nineteenth annual international maritime ... nineteenth annual international maritime law...

Download NINETEENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ... NINETEENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION

Post on 26-Mar-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • NINETEENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION

    MOOT, 2018

    ________________________________________________________________________

    MEMORANDUM FOR RESPONDENT

    ________________________________________________________________________

    THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES, KOCHI

    TEAM 28

    ________________________________________________________________________

    ________________________________________________________________________

    COUNSEL

    SNEHA VIJAYAN

    JOSHUA DAVIS DALUS

    ATUL NARAYAN

    SALMA JENNATH

    THAREEQ ANVER

    RHEA SYDNEY

    ON BEHALF OF:

    DYNAMIC SHIPPING LLC

    AND

    THE SHIP ‘MADAM DRAGONFLY’

    RESPONDENT

    AGAINST:

    CERULEAN BEANS AND AROMAS LTD.

  • MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

    1

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    LIST OF ABBREVIATION ........................................................................................................... 3

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... 5

    STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 9

    JURSIDICTIONAL ISSUES .................................................................................................... 10

    1. The Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the instant claim ..................................... 10

    2. Applicable Laws to the Counter Claims ........................................................................... 11

    THE RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR BREACH OF THE CHARTERPARTY ......... 12

    1. The Owners are not liable for delay in delivery of the cargo ........................................... 12

    2. The Respondent is not liable for the damage to the Cargo ............................................... 16

    DYNAMIC SHIPPING LLC. IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY FOR DAMAGED CARGO,

    REPLACEMENT COFFEE OR SETTLEMENT PAYMENT ................................................ 19

    1. Dynamic Shipping LLC is not liable to pay for the damaged cargo ................................ 20

    2. Dynamic Shipping LLC is not liable to pay for the Replacement Coffee ........................ 21

    3. Dynamic Shipping LLC is not liable to pay the Settlement Payment .............................. 21

    CERULEAN DOES NOT HAVE A MARITIME EQUITABLE LIEN OVER MADAM

    DRAGONFLY .......................................................................................................................... 22

    1. Maritime Lien Is Non-Transferrable ................................................................................. 22

    COUNTER CLAIM .................................................................................................................. 23

    1. The Claimant is liable to pay damages for hull repairs .................................................... 23

  • MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

    2

    2. The Claimant is liable to pay Demurrage ......................................................................... 23

    3. The Claimant is liable to pay freight................................................................................. 25

    4. The claimant is liable to pay agency fee at spectre ........................................................... 26

    5. The Claimant is liable to pay agency fee at Dillamond .................................................... 27

    6. The Claimant is liable to pay for the use of electronic access system .............................. 27

    REQUEST FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................. 29

  • MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

    3

    LIST OF ABBREVIATION

    AC Appeal Cases

    All ER All England Law Reports

    Art Article

    BBL Barrel

    Bing Bingham

    C Chapter

    Co Ltd Company Limited

    Com Case Company Cases (England)

    C/P Charter Party

    Ed Edition

    Et al Et alia

    EWCA (Civ) Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

    Ex Exchequer

    i.e. That is

    ICC International Chamber of Commerce

    Int’l International

    ISM International Safety Management

  • MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

    4

    ISPS International Ship and Port Safety Security

    KB Law Reports King’s Bench

    LMAA London Maritime Arbitrators Association

    M/T Motor Tanker

    M/V Motor Vessel

    PNLR Professional Negligence and Liability Reports

    QB Law Reports Queen’s Bench

    r. Rule

    r/w Read with

    Lloyd’s Rep Lloyd’s Law Report

    SC United Kingdom Supreme Court

    SOLAS Safety of Life at Sea

    STS Ship to Ship

    UNTS United Nations Treaty Series

    USD United States Dollar

    v. Versus

    Vsl Vessel

    WLR Weekly Law Reports

  • MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

    5

    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

    Cases

    Age Old Builders Pty Ltd v. Swintons Pty Ltd, [2003] VSC 307. ................................................. 10

    Aries Tanker Corporation v Total Transport Ltd (The Aries) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 334............ 24

    Arnada Tankers, Ltd. v. Delphi Petroleum, Inc.(‘The Shoun Nectar’) SMA 3133 (1994) .......... 13

    AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 648,106 S.Ct. 1415, 89

    L.Ed.2d 648 (1986) ............................................................................................................... 9, 20

    Badgin Nominees Pty Ltd v Oneida Ltd & Anor, [1998] VSC 188. ............................................. 10

    Booth Steamship Company Ltd v. Cargo Fleet Iron Company [1916] 2 KB 570. ....................... 16

    Briddon v. G. N. Ry. (1858) 28L.J.Ex 51 ...................................................................................... 14

    Comalco Aluminium Ltd. v Mogal Freight Services Pty Ltd. (1993) 113 A.L.R. 677. ............... 11

    Connect Shipping Inc And Another v. Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club)

    And Others (The Renos”), [2018] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 285. ............................................................. 17

    Dornoch Ltd &Ors v. Westminster International BV &Ors [2009] EWHC 1782 (Admlty). ....... 20

    E. L. Oldendorff & Co. G.M.B.H. v Tradax Export S.A. (The Johanna Oldendorff)[1974] A.C. 479

    ................................................................................................................................................... 23

    El Greco v Mediterranean Shipping [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 537 .................................................. 19

    Eriksen v. Barkworth (1858) 3 H. & N. 601, 606 ......................................................................... 16

    Farrell Lines, Inc. v. Highlands Ins. Co, 532 F. Supp. 77, 79 (S.D.N.Y.) aff’d, 696 F.2d 28 (2d

    Cir. 1982) .................................................................................................................................. 15

    Fletcher Construction Case, Triarno Pty Limited v Triden Contractors Limited NSWSC, 22 July

    1992 (unreported)...................................................................................................................... 10

    Forward v. Pittard (1785) 1 T.R. 2 .............................................................................................. 12

  • MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

    6

    Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd v. Far East Chartering Ltd (The Jag Ravi) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.

    638............................................................................................................................................. 17

    Gunnstein A/S & Co K/S v Jensen, Krebs and Nielsen (The Alpha Nord) [1977] 2 Lloyds Rep 434,

    CA ............................................................................................................................................. 24

    Hadley v Baxendale ...................................................................................................................... 19

    Henriksens Rederi A/S THZ Rolimpex (The Brede) [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 333 .......................... 24

    Notara v. Henderson (1870) L.R. 5 Q.B. 346; L. R. 7 Q. B ......................................................... 14

    Peterson v. Freebody& Co. [1895] 2 QB 294 ............................................................................... 16

    Phelps v. Hill [1891] 1 Q. B. 605 ................................................................................................. 14

    Pipeline Services WA Pty Ltd. v. ATCO Gas Australia Pty Ltd, [2014] WASC 10. .................... 10

    Procter, Garrett, Marston v. Oakwin SS. Co. [1926] 1 K.B.244 .................................................. 16

    Savcor Pty Limited v New South Wales (2001) 52 NSWLR 587. .................................................. 9

    See Keane v. Australian Steamships, (1929) 41 C.L.R. 484. ........................................................ 18

    Skandia Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Star Shipping As, 173 F. Supp. 2d 1228 (2001); citing Warrior & Gulf

    Navigation Co. v. United States, 864

Recommended

View more >