORDER THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

    TO BE CONSOLIDATED .................................................................................... 3

    II. THE TRIBUNAL SHALL NOT ORDER LIBERTY TO SELL AND

    APPRAISE THE CARGO PENDENTE LITE PURSUANT TO S. 12.1.D OF

    THE IAA ................................................................................................................. 3

    A. Granting the Order to Sell and Appraise the Cargo Pendente Lite Exceeds

    the Tribunal’s Authority under S.12.1.d of the IAA .................................... 3

    B. It Is Not Necessary to Sell the Cargo Pendente Lite ...................................... 5

    i. The Claimant failed to meet the requisite test of serious question to be

    tried .............................................................................................................5

    ii. In any event, the balance of convenience lies in favour of not granting

    the order of sale and appraisal ...................................................................5

    a. Sale is not the only option available to preserve the Cargo .................. 6

    b. The Claimant failed to prove that the Cargo value is deteriorating...... 7

    c. The value of the Cargo will remain adequate as a security for the

    outstanding Freight ...................................................................................... 7

    III. THE CLAIMANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DIRECT IMLAM TO

    EXERCISE LIEN OVER THE CARGO ............................................................ 8

    A. The Unconventional Method in Exercising Lien Proposed by the

    Claimant is Not an Established Rule .............................................................. 9

    B. Alternatively, the B/L Does Not Incorporate the OREVOY C/P .............. 10

    i. The Presumption to incorporate the head voyage charterparty is not

    absolute and shall not apply in this case ....................................................10

    ii. The voyage charterparty between INFERNO and IDC Is More Apposite

    to the B/L than the OREVOY C/P ...............................................................12

    IV. THE CLAIMANT COULD NOT DIRECT IMLAM TO RECOVER B/L

    FREIGHT FROM IDC FOR THE CLAIMANT’S BENEFIT ....................... 13

    A. IMLAM’s Right to Make a Direct Claim for the B/L Freight is Not

    Triggered as There is No Default in the Hire Payment under the Time

    C/P ................................................................................................................... 14

  • TEAM NO. 21 – MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

    iii

    B. The Concept of Equitable Duty Between a Head Owner and a Time

    Charterer in Respect of The Cause of Action for the Unpaid Freight is

    Not an Established Rule ................................................................................ 15

    V. THE CLAIMANT’S TERMINATION OF THE OREVOY C/P IS

    WRONGFUL........................................................................................................ 16

    VI. THE CLAIMANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR DETENTION

    IN THE FULL AMOUNT FOR ITS FAILURE TO ACT REASONABLY

    UPON INFERNO’S BREACH ........................................................................... 18

    A. The Claimant Is Not Entitled to Damages for Detention from 11 October

    until 17 October 2016 Due to Its Failure to Mitigate the Loss by Staying

    Idle in Singapore OPL ................................................................................... 19

    B. In any Event, the Claimant Is Not Entitled to Damages for Detention after

    16 October 2016 Due to Its Failure to Mitigate by Refusing the

    Amendment for the Discharge Port ............................................................. 21

    PRAYER FOR RELIEF........................................................................................................ 24

  • TEAM NO. 21 – MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

    iv

    LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

    AC UK Law Reports, Appeal Cases

    Amendment INFERNO’s offer for Tardy Tessa to Discharge at Busan

    Port on an Open Book Basis

    Art

    S.

    Article

    Section

    B/L Bills of Lading between IMLAM and IDC dated 4 October

    2016

    Cargo 84,000.052 MT Australian Steam Coal

    CLC Commercial Law Cases

    EWHC (Comm) English and Wales High Court (Commercial Division)

    Freight Clause Clause 19 of the Fixture Recap

    IAA International Arbitration Act (CAP 143A, REV ED 2002)

    IDC

    INFERNO

    Idoncare Berjaya Utama Pty Ltd

    Inferno Resources Sdn Bhd

    IMLAM Imlam Consignorist GmbH

    KB King’s Bench

    Lloyd’s Rep Lloyd’s Law Reports

    Model Law UNCITRAL Model Law 1985 enacted in the International

    Arbitration Act (CAP 143A, REV ED 2002)

    Moot Scenario International Maritime Law Arbitration Moot 2017 Problem

    OREVOY C/P Voyage Charterparty between Claimant and INFERNO

    dated 1 September 2016

    Parties Claimant and INFERNO

    Pendente Lite Pending the Final Award

    QB Queen’s Bench

    S. Section

    SCMA Rules Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration Rules

  • TEAM NO. 21 – MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

    v

    LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

    SG LT Singapore Local Time

    SG OPL Singapore Outter Port Limit

    SGCA Singapore Court of Appeal

    SGHC Singapore High Court

    SLR Singapore Law Reports

    SLR(R) Singapore Law Report (Reissue)

    STL Scots Law Times

    Sub-Voyage C/P Unidentified Charterparty between INFERNO and IDC

    Tardy Tessa MV Tardy Tessa

    The Claimant Furnace Trading Pte Ltd

    The Master

    Time C/P

    Tan Xiao Ming, Master of MV Tardy Tessa

    Time Charterparty concluded between IMLAM and the

    Claimant dated 15 February 2016

    Three Pre-Conditions Completion of Loading; Signing/Releasing B/L; Receipt of

    Owners’ Freight Invoice

    UKHL United Kingdom House of Lords

    UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade Law

    WLR The Weekly Law Reports

  • TEAM NO. 21 – MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

    vi

    LIST OF AUTHORITIES

    Cases Aktieselskabet Ocean v B Harding & Sons Ltd [1928] 2 KB 371 (1928)................................ 10

    Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd v Comfort Resources Pte Ltd [2009] 4 SLR(R) 602 ... 14,

    15, 16

    Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd v Comfort Resources Pte Ltd [2009] 4 SLR(R) 602. ... 14

    American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] 2 WLR 316 ................................................................... 3

    Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and Others v McTrans Cargo (S) Pte Ltd [2012] SGHC 154 ....... 7

    Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and Others v McTrans Cargo (S) Pte Ltd [2012] SGHC 154. ...... 7

    Banco de Portugal v Waterlow and Sons, Limited (Banco de Portugal) [1932] AC 452. ...... 17

    Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation v Henry Stephens Shipping Company

    LimitedTex-Dilan Shipping Company Limited (The SLS Everest) [1981] WL 187858....... 10

    BNP Paribas v Bandung Shipping Pte Ltd. [2003] SGHC 111. ................................................ 9

    Bowmaker Ltd v Wycombe Motors Ltd [1946] KB 505. ............................................................ 7

    Brani Readymixed Pte Ltd v Yee Hong Pte Ltd [1994] 3 SLR(R) 1004 .................................. 14

    Camellia Tanker SA v International Transport Workers [1976] I.C.R. 274 (1976). ................. 4

    Care Shipping Corporation v. Latin American Shipping Corporation (The Cebu (No 1)) [1983] 2 WLR 829 ............................................................................................................... 11

    Cascade Shipping Inc, v. Eka Jaya Agencies (Pte.)