th ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ARBITRATION MOOT ...· 16th ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ARBITRATION

  • View
    220

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of th ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ARBITRATION MOOT ...· 16th ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME...

  • 16th ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ARBITRATION MOOT COMPETITION

    2015

    SRI LANKA LAW COLLEGE TEAM NO. 18

    IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION HELD AT LONDON

    CLAIMANT DEFENDANT

    WESTERN TANKERS INC LDT PTE

    MEMORANDUM FOR THE CLAIMANT

    TEAM MEMBERS

    DAMINDA WIJAYARATNE

    HIMANTHA WICKREMARATNE

    NAVEEN MAHA ARACHCHIGE

    PRASHAN GUNARATNA

  • i

    Table of Contents

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..ii

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

    QUESTIONS PRESENTED .......................................................................................................................................... 2

    ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ......................................................................................................................................... 3

    1 The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the matter. .................................................................................. 3

    1.1 No agreement reached on the seat of arbitration prior to the 26th of May 2014. .......................................... 3

    1.2 The Charter-party recognises London as the seat of Arbitration .................................................................. 3

    1.3 The Defendants are barred from contradicting the Charter-party based on previous negotiations. .............. 4

    1.4 Tort of Fraud is admissible since its a dispute arising out of the charter .................................................. 5

    2 Charterers are liable for directing the ship to an unsafe discharge location in international waters and

    for the unauthorized discharge of cargo thereto. ..................................................................................................... 6

    2.1 ASA2 is the Agent of Charterers .................................................................................................................. 6

    2.2 ASA2 in the capacity of Agent of Charterers has not exercised due diligence in directing the vessel to an

    Alternative discharge location................................................................................................................................... 7

    2.3 Charterers breached obligations independent of any relationship of agency between the Charterers and

    ASA2 11

    2.4 Master has acted diligently in accordance with the Charterparty. .............................................................. 12

    3 Hire is due and owing from the 3rd of July 2014. ............................................................................................ 13

    3.1 On its terms, hire was due and owing by the Charterers under the Charterparty by 3rd July 2014 and

    thereafter. ................................................................................................................................................................ 14

    3.2 The Charter-party was not frustrated by the 4 July 2014............................................................................ 14

    3.3 The Vessel remains on hire from 4th July onwards since the Master complied with the duties and orders

    imposed on him. ...14

    4 Charterers are liable in Tort for the fraudulent misrepresentations made to the Owners. ....................... 15

    5 The Western Dawn was fit for service as required under the Charter-party ............................................. 18

    5.1 The master competently followed the instructions given to the vessel by the Charterer ............................ 18

    5.2 The master followed anti-piracy precautions as far as reasonably practicable ........................................... 19

    6 Owners not responsible for the conversion of Cargo ..................................................................................... 19

    6.1 Actions of the Owners were accidental and not deliberate. ........................................................................ 19

    7 Owners are not responsible for the loss of cargo in the capacity of a bailee................................................ 20

    7.1 Standard expected of the Owners in the capacity of Bailee has been displayed ........................................ 20

    PRAYER ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21

  • ii

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

    CASES

    Allen v Pink (1838) 4 M & W 140______________________________________________________________________5

    Antec International Ltd v Biosafety USA Inc [2006] EWHC 47 (Comm) (27 January 2006)________________________4

    Bunge S.A. v Kyla Shipping Company Limited [2012] EWHC 3522 (Comm)___________________________________15

    Burlesci v. Petersen (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1066 [80 Cal.Rptr.2d 704]__________________________________20

    Campbell Discount Co v Gall [1961] 1 QB 431__________________________________________________________5

    Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] 3 WLR 267________________________________________________4

    City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd. V Mudd [1959] Ch 129_________________________________________5

    Constantine v Imperial Smelting Corp [1942] AC 154_________________________________________________14, 15

    David Duncan v. Daniel Augustus Koster (The Teutonia1)(1872)LR 4 PC 171_________________________________7

    Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] UKHL 3___________________________________15

    Derry v Peek (1889) UKHL 1, [1889] LR 14 App Cas 337________________________________________________16

    Donoghue (or McAlister) v Stevenson, [1932] All ER Rep 1______________________________________________ 18

    Felthouse v Bindley, [1862] EWHC CP J35, [1862] 142 ER 1037___________________________________________1

    Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480______________________________6

    Gillespie Bros & Co. v Cheney, Eggar and Co. [1896] 2 QB 59____________________________________________5

    Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549______________________________________________________6

    Herne Bay Steamboat Co v Hutton [1903] 2 KB 683____________________________________________________14

    Hutton v Warren (1836) 1 M & W 466________________________________________________________________5

    Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896_________________________4

    Jacobs v Batavia and General Plantations Trust [1924] 1 Ch 287__________________________________________4

    K/S Penta Shipping A/S v Ethiopian Shipping Lines Corporation (The Saga Cob) [1991] 2 Lloyd's Rep 545_________8

    Kodros Shipping Corp v Empresa Cubana de Fletes (The Evia) (No 2) [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep 307_________________7

    Kuwait Airways v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) [2002] UKHL 19; [2002] 2 AC 883_________________________20

    Leeds Shipping Co v Socit Franaise Bunge (The Eastern City) [1958] 2 Lloyds Rep 127_____________________7

    Mann v Nunn (1874) 30 LT 526_____________________________________________________________________5

    Maritime National Fish v Ocean Trawlers [1935] AC 524_______________________________________________15

    http://swarb.co.uk/kuwait-airways-corporation-v-iraqi-airways-company-and-others-nos-4-and-5-hl-16-may-2002/

  • iii

    Nayyar & Ors v Sapte & Anor [2009] EWHC 3218 (QB)___________________________________________________6

    Ocean Tramp Tankers Corp v V/O Sovfracht (The Eugenia) [1963] 2 Lloyds Rep

    381_____________________________________________________________________________________________14

    Oxford Shipping Co. LTD. V. Nippon Yusen Kaisha (The Eastern Saga) [1984] 2 Lloyds Rep 373 __________________4

    Paal Wilson & Co v Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal (The Hannah Blumenthal) [1983] 1 AC 854 ____________3, 14

    Port Swettenham Authority v T W Wu & Co (M) Sdn Bhd [1978] 3 All ER 337_________________________________21

    Premium Nafta Products Limited and others v. Fili Shipping Company Limited and others [2007] UKHL

    40______________________________________________________________________________________________5

    Pym v Campbell (1856) 6 E & B 370__________________________________________________________________5

    Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., (1974) 417 U.S. 506_______________________________________________________4

    Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Managament) Ltd [1997] 1 BCLC 350_____________________________18

    Smith v Chadwick (1884) 9 App Cas 187______________________________________________________________16

    Taylor v. Forte Hotels International (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1119, 1124 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 189]____________________20

    The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Company, (1972) 407 U.S. 1_____________________________________________4

    Tsakiroglou & Co Ltd v Noblee Thorl GmbH [1962] AC 93______________________________________________14

    Unterweser Reederei GmbH v Zapata Off-Shore Co (The Chaparral) [1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep

    158___________________________________________________________________________________________4

    STATUTES

    Arbitration Act 1996 (UK)_________________________________________________________________________4

    BOOKS

    A.M. Jones and M.A. Dugdale, Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 17th ed (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1995)___________20

    Ewan Mckendrick, Contract Law, 9th