MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 20th international maritime law arbitration moot competition 2019 in the matter

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT 20th international maritime law arbitration moot competition 2019 in the...

  • 20th INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT COMPETITION 2019

    IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION HELD IN LONDON

    TEAM 33

    MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    ON BEHALF OF AGAINST

    OMEGA CHARTERING LIMITED PANTHER SHIPPING INC

    RESPONDENT/CHARTERERS CLAIMANT/OWNERS

    COUNSEL

    KHOO SHER RYNN

    PEH QI HUI

    SOH LIP SHAN

    TAN JIA SHEN

  • TABLE OF CONTENTS

    TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

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

    THE RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF NEXT

    FIXTURE..................................................................................................................................... 2

    A. The RESPONDENT did not breach its safe port warranty under the Charterparty ................. 2

    i. West Coast was at all material time a safe port ................................................................... 3

    a. There was no unavoidable danger ................................................................................ 3

    b. There was no abnormal occurrence .............................................................................. 3

    ii. In any event, the RESPONDENT has no secondary obligation to re-nominate a loading

    port after the Ebola outbreak ............................................................................................... 4

    iii. Wahanda was at all time a safe port .................................................................................... 4

    a. The Vessel was not exposed to any physical or political danger ................................. 4

    b. The delay in Quarantine was avoidable by good navigation or seamanship ................ 4

    c. The RESPONDENT had no obligation to re-nominate a discharge port ..................... 4

    B. Late redelivery of the Vessel was not caused by the RESPONDENT ..................................... 5

    i. Late redelivery of the Vessel was caused by the Quarantine .............................................. 5

    a. The but-for test is satisfied ........................................................................................... 5

    b. The Quarantine was a result of the CLAIMANT’s failure to avoid the Quarantine .... 5

    ii. Late redelivery of the Vessel was caused by inspection of damaged Cargo ....................... 5

    iii. CLAIMANT voluntarily assumed the risk of losing the Next Fixture ............................... 6

    C. The CLAIMANT’s claim is too remote ................................................................................... 6

    i. The loss of Next Fixture constituted special loss ................................................................ 6

  • ii. The loss of Next Fixture was unlikely ................................................................................. 7

    iii. The RESPONDENT did not have special knowledge of the Next Fixture ......................... 7

    iv. The RESPONDENT did not assume responsibility for the loss of Next Fixture ................ 8

    D. The CLAIMANT is not entitled to damages amounting to USD 15,330,000 ......................... 8

    i. Failure of the CLAIMANT to secure other fixtures is a failure to mitigate which disentitles

    the CLAIMANT to damages ............................................................................................... 8

    ii. Alternatively, failure to secure other fixtures is an independent transaction ...................... 9

    iii. The CLAIMANT found a Replacement Fixture for Champion Chartering ........................ 9

    iv. In any event, the RESPONDENT is only liable for the minimum period of two years,

    limited to the difference between market rate and charterparty rate of the Next Fixture ... 9

    THE RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE FULL EXPENSES INCURRED DUE

    TO HULL CLEANING ............................................................................................................ 10

    A. The CLAIMANT cannot invoke Cl 83 .................................................................................. 10

    B. The RESPONDENT did not breach Cl 83 ............................................................................. 11

    i. The RESPONDENT did not have the duty to clean the hull as there was no inspection . 11

    ii. The RESPONDENT was prevented from hull cleaning ................................................... 11

    a. by the prohibition and detention of the Vessel at Wahanda ....................................... 12

    b. by the CLAIMANT’s disagreement to have the hull cleaned at North Titan ............ 12

    c. In any event, the RESPONDENT took all reasonable steps to carry out its obligation

    to clean the hull .......................................................................................................... 13

    C. However, the CLAIMANT waived its right to claim for remuneration by refusing to reach a

    consensus, upon redelivery, on the lump sum amount payable. ............................................ 13

    D. In any event, the CLAIMANT is only entitled to the cost of hull cleaning at North Titan. .. 13

    i. The RESPONDENT is not liable for the cost of hull cleaning at South Island, amounting

    to $41,000.00. .................................................................................................................... 14

  • ii. The RESPONDENT is not liable for the hire and bunkering cost during the voyage to South

    Island to clean the Vessel, amounting to $55,567.42. ....................................................... 14

    THE VESSEL WAS OFF-HIRE DURING THE QUARANTINE ...................................... 15

    A. The Vessel is off-hire pursuant to Cl 17 of NYPE ................................................................. 15

    i. There was loss of time ....................................................................................................... 15

    ii. The full working of the Vessel was prevented .................................................................. 15

    iii. The prevention was caused by events prescribed in Cl 17 ................................................ 16

    a. The prevention was caused by “detention by Port State Control for… Vessel

    deficiencies” ............................................................................................................... 16

    b. The prevention was caused by port authorities acting on suspicion of “deficiency of

    officers or ratings” ...................................................................................................... 16

    c. The Quarantine amounts to “any similar cause” ........................................................ 17

    B. The Vessel was off-hire pursuant to Cl 44 of the Charterparty ............................................. 17

    C. The Off-hire Clauses are not negated by the RESPONDENT’s purported breach ................ 18

    D. Alternatively, the RESPONDENT is entitled to damages in lieu of the overpaid hire.......... 18

    THE CLAIMANT SHOULD INDENMNIFY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE CARGO

    CLAIM ....................................................................................................................................... 19

    A. The RESPONDENT enjoys 100% indemnity under the ICA ................................................ 19

    i. Cargo Claim arose out of unseaworthiness and/or error or fault in navigation or

    management of the Vessel under Article 8(a) ................................................................... 20

    a. The failure in ballasting operation constitutes unseaworthiness ................................ 20

    b. The ballasting operation was a fault in management of the Vessel ........................... 20

    ii. The ballasting operation does not fall under Cargo Operation in Article 8(b) .................. 21

  • iii. Alternatively, there is clear and irrefutable evidence that the damage was caused by the act

    or neglect of the CLAIMANT’s servant. ......................................................................... 21

    a. The damage arose out of crew member’s act or neglect ............................................ 22

    b. The crew member acted as the CLAIMANT’s servant .............................................. 22

    B. The RESPONDENT is not time barred from bringing the Indemnity Claim ........................ 22

    i. The RESPONDENT stopped the time bar on 7 Jul 2016 .................................................. 23

    a. A sufficient notice was submitted before the RESPONDENT was time barred........ 23

    b. The sufficiency of the notice should be scrutinized when the notice was submitted . 23

    c. At the material time, the absence of information was justified by impossibility. ...... 23

    1. The nature of the claim was unavailable ............................................................... 23

    2. The amount claimed was not ascertained .............................................................. 24

    3. The Contract of Carriage was unnecessary ........................................................... 24

    ii. Valid notice was submitted before the extended