18TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT, 2017
THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES
TEAM NO. 07
MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
ON BEHALF OF AGAINST
FURNACE TRADING PTE LTD. INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS
AND
ON BEHALF OF AGAINST
FURNACE TRADING PTE LTD. IDONCARE BERJAYA UTAMA PTY. LTD.
CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS
TEAM
SARTHAK SOOD ● AMAN GOYAL ● PRADYUMNA SONI ● URVI PATHAK
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents __________________________________________________________ i
Questions Presented _______________________________________________________ iii
Abbreviations ____________________________________________________________ iv
Index of Authorities _______________________________________________________ vi
Statement of Facts __________________________________________________________ 1
Arguments Advanced _______________________________________________________ 3
I. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER AND/OR THE JURISDICTION TO ORDER SALE
OF CARGO ________________________________________________________________ 3
A. The cargo neither is nor forms a part of the subject-matter of the dispute ________ 3
B. The Claimant does not have any contractual relationship with the shipper ________ 4
i. The Claimant does not have any contractual relationship with the shipper _____ 4
ii. The Claimant does not possess an equitable right under the head-owner’s lien
Error! Bookmark not defined.
iii. Rights to freight and damages for detention are compensable by damages _____ 5
iv. Claimant’s contractual rights are “alleged property” at best ________________ 6
C. Granting this interim order would amount to final relief ______________________ 7
D. The measure sought is not the best method of preventing the alleged harm _______ 8
II. IT IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR JUST FOR THIS INTERIM MEASURE TO BE GRANTED ____ 9
A. Warehousing is a better alternative to prevent the alleged harms _______________ 9
i. Warehousing the cargo is sufficient to prevent the alleged harms ____________ 10
ii. Warehousing adds no excessive burden on the Claimant or the Respondent ___ 10
B. The Respondent will suffer great harm if this measure is granted ______________ 11
C. Allowing the Claimant to deduct from the proceeds of sale the expenses incurred in
selling would prejudice the arbitration ______________________________________ 11
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
ii
III. THEREFORE, THE RESPONDENT SUBMITS THAT SUCH A MEASURE SHOULD NOT BE
GRANTED AS IT PREJUDICES THE ENTIRE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS.DAMAGES FOR
DETENTION DO NOT ARISE AFTER BUSAN IS NOMINATED AS AN ALTERNATIVE PORT ______ 12
A. The Claimant could have complied with the nomination of busan _____________ 13
i. Busan was a reasonable recourse in the prevailing circumstances ___________ 13
ii. Busan was a safe port ______________________________________________ 14
B. The Claimant should have fulfilled its duty to mitigate the damages by going to Busan
14
IV. THE CLAIMANT DOES NOT HAVE A VALID AND ENFORCEABLE LIEN OVER THE CARGO _ 15
A. The Claimant does not have a valid lien over the cargo for the alleged damages for
detention _____________________________________________________________ 16
i. The lien clause in the Voyage Charter Party does not provide for ‘damages for
detention’ explicitly ___________________________________________________ 16
ii. The damages cannot be included within ‘demurrage’ in the lien clause _______ 16
B. The Claimant does not have a valid lien on the cargo for freight ______________ 17
C. In any case, a lien cannot be exercised at the current position of the vessel ______ 18
Prayer ___________________________________________________________________ 20
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
iii
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I. Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction and/or power to issue an order for the sale of
the cargo on board MV Tardy Tessa pendente lite?
II. Whether it is just and necessary for the cargo to be sold pendent lite?
III. Whether the Claimant is entitled to freight and damages for detention under the Charter
Party?
IV. Whether the Claimant is entitled to a valid and enforceable lien over the cargo?
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
iv
ABBREVIATIONS
Cl. Clause
SCMA Singapore Chamber of Maritime
Arbitration
IAA International Arbitration Act (Chapter
143A), 1994
Art. Article
Model Law UNCITRAL Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration, 1985
AA Arbitration Act, 1996
Edn Edition
opl Outside Port Limits
SLR Singapore Law Reports
SGHC Singapore High Court
W.L.R. Weekly Law Reports
Lloyd’s Law Rep. Lloyd’s Law Reports
Q.B. Queen’s Bench
C.A. Court of Appeals
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
v
STL Shipping and Trade Law
§ Section
⁋ Paragraph
Vessel M.V. Tardy Tessa
Desponent Owners/Time Charterers/Claimant Furnace Trading Pte Ltd
Voyage Charterers/Respondent Inferno Resources Sdn Bhd
Shippers Idoncare Berjaya Utama Pty. Ltd.
Head Owners Imlam Consignorist GmbH
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
vi
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Anglo-Polish Steamship Line v Vickers Ltd (1924) 19 Ll L Rep 121 (KB) ______________ 10
Brace v Calder [1895] 2 QB 253 (CA) __________________________________________ 15
British Westinghouse Co v Underground Railway [1912] AC 673 (HL) ________________ 14
Cetelem SA v Roust Holdings Ltd [2005] 1 WLR 3555 (CA) _________________________ 4
China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corp v Evlogia Shipping Co SA of Panama (The
Mihalios Xilas) [1979] 1 WLR 1018 _________________________________________ 18
Clink v Radford & Co (1891) 1 QB 625 (CA) _________________________________ 16, 17
D Amico Shipping Italia SP v Endofa DMCC [2016] EWHC 2223 (Comm) ____________ 15
Dunkirk Colliery Co v Lever (1878) 9 Ch D 20 (CA) ______________________________ 14
Dunlop & Sons v Balfour Williamson & Co (1892) 1 QB 507 (CA) ___________________ 17
Five Ocean Corporation v Cingler Ship Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 311 _________________ 4, 18
Frederick Crombie Gardiner and Others (Owners of s Lismore) v Macfarlane, M'Crindell, &
Company (1889) 16 R 658 (Court of Session) _______________________________ 16, 17
GigSky APS v Vodafone Roaming Services (QB, 16 October 2015) __________________ 4, 6
Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Pvt Ltd (The Starsin) [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 571 (HL) __ 5
Jamal v Moolla Dawood [1916] 1 AC 175 (PC) __________________________________ 14
Kodros Shipping Corporation v Empresa Cubana de Fletes (The Evia) (No 2) [1983] 1 AC 736
(HL)___________________________________________________________________ 14
Maldives Airports Co Ltd v GMR Male International Airport Pte Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 4494, 6,
11
Manchester Trust Ltd v Furness Withy & Co [1895] 2 QB 539 (CA) ___________________ 5
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
vii
Miramar Maritime Corporation v Holborn Oil Trading Ltd (The Miramar) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 319 (CA) ____________________________________________________________ 4
Payzu Ltd v Saunders [1919] 2 KB 581 (CA) ____________________________________ 15
Shipping Services Ltd v European Container KS [2013] 2 CLC 800 (QB) _______________ 4
Sotiros Shipping Inc v Sameiet Solholt (The Solholt) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 605 (CA) _____ 15
Stelios B Maritime Ltd v Ibeto Cement Co (The Stelios B) (2007) 711 LMLN 2________ 9, 10
The Berkshire [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 185 ________________________________________ 5
Uzinterimpex JSC v Standard Bank Plc [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 456 (CA) _______________ 15
Wehner v Dene Steam Shipping Co [1905] 2 KB 92 (KB) ___________________________ 17
Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd v European Container KS [2013] 2 CLC 800 (QB) ___ 6
Arbitral Awards
London Arbitration 12/91 (1991) 304 LMLN 6 ___________________________________ 18
London Arbitration 13/87 (1987) 205 LMLN 9 ___________________________________ 18
London Arbitration 15/15 (2015) 934 LMLN 9 ____________________________________ 4
London Arbitration 21/92 (1992) 329 LMLN 6 ___________________________________ 17
Treatises
Alan Redfern and others, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (4th edn,
Sweet & Maxwell 2004) ____________________________________________________ 3
Ali Yesilirmak, Provisional Measures in International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law
International 2005) ______________________________________________________ 6, 7
D Mark Cato, Arbitration Practice and Procedure: Interlocutory and Hearing Problems (3rd
edn, Lloyd’s Commercial Law Library 2002) __________________________________ 12
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
viii
Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2014)
_____________________________________________________________________ 3, 10
Harvey McGregor, McGregor on Damages (19th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2016) _________ 15
John Schofield, Laytime and Demurrage (5th edn, LLP 2005) _______________________ 16
Julian Cooke and others, Voyage Charters (4th edn, Informa Law 2014) ____________ 14, 17
Richard Aikens and others, Bills of Lading (2nd edn, Informa Law 2016) _______________ 5
Robert Merkin, Arbitration Law (Lloyd’s of London Press 2014) ____________________ 4, 6
Sir Guenther Trietel and FMB Reynolds, Carver on Bills of Lading (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell
2011) ___________________________________________________________________ 5
Guidelines
International Arbitration Practice Guidelines, Applications for Interim Measures _____ 3, 7, 8
Articles
Christopher Huntley, ‘The Scope of Article 17: Interim measures under the UNCITRAL Model
Law’ [2005] 9 Vindobona Journal 1 ___________________________________________ 3
Gabriel Moens and Sam Luttrell, ‘Interim Measures of Protection under the Arbitration Rules
of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration’ [2010] 6 Asian Intl Arb
J 74 ___________________________________________________________________ 11
Julian Lew, ‘Commentary on Interim and Conservatory Measures in ICC Arbitration Cases’
[2000] 11(1) ICC Ct Bull 23 _______________________________________________ 6, 7
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE CHARTERPARTY CHAIN
Imlam Consignorist GmbH (“the owner”) and Furnace Trading Pte Ltd (“the Disponent
owner”) entered into a Time Charterparty for 2 years for the use of the vessel, “Tardy Tessa”.
The disponent owner further sub-chartered the vessel to Inferno Resources (“the charterer”) for
a voyage from Australia to China for a shipment of coal. The vessel was to stop at Singapore,
and the charterers were to declare discharge port when the vessel passes Singapore for
bunkering. Freight was to be paid within five banking days after completion of loading and
signing of B/L and receipt of the owner’s freight invoice or before breaking bulk in any case.
PAYMENT OF FREIGHT AND NOMINATION OF DISCHARGE PORT
The vessel reached Singapore for bunkering. There was a slight delay in nominating a port and
the charterers requested to divert the vessel to Busan, South Korea due to congestion at Chinese
ports. The request was not accepted and the disponent owner asked the charterers pay freight
and to make a legitimate disport nomination urgently. The charterers requested the disponent
owner to remain patient as they also were yet to receive legitimate disport nomination or freight
from their sub-charterers which are also the shippers on the B/L.
THE EXERCISE OF LIEN AND TERMINATION OF THE CHARTERPARTY
The disponent owner warned the charterers that they were preparing to impose lien over the
cargo as per terms of the charterparty due to non-payment of freight and non-nomination of
discharge port. The very next day they served the notice of lien on the charterer. Furthermore,
a notice of lien on sub-freights was tendered on the shippers. The charterers nominated Ningbo
in China as the discharge port. For freight, they claimed they were unable to pay the same, but
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
2
promised to make payment at the disport after the discharge of cargo. The reason cited for the
inability to pay the freight was that they had not been paid freight by their sub-charterers. The
disponent owner considered this as a repudiatory breach and terminated the charterparty.
The charterers considered the notice of termination to be wrongful as they had always been
ready and willing to perform the Charterparty. They considered the disponent owner to be in
repudiatory breach of the Charterparty and sought damages from them.
THE CLAIMS AND THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS
The disponent owner served arbitration notices to the charterer and the shipper claiming various
damages and costs which the charterer and the shipper refuted. The disponent owner were also
made aware of the grim conditions of the cargo and the crew on board the vessel which is
drifting in high seas. Subsequently, the disponent owner made an application to consolidate the
two arbitrations and an interim relief to sell the cargo on board.
These proceedings for the grant for interim relief are being brought for the tribunal’s reference.
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
3
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER AND/OR THE JURISDICTION TO ORDER
SALE OF CARGO.
1. The Tribunal, the Respondent argues, should not grant the interim order for sale of
cargo on-board the vessel as none of the three requirements for grant of interim measures are
fulfilled by the facts culminating in the present hearing.1 It is the Respondent’s assertion that
Tribunal does not have the power to grant an interim measure for sale of cargo, neither is the
grant of this interim measure just and reasonable,2 nor does the Claimant have a prima facie
case on merits.3
2. The Tribunal does not have either the power or the jurisdiction to grant an order of sale
of the cargo because the cargo is not the subject-matter of the dispute [A], and the Claimant
does not have any contractual relationship with the shipper [B]. Furthermore, granting this
order would amount to final relief [C]. Lastly, the measure sought is not the ideal method of
preventing the alleged harm [D].
A. THE CARGO NEITHER IS NOR FORMS A PART OF THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE
DISPUTE
3. Under §12(1)(d), the power of the Tribunal to grant an interim measure for sale is
restricted to property that “is or forms part of the subject-matter of the dispute”. The
Respondent contends that this phrase should be given a narrow interpretation lest the tribunals
abuse this provision.4 Therefore, the exercise of the power under §12(1)(d) ought to be
1 Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2014) 2467; International
Arbitration Practice Guidelines, Applications for Interim Measures Art 2(1) 5. 2 Memorandum [II]. 3 Memorandum [III and IV]. 4 Christopher Huntley, ‘The Scope of Article 17: Interim measures under the UNCITRAL Model Law’ [2005] 9
Vindobona Journal 1.
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
4
restricted to either property with disputed ownership, or defects which constitutes the substance
of the dispute.5
4. The cargo in the present case does not form the subject-matter of the dispute. The
dispute is regarding Charter Party obligations to pay freight, and to nominate a discharge-port.
It stems neither due to defect in cargo, nor due to its ownership. The Respondent, therefore,
submits that the Tribunal does not have the power to order sale of cargo, as it does not constitute
the subject-matter of the dispute.
B. THE CLAIMANT DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
SHIPPER.
5. The meaning of the word “property” in §12(1)(d) can be extended to contractual rights.6
However, only those contractual rights can qualify as “property” which, if lost, would not be
adequately remediable by way of damages.7
6. The Respondent, therefore, submits that the Claimant has no contractual connection
with the shipper (i), the Claimant does not possess an equitable right under the headowner’s
lien (ii), loss of rights to freight and damages for detention are compensable by way of damages
(iii), and in any case, any contractual right which the Claimant may seek to preserve is at best
an “alleged property” which cannot be preserved by an interim order (iv).
i. The Claimant does not have any contractual relationship with the shipper.
7. The shipper should be assumed to be the cargo owner as it retains the three B/Ls.8 Thus,
to claim a right to lien over the cargo, the Claimant must have some contractual relationship
5 Alan Redfern and others, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell
2004) para 7.26. 6 Shipping Services Ltd v European Container KS [2013] 2 CLC 800 (QB); Cetelem SA v Roust Holdings Ltd
[2005] 1 WLR 3555 (CA); Five Ocean Corporation v Cingler Ship Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 311. 7 Maldives Airports Co Ltd v GMR Male International Airport Pte Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 449; GigSky APS v Vodafone
Roaming Services (QB, 16 October 2015); Robert Merkin, Arbitration Law (Lloyd’s of London Press 2014) para
14.61.3, 14.61.4. 8 London Arbitration 15/15 (2015) 934 LMLN 9.
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
5
with the shipper.9 The Respondent argues shipper is not a party to the Voyage Charter Party
between the Claimant and the Respondent,10 and the Claimant is not a party to the B/L contract.
The carrier, in this case, is the head-owner.
8. There are two major indicators which lend weight to this assertion-
The identity of the carrier is intrinsically linked to the person signing the B/Ls, and the
source of such person’s authority to sign the same.11 The head-owner is invariable
identified as the carrier where the Master signs the B/Ls, like in this case.12 This is so
because it is assumed that he source of the Master’s authority is the head-owner.
Furthermore, there are no indications in the signature-box which could suggest that the
Master was acting as the agent for the Claimant while signing the B/Ls.13
The B/Ls have been printed on the head-owner’s forms.14
9. Lastly, the Tribunal should not refer to terms of any Charter Party as a matter of policy
because it is highly likely that the shipper is unaware of the same.15
10. The Respondent, therefore, submits that the Claimant has no contractual relations with
the shipper, and consequently, it cannot claim to have a right of lien over the cargo.
ii. Rights to freight and damages for detention are compensable by damages.
9 Miramar Maritime Corporation v Holborn Oil Trading Ltd (The Miramar) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 319 (CA). 10 Clause 3, 4, Fixture Recap, Page 20 of Bundle. 11The Berkshire [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 185; Richard Aikens and others, Bills of Lading (2nd edn, Informa Law
2016) para 7.61. 12 Sandeman v Scurr (1866-67) LR 2 QB (QB); Manchester Trust Ltd v Furness Withy & Co [1895] 2 QB 539
(CA); Sir Guenther Trietel and FMB Reynolds, Carver on Bills of Lading (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2011) para
4.038. 13 Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Pvt Ltd (The Starsin) [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 571 (HL); Bill of Lading 1/1,
Page 41 of Bundle. 14 Bill of Lading 1/1, Page 41 of Bundle. 15 Manchester Trust Ltd v Furness Withy & Co [1895] 2 QB 539 (CA); Sir Guenther Trietel and FMB Reynolds,
Carver on Bills of Lading (3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2011) para 4.046.
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
6
11. The only such contractual rights the loss of which cannot be remedied by way of
damages attract the power of the Tribunal under §12(1)(d).16 Damages are an adequate remedy
in case of loss of freights and damages for detention, as the losses are readily calculable.17
Furthermore, loss of freight and damages for detention does not give rise to any ancillary losses,
like goodwill.
12. Therefore, the Respondent submits that loss of rights to freight and damages for
detention is readily remediable by way of damages.
iii. Claimant’s contractual rights are “alleged property” at best.
13. An order under §12(1)(d) can only be passed for the preservation of a “property”, and
not “possible property” or “alleged property”.18 In this case, the Tribunal has to determine
whether the Claimant has a valid and enforceable lien.19 This makes lien an “alleged” or a
“possible” contractual right, as its validity and enforceability are yet undetermined. As such,
to be able to grant an interim measure for sale under §12(1)(d), the Tribunal would have to first
determine the very questions under dispute before the Tribunal. The Respondents submit that
the Tribunal should refrain from granting an interim order which requires determination of an
issue on merits.20 An interim hearing, such as this one, takes place at a stage where the Tribunal
has not had the opportunity to accept and peruse any evidence, and hear any of the arguments
of the parties. In the present case, for example, the identity of the owner of the cargo is as yet
undetermined, and is unclear whether there was any Charter Party arrangement between the
16 Maldives Airports Co Ltd v GMR Male International Airport Pte Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 449; GigSky APS v Vodafone
Roaming Services (QB, 16 October 2015); Robert Merkin, Arbitration Law (Lloyd’s of London Press 2014) para
14.61.3, 14.61.4. 17 Maldives Airports Co Ltd v GMR Male International Airport Pte Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 449. 18 Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd v European Container KS [2013] 2 CLC 800 (QB). 19 Notice of Arbitration V 18(2), Page 74 of Bundle. 20 Ali Yesilirmak, Provisional Measures in International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International
2005) 181; Julian Lew, ‘Commentary on Interim and Conservatory Measures in ICC Arbitration Cases’ [2000]
11(1) ICC Ct Bull 23 30.
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
7
Respondent and the shipper.21 These considerations may be important in determination of
merits. Therefore, making such an interim order which requires a determination of merits may
be inequitable.
C. GRANTING THIS INTERIM ORDER WOULD AMOUNT TO FINAL RELIEF
14. The Respondent submits that allowing the Claimant to retain proceeds from sale of the
cargo would tantamount to final relief to the prejudice of the Respondents.
15. Tribunals should not grant interim measures akin to final relief in order to preserve the
interim nature of the measure, and not alter status quo.22 It denies parties proper opportunity of
hearing and might act to the detriment of opposing party.23
16. The Claimants have sought an order allowing them to sell the cargo on-board the vessel,
and retain the proceeds after deducting the cost incurred in facilitating the sale. This interim
relief is akin to final relief for two reasons-
First, the Claimants, as final relief, have sought freight, damages for detention and other
damages, all in the form of monetary payments.24 Furthermore, in the remedies sought
by it in the notices for arbitration, the Claimant has made a request for “such order for
the preservation… or sale of the Cargo as may be necessary.”25
Second, if allowed to retain the proceeds from sale, the Claimants would be able to
derive utility out of it till final determination on merits. This is because money is
fungible.26 The Claimants might invest the sum, utilise it to pay hire to the head-owner,
or even make purchases out of it. In doing all of this, the Claimants would be deriving
21 Notice of Arbitration IV 10, Page 72 of Bundle. 22 International Arbitration Practice Guidelines, Applications for Interim Measures Art 4(1)(iii) 13; Ali
Yesilirmak, Provisional Measures in International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2005) 183,
185; Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd v European Container KS [2013] 2 CLC 800 (QB). 23 Julian Lew, ‘Commentary on Interim and Conservatory Measures in ICC Arbitration Cases’ [2000] 11(1) ICC
Ct Bull 23 30. 24 Arbitration Notice V 18(1, 2, 3), Page 74 of Bundle; Arbitration Notice V 18(1, 2, 3), Page 80 of Bundle. 25 Arbitration Notice V 18(5), Page 74 of Bundle; Arbitration Notice V 18(9), Page 81 of Bundle. 26 Fancois Bourguignon and Mark Sundberg, ‘Aid Effectiveness: Opening the Black Box’ [2007] 97 American
Economic Review 316.
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
8
some utility out of the money, which cannot be allowed without a determination of their
claim to the sum being rightfully theirs. This determination can only come with the
final award. But, till such award is made, by allowing the Claimants to keep the
proceeds the Tribunal would be allowing them to utilise the money as if it were
rightfully theirs, even when it is not.
D. THE MEASURE SOUGHT IS NOT THE BEST METHOD OF PREVENTING THE ALLEGED
HARM.
17. Generally, interim measures are sought for and granted to remedy/prevent some
immediate harm which might be incurred by one or all the parties to the arbitration during the
pendency of the proceedings.27 Consequently, the measures granted are specific to the harms
being alleged.28 Therefore, a tribunal should neither grant interim measures which are
incapable of preventing the alleged harm from occurring,29 nor should it grant the requested
measures where better alternatives to deal with the alleged harm are available.30
18. In this case, the harm being alleged, if the interim measure is not granted, is loss of life
and property due to possible self-ignition of the cargo of coal on-board the vessel or capsizing
of the vessel due to strong winds or lack of food, water and medication on-board.31 The
Respondents submit that an order of sale is not adequate to remedy either of the two
possibilities.
19. The key to prevent either scenario from occurring is swift action and affecting a sale is
not the quickest option here. The Respondent urge the Tribunal to consider the logistics
involved in making a transaction for sale of this cargo of coal. The Claimant would first have
27 Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2014) 2474-2475. 28 International Arbitration Practice Guidelines, Applications for Interim Measures Commentary on Art 6, ⁋2. 29 International Arbitration Practice Guidelines, Applications for Interim Measures Art 4(1)(ii) 13. 30 International Arbitration Practice Guidelines, Applications for Interim Measures Commentary on Art 6, ⁋2. 31 Email communication as sent to Gordon Grill by Peter Girvin (November 30), Page 37 of Bundle.
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
9
to engage their brokers to find a viable buyer, after which a deal would have to be negotiated,
that too with extremely eschewed bargaining power. The process may take up to a month.32
20. The seller, in all the urgency, would try to finalise the deal with the first prospective
buyer. However, the choice of buyer would also be important, keeping in mind the choice of
discharge port. Ideally, the port nearest to the vessel’s current location should be chosen as the
disport to save time and reduce the chances of self-ignition.
21. Keeping this analysis in mind, the Respondents submit that an order for sale is not the
ideal solution for the cited harms. The acts of finding a buyer, striking a deal, and delivering
the cargo to a disport which might not be the nearest to the vessel’s current location all serve
to delay the discharge of cargo as the chances of self-ignition increase with every passing day.
The time spent in striking a deal also increases the chances of the vessel giving in to the weather
and capsizing.
22. Therefore, the Tribunal should not grant this interim order as it would be incapable of
preventing the alleged impending harm.
II. IT IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR JUST FOR THIS INTERIM MEASURE TO BE GRANTED
23. The Respondent submits that it is neither just not necessary to grant the interim measure
for sale of cargo because warehousing the cargo is a better alternative to prevent the alleged
harms than selling the cargo [A], and the balance of convenience lies in favour of the
Respondent [B]. Furthermore, if the Claimant is allowed to deduct the expense incurred in
selling the cargo, it would be to the prejudice of the Respondent [C].
A. WAREHOUSING IS A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TO PREVENT THE ALLEGED HARMS.
32 Stelios B Maritime Ltd v Ibeto Cement Co (The Stelios B) (2007) 711 LMLN 2.
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
10
24. The interim measure requested for must be necessary to prevent the alleged harms.33 It
is the necessity which justifies the harm which the other party might incur because of the
interim measure. However, in case a more efficient alternative solution is available, the tribunal
should refrain from granting the requested measure. The Respondent, therefore, submits that
warehousing the cargo is better alternative to selling the cargo because it is sufficient to prevent
the alleged harms (i), and it adds no excessive burden on the Claimant (ii).
i. Warehousing the cargo is sufficient to prevent the alleged harms.
25. The Claimant seeks this interim measure to prevent the possible harms which were
mentioned in the Master’s email.34 The Respondent submits that the reason behind all of the
problems is the vessel’s current location. There is an urgent need for the vessel to reach to a
port, and discharge the cargo. The Respondent has already argued that selling the cargo would
take approximately a month,35 during which the vessel and the crew would remain exposed to
all the threats listed by the Master.36 Ordering the vessel to discharge at a nearby port, possibly
Singapore, is quicker alternative. Furthermore, after warehousing, the cargo would cease to be
distressed which would secure its value.
ii. Warehousing adds no excessive burden on the Claimant or the Respondent.
26. Regarding the cost of maintaining the lien, the Respondent has two submissions. First,
that warehousing might actually be cheaper than holding the goods on the vessel.37 Second, the
incident of the cost for maintaining the lien does not fall on the Claimant. It has already been
argued that the Claimant does not have contractual relations with the shipper, and therefore,
does not have a contractual right to lien.38 And furthermore, the lien, in any case, was not valid
33 Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International 2014) 2474. 34 Email communication as sent to Gordon Grill by Peter Girvin (November 30), Page 37 of Bundle. 35 Stelios B Maritime Ltd v Ibeto Cement Co (The Stelios B) (2007) 711 LMLN 2. 36 Memorandum [I.D]. 37 Anglo-Polish Steamship Line v Vickers Ltd (1924) 19 Ll L Rep 121 (KB). 38 Memorandum [I.B.i].
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
11
or enforceable, and neither was it reasonably exercised.39 Consequently, even if the lien were
properly exercised, the cost of maintaining it would fall on the head-owner, which he may then
recover from the shipper.
27. Thus, warehousing adds no burden on the Claimant or the Respondent.
B. THE RESPONDENT WILL SUFFER GREAT HARM IF THIS MEASURE IS GRANTED.
28. The Respondent submits that if the order for interim sale is granted, the Respondent
will suffer great harm as it would affect the Respondent’s Charter Party with the shipper. The
sale of cargo might cause the Respondent to break its contract, which would cause great harm
to the Respondent’s reputation. Loss of reputation, it is submitted, is irreparable.40
29. If the cargo on-board the vessel is sold off, the position of the Respondent would be
similar to that of a distributer who is forced to break contracts with third-parties due to the acts
of the manufacturer.41 The Respondent and the shipper contracted with each other to affect the
carriage of the cargo of coal. As the charterer, the shipper would have expected the Respondent
to arrange for a vessel for the carriage the way third parties expect distributers to supply the
goods. Failure of carriage, like failure to supply the goods, adversely affects the reputation of
the Respondent.
30. In light of the fact that a more efficient alternative is available, there is no reason why
the Tribunal should grant the interim measure for sale of cargo.
C. ALLOWING THE CLAIMANT TO DEDUCT FROM THE PROCEEDS OF SALE THE
EXPENSES INCURRED IN SELLING WOULD PREJUDICE THE ARBITRATION.
39 Memorandum [IV]. 40 Maldives Airports Co Ltd v GMR Male International Airport Pte Ltd [2013] 2 SLR 449; Gabriel Moens and
Sam Luttrell, ‘Interim Measures of Protection under the Arbitration Rules of the Australian Centre for
International Commercial Arbitration’ [2010] 6 Asian Intl Arb J 74, 88. 41 Gabriel Moens and Sam Luttrell, ‘Interim Measures of Protection under the Arbitration Rules of the Australian
Centre for International Commercial Arbitration’ [2010] 6 Asian Intl Arb J 74, 88.
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
12
31. The Claimant has requested the liberty to “deduct all of its costs” incurred in facilitating
the sale of cargo from the proceeds of sale, and to “retain the balance” pending final
determination of the arbitral proceedings.42 There is a difference in the language, between
“deduct all of its costs” and “retain the balance”. The Respondent argues that the Claimant
seeks an order wherein it gets to retain the expenses it incurs in selling the cargo irrespective
of the final award.
32. Reversibility is an important feature of an interim measure.43 A request for an
irreversible measure cannot be granted. Furthermore, it would amount to reduction in the value
retrieved from the cargo which, in turn, would be to the prejudice of the Respondent
irrespective of the direction of the final award. If the award is in the Respondent’s favour, the
Respondent would receive a lessor sum. If the award is in favour of the Claimant, the
Respondent would either pay a greater sum or receive a lower sum, depending in the quantum
of the award.
33. Therefore, the Respondent submits that such a measure should not be granted as it
prejudices the entire arbitration proceedings.44
III. THEREFORE, THE RESPONDENT SUBMITS THAT SUCH A MEASURE SHOULD NOT BE
GRANTED AS IT PREJUDICES THE ENTIRE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS. DAMAGES
FOR DETENTION DO NOT ARISE AFTER BUSAN IS NOMINATED AS AN ALTERNATIVE
PORT
34. The Respondent submits that damages for detention do not arise after Busan is
nominated as an alternative pot of discharge. The Claimant could have complied with the
42 Application for Consolidation and Liberty to Sell Cargo Pedente Lite, Clause 3, Page 90 of Bundle. 43 D Mark Cato, Arbitration Practice and Procedure: Interlocutory and Hearing Problems (3rd edn, Lloyd’s
Commercial Law Library 2002) 239. 44 International Arbitration Practice Guidelines, Applications for Interim Measures Art 5 para 2 15.
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
13
nomination of Busan in the prevailing circumstances [A]; and the Claimant should have
fulfilled its duty to mitigate damages by going to Busan [B].
A. THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE NOMINATION OF BUSAN
35. The Respondent submits that the Claimant could have complied with the nomination
of Busan since it was a reasonable recourse in the prevailing circumstances (i); and Busan was
a safe port (ii).
i. Busan was a reasonable recourse in the prevailing circumstances
25. Firstly, nomination of Busan was not in contravention of the head Time Charter Party
between head owner and the Claimant, unlike what was alleged by the Claimant.45 The head
Time Charter Party stipulates the trading limits for the vessel as Asia and Australia.46 Busan,
being in Asia, is clearly within the prescribed trading limits and thus its nomination is in
consistence with the Time Charter Party.
26. Further, Busan was nominated as a discharge port in light of the unfortunate
circumstance of congestion at Chinese ports.47 The congestion existed without the fault of
either party and it was a reasonable alternative provided by the Respondent to the Claimant.
Had the Respondent waited for congestion to clear out at the stipulated Charter Party ports,48
significant delay could have happened, adversely affecting the interests of both parties. The
Respondent in this circumstance, even proposed to amend the amount of freight and was ready
to pay for the additional expenses incurred.49 Complying with the nomination was also in the
interest of the Claimant as it would have led to successful discharge of its contractual
obligations and simultaneously the vessel would have been freed for future employment.
45 Email communication as sent to Eric Yan by Gordon Grill (October 16), Page 57, 58 of Bundle. 46 Clause 1(b), Charterparty between IMLAM and Furnace Trading, Page 1 of Bundle. 47 Email communication as sent to Gordon Grill by Eric Yan (October 16), Page 5 of Bundle. 48 Clause 16, Fixture Recap, Page 21 of Bundle; Clause 8(c) of Part II of Coal Orevoy, Page 2 of Bundle. 49 Email communication as sent to Eric Yan by Gordon Grill (October 16), Page 58 of Bundle.
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
14
27. Thus, Busan was a reasonable alternative in the prevailing circumstances.
ii. Busan was a safe port
28. The Respondent submits that Busan was reachable since it was a safe port at the time
of nomination. The charterer’s obligation is to nominate a port which is prospectively safe for
the vessel’s visit, notwithstanding an occurrence of some abnormal future event.50 The
obligation does not refer to the actual operating conditions at the time the order is given, but
those which can be foreseen as existing when the vessel reaches the said destination.51
29. The Respondent had fulfilled its obligation of nominating a prospectively safe port.
Busan was a safe port for the period that the vessel would have gone there. The Korean military
had secured the area and had countered the threat. Several vessels had also called at Busan
without any problems.52
30. Therefore, Busan was prospectively a safe port for the purpose of discharge and the
Claimant could have gone there.
B. THE CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE FULFILLED ITS DUTY TO MITIGATE THE DAMAGES BY
GOING TO BUSAN
36. The Respondent submits that the Claimant had a duty to mitigate the alleged damages
and should have done so by going to Busan.
37. An innocent party has a duty to take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent
to a breach of a contract by the other party, and is debarred from claiming any part of the
damage arising as a result of its failure to take such steps.53
50 Julian Cooke and others, Voyage Charters (4th edn, Informa Law 2014) 5.50; Kodros Shipping Corporation v
Empresa Cubana de Fletes (The Evia) (No 2) [1983] 1 AC 736 (HL). 51 Julian Cooke and others, Voyage Charters (4th edn, Informa Law 2014) 5.50; Kodros Shipping
Corporation v Empresa Cubana de Fletes (The Evia) (No 2) [1983] 1 AC 736 (HL). 52 Email communication as sent to Gordon Grill by Eric Yan (October 17), Page 60 of Bundle. 53 British Westinghouse Co v Underground Railway [1912] AC 673 (HL); Dunkirk Colliery Co v Lever (1878) 9
Ch D 20 (CA); Jamal v Moolla Dawood [1916] 1 AC 175 (PC); D Amico Shipping Italia SP v Endofa DMCC
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
15
38. When a party in default provides an offer to an innocent party to mitigate the damages
arisen, the innocent party should accept the offer to minimize the losses.54 The reasonability of
the acceptance is a matter judged on facts;55 this is especially relevant in a commercial context
wherein the objective is to minimize the pecuniary losses and not stand on principle.56
39. A scenario wherein the innocent party does not suffer any pecuniary loss is further
ground for accepting a reasonable offer by the party in breach as a step towards mitigating
losses.57
40. In the present facts, the nomination of Busan is in the nature of an offer to mitigate
further damages which the Claimant should have accepted. Further, since the voyage in
consideration is commercial in nature, the significance of mitigating pecuniary losses is greater.
The Respondent has recognized this and has offered to compensate for additional expenses too,
implying that the Claimant would not have incurred any pecuniary loss in opting for the
alternative.
41. Thus, since the Claimant did not mitigate the damages by accepting the offer of going
to Busan, it cannot claim the damages for detention accruing after that.
IV. THE CLAIMANT DOES NOT HAVE A VALID AND ENFORCEABLE LIEN OVER THE CARGO
31. The Claimant has based its claim of lien on alleged damages for detention and freight.
The Respondent submits that there exists no valid and enforceable lien on the cargo for either
damages for detention [A] or freight [B]. In any case, the lien could not have been exercised at
the current position of the vessel [C].
[2016] EWHC 2223 (Comm); Harvey McGregor, McGregor on Damages (19th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2016)
para 9-004. 54 Payzu Ltd v Saunders [1919] 2 KB 581 (CA); Sotiros Shipping Inc v Sameiet Solholt (The Solholt) [1983] 1
Lloyd’s Rep 605 (CA). 55 Payzu Ltd v Saunders [1919] 2 KB 581 (CA). 56 Uzinterimpex JSC v Standard Bank Plc [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 456 (CA). 57 Brace v Calder [1895] 2 QB 253 (CA).
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
16
A. THE CLAIMANT DOES NOT HAVE A VALID LIEN OVER THE CARGO FOR THE ALLEGED
DAMAGES FOR DETENTION
32. The Respondent submits that the Claimant’s contention of a lien on cargo for damages
for detention is unfounded since the lien clause in the Voyage Charter Party does not provide
for ‘damages for detention’ explicitly (i); and the damages cannot be included within
‘demurrage’ in the lien clause (ii).
i. The lien clause in the Voyage Charter Party does not provide for ‘damages for
detention’ explicitly
33. The alleged damages are in the nature of damages for detention, i.e. damages that arise
due to delay of a vessel caused by default of a charterer, and are paid as unliquidated damages.58
They are distinct from demurrage, which is paid as liquidated damages for exceeding the
laytime provided at load and discharge ports.59 The lien clause of the Voyage Charter Party
explicitly provides a lien on the cargo for freight, dead freight, demurrage and general
average.60 Thus, there is no mention of damages for detention as a ground for exercise of lien
in the Charter Party.
ii. The damages cannot be included within ‘demurrage’ in the lien clause
34. The claimant may seek to argue that such damages for detention should be construed
as falling within the ambit of ‘demurrage’ for the purpose of the lien clause. However, if
demurrage is used in a particular sense in one part of the Charter Party, it is to be read in that
strict sense and not be expanded in meaning.61 Further, when there are no fixed demurrage days
58 John Schofield, Laytime and Demurrage (5th edn, LLP 2005) para 8.1. 59 John Schofield, Laytime and Demurrage (5th edn, LLP 2005) para 8.42; President of India v Lips Maritime
Corporation (The Lips) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 311 (HL). 60 Clause 19 of Part II of Coal Orevoy, Page 31 of Bundle. 61 Frederick Crombie Gardiner and Others (Owners of s Lismore) v Macfarlane, M'Crindell, & Company (1889)
16 R 658 (Court of Session); Clink v Radford & Co (1891) 1 QB 625 (CA).
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
17
mentioned in the Charter Party, but a provision fixing the demurrage rate at either port, the lien
extends to this demurrage, and not to any other damages for detention.62
35. In the present case, demurrage has particularly been used to refer to liquidated damages
arising for exceeding the provided laytime and is not intended to refer to the unliquidated
damages for detention.63 Further, the number of demurrage days have not been specified in the
Charter Party and its rate has been mentioned.64 This provides a specific meaning to the term
which does not extend to unliquidated damages for detention.
36. Boxes 21 and 22 of Part I of the Coal Orevoy read with Clause 20 of the Fixture Recap
specifically provide the demurrage rate on loading and discharging.65 Since the vessel has been
detained at neither the load port, nor the discharge port, the alleged damages arising cannot be
construed as being included within ‘demurrage’ for the purpose of the lien clause.
37. Thus, the claimant does not have a lien over the cargo for damages arising from
detention.
B. THE CLAIMANT DOES NOT HAVE A VALID LIEN ON THE CARGO FOR FREIGHT
38. The Respondent submits that freight has not become payable under the provisions of
the Charter Party. A lien is exercisable only for amounts that have become payable, i.e. after
the obligation to pay has arisen.66 In the present case, the freight clause in the Fixture Recap
stipulates that in any circumstance, freight is to be paid before breaking bulk, i.e. before the
discharge of cargo commences.67 Mere mention of certain conditions prior to discharge does
62 Dunlop & Sons v Balfour Williamson & Co (1892) 1 QB 507 (CA); Frederick Crombie Gardiner and Others
(Owners of s Lismore) v Macfarlane, M'Crindell, & Company (1889) 16 R 658 (Court of Session); Clink v Radford
& Co (1891) 1 QB 625 (CA). 63 Clause 9(e)(i) of Part II of Coal Orevoy, Page 27 of Bundle. 64 Clause 20, Fixture Recap, Page 31 of Bundle. 65 Clause 20, Fixture Recap, Page 31 of Bundle; Boxes 21, 22 of Part I of Coal Orevoy, Page 25 of Bundle. 66 London Arbitration 21/92 (1992) 329 LMLN 6; Wehner v Dene Steam Shipping Co [1905] 2 KB 92 (KB);
Julian Cooke and others, Voyage Charters (4th edn, Informa Law 2014) para 17.31. 67 Clause 19, Fixture Recap, Page 22 of Bundle.
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
18
not give rise to the obligation at that point. The clause should be read as allowing for the
payment of freight to be made at some time before breaking bulk. A just reading of the clause
would not suggest that before discharge commences, a lien could be exercised for the unpaid
amount.
39. Further, the Respondent reasonably believed this to be intended effect of the clause.
Given that the Respondent neither acknowledged freight as being payable, nor agreed with the
interpretation that the Claimant based its claim on, is testimony to that inference. Thus, a
reasonable construction of the clause would show that as the discharge has not commenced,
the freight has not become payable
40. Therefore, Claimant cannot exercise lien on the cargo for freight.
C. IN ANY CASE, A LIEN CANNOT BE EXERCISED AT THE CURRENT POSITION OF THE
VESSEL
41. The vessel has been opl Singapore since the time the lien was purported to be first
exercised,68 and continues to remain there till date to the best of knowledge of both parties.69
42. A lien is not exercisable mid-voyage, except under special circumstances, wherein it
cannot be effectively exercised, or is bound to be lost, at the discharge port.70 In recognition of
exercise of lien at a place before the discharge port, emphasis has been laid on special factual
circumstances, which render the exercise of lien impossible at the discharge port.71 Further,
such a contention is usually required to be supported or evidenced by opinions of experts on
local law or P&I clubs.72
68 Email communication as sent to Eric Yan by Gordon Grill (October 20), Page 65 of Bundle. 69 Email series as sent to Eric Yan by Gordon Grill (October 12 - October 21), Page 51, 66 of Bundle; Procedural
order 3 of Clarifications. 70 China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corp v Evlogia Shipping Co SA of Panama (The Mihalios Xilas)
[1979] 1 WLR 1018. 71 London Arbitration 12/91 (1991) 304 LMLN 6. 72 London Arbitration 13/87 (1987) 205 LMLN 9; Five Ocean Corporation v Cingler Ship Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC
311.
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
19
43. In the present case, there is nothing to suggest that the exercise of a lien would be
impossible at the discharge port. The Claimant has failed to advance any tenable reason
establishing its belief/knowledge of loss of the alleged right of lien. Mere non-nomination of a
named discharge port for some time is not the same as the right being lost or exercise being
impossible, and does not lead to that inference.
44. Thus, there are no grounds for lien to be exercised at the current position of the vessel.
TEAM 07| MEMORANDUM FOR INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD
20
PRAYER
In light of the above submissions, the Respondent requests the tribunal to declare that:
1. The Tribunal does not have the power and/or the jurisdiction to issue an order for
interim sale of the cargo.
2. The Claimant is not entitled to appraise and sell the cargo on board the vessel.
3. The Respondent is prima facie not liable to the Claimant for freight, detention and/or
other damages under the Voyage Charter Party.
4. The Claimant is prima facie not entitled to exercise any lien over the cargo and;
5. It is not necessary or just to sell the cargo on board the vessel.
And therefore:
1. Dismiss the claim of interim relief.
2. A declaration that the lien over the cargo is invalid in respect any claims under the
Charter Party.
3. Further or other reliefs.