THE 20TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW the 20th annual international maritime law arbitration moot

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of THE 20TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW the 20th annual international maritime law arbitration...

  • THE 20TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL

    MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT 2019

    Memorandum for the Respondents

    NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW, HYDERABAD

    ON BEHALF OF: AGAINST

    Omega Chartering Company Panther Shipping Inc.

    P.O. Box 911, Vaduz, Liechtenstein 80 Broad Street, Monrovia, Liberia

    RESPONDENT CLAIMANT

    TEAM 25

    Dhanishta Mittal | Prakshal Jain | Satyam Goyal | Roshni Mulchandani | Sagar Kumar

  • Team 25 Memorial for Respondent

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. i

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................. iii

    SUMMARY OF FACTS ......................................................................................................... 1

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

    I. The Tribunal has the Jurisdiction to Adjudicate The Matter and Provide Any Award

    To The Parties ............................................................................................................................. 3

    A. The Arbitration Agreement in the C/P is strictly enforceable ......................... 3

    B. The Appointment of Capt. Eric Masterson is valid ......................................... 3

    C. The CLAIMANT Has Waived off their Right to Object to Masterson’s Appointment

    4

    D. Mary Walker should not become the Sole Arbitrator in this dispute ............... 5

    II. That the Vessel was off hire for the mentioned period ................................................ 6

    A. That the full working of MV THANOS has been prevented ............................... 6

    B. That such full working has been prevented because of one of the reasons mentioned

    in the off-hire clause .................................................................................................... 8

    C. Full Working of the Vessel has been prevented due to deficiency or default of the

    officers or ratings ........................................................................................................ 9

    D. That the Actual delay has been caused due to the Off-Hire Event ................ 10

    E. Such a delay was not caused by RESPONDENT’S fault ....................................... 10

    F. That the action of the PSC was a reasonable action .......................................... 11

    III. Re-delivering the vessel without a cleaned bottom did not amount to a breach of

    the charterparty ........................................................................................................................ 13

  • Team 25 Memorial for Respondent

    3

    A. The RESPONDENT was prevented from cleaning the Vessel at Wahanda ....... 13

    B. The RESPONDENT Act of Providing a 1-Day Re-Delivery notice is protected by

    Annexure 1 BIMCO Clause ...................................................................................... 14

    C. That the CLAIMANT did not reach an agreement on the lumpsum amount as

    specified in C/P Cl. 83 ............................................................................................... 14

    D. The CLAIMANT is estopped by virtue of their mail dated 9th June 2016 ........ 16

    E. The RESPONDENT is not under an obligation to pay the claimant the costs of hull

    cleaning ..................................................................................................................... 16

    F. That the re-delivery of the vessel was not late since it is protected by the ‘without

    guarantee’ provision in the time charter trip ............................................................ 19

    IV. The CLAIMANT is liable to indemnify the RESPONDENT for cargo damage .............. 19

    A. The Bill of Lading has been incorporated ...................................................... 20

    B. There was Insufficient information in the notification of the cargo claim .... 21

    C. The CLAIMANT shall indemnify RESPONDENT according to Cl. 8(a) of ICA . 23

    REQUEST FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................................... x

  • Team 25 Memorial for Respondent

    i

    LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

    & And

    § Section

    A.I.R. All India Report

    B/L Bill of Lading

    BIMCO Baltic and International Maritime Council

    C/P Charter party

    Capt. Captain

    Cargo The 2,000 metric tonnes of English breakfast tea bags

    Cl. Clause

    CLAIMANT Panther Shipping Inc.

    Co. Company

    CoC Contract of Carriage

    CV Curriculum Vitae

    Ed. Edition

    EWHC High Court of England & Wales

    Hon’ble Honourable

    HVR Protocol to Amend the International Convention for the Unification of

    Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading (Hague-Visby Rules)

    (Brussels 1968)

    ICA Inter-Club Agreement

    Lloyd’s Rep. Lloyd’s Law Report

    Ltd. Limited

    Moot Scenario International Maritime Law Arbitration Moot, 2019

  • Team 25 Memorial for Respondent

    ii

    MT Metric Tonnes

    NYPE New York Produce Exchange Form

    P. Page

    Parties CLAIMANT & RESPONDENT

    PSC Port State Control at Wahanda

    Pvt. Private

    Rep. Report

    RESPONDENT Omega Chartering Company

    S.C.R. Supreme Court Rules

    TCT Time Charter Trip

    UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade Law

    US COGSA United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1936.

    USD United States Dollars

    Vessel MV Thanos Quest

    Virus Ebola Virus

  • Team 25 Memorial for Respondent

    iii

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

    CASES

    A/S Iverans Rederei v. KG MS Holtencruiser Seeschiffahrtsgesellschaft m.b.H. & Co. and Others–

    “The Holtencruiser” [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 378 .......................................................................... 32

    A/S Rendal v Arcos Ltd [1937] 58 Lloyd’s Law Report 287 ......................................................... 33

    Action Aviation Inc. v. Bottigliere di Navigazione S.p.A.- “The Kitsa” [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 43229

    Alfred C Toepfer Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH v. Tossa Marine Co. Ltd. – “The Derby” [1985] 2

    Lloyd’s Rep. 325, 333 ................................................................................................................... 35

    Andre & Cie v. Orient Shipping Rotterdam- “The Laconian Confidence” [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 139

    ....................................................................................................................................................... 17

    Arab Maritime Petroleum Transport Co. v. Luxor Trading Panama and Geogas Enterprise Geneva

    – “The Al Bida” [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 142 .................................................................................. 27

    Belcore Maritime Corporation v. F.LLI. Moretti Cereali S.p.A– “The Mastro Giorgis” [1983] 2

    Lloyd’s Rep. 66 ............................................................................................................................. 17

    Bremer HandelgesellschaftmbH v RaffeisenHauptgenossenschafteG [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 43433

    CF Vigers Brothers Ltd. v. Montague L Meyer Ltd. [1938] 11 L1 Lloyd’s Rep. 35 ..................... 16

    Cosco Bulk Carrier Co Ltd v. Team Up Owning Co Ltd.- “The Saldanha” [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.

    187 ................................................................................................................................................. 18

    Cosmos Bulk Transport Inc. v. China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corporation- “The

    Apollonius” [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 53 .......................................................................................... 27

    Court line Ltd v AKT Gotaverken– “The Halcyon the Great” [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep .................. 33

    Dahlen v. Gulf Crews, [2002] AMC 566 ....................................................................................... 37

    Dunlop S.S. Co. v. Tweedie Trading Co., 162 F. 490,493 (S.D.N.Y. 1908) ................................. 20

    Exercise Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Bay Maritime Lines Ltd. – “The Fantasy” [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 391

    ....................................................................................................................................................... 37

    Forrest v. Glasser [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 392 ............................................................................... 33

    Framlington Court [1934] AMC 272 ............................................................................................ 35

  • Team 25 Memorial for Respondent

    iv

    Gow v. Gans Steamship Line (C.C.A.) 174 Fed. 215 .................................................................... 20

    Hadley v. Baxendale [1854] EWHC J70 ...........................................................