FOURTHEENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT COMPETITION 2013 MEMORANDUM for the CLAIMANT on Behalf Of: Aadv
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FOURTHEENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT COMPETITION 2013 UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION HELD AT LONDON MEMORANDUM FOR THE CLAIMANT On behalf of: Against: Aadvark Ltd. Twilight Carriers Inc. Aadvark House The High Street, Bootle, Merseyside CLAIMANT RESPONDENT TEAM DZULYAN WISHARDY ALWI • KENNY CETERA • RUDI YUDHO SARTONO SHITA PINA SAPHIRA • VULKANIA NEYSA ALMANDINE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CLAIMANT TEAM NUMBER 18 TEAM 18 − MEMORANDUM FOR THE CLAIMANT | i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... i LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................. v SUMMARY OF FACTS.......................................................................................................... 1 QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................................................................... 2 ARGUMENTS PRESENTED................................................................................................. 2 I. THE LONDON TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE DISPUTE .... 2 A. The matters brought to this proceedings are governed under the Arbitration Clause within the Charterparty ................................................................................................ 2 i. The Claimant is entitled to rely on the Arbitration Clause as a benefiting third- party to the Charterparty ........................................................................................ 3 ii. The Claimant is entitled to invoke the incorporated Arbitration Clause through the B/L ..................................................................................................................... 3 B. Alternatively, the matters brought under this proceeding are governed by the Arbitration Clause under tort ....................................................................................... 4 II. THE RESPONDENT HAS BREACHED ITS DUTY TO DELIVER THE CARGO TO THE CLAIMANT IN LIVERPOOL ...................................................................... 5 A. The Respondent is obliged to deliver the cargo to the Claimant ................................. 5 i. The Claimant is entitled to receive delivery of the cargo under the B/L due to its appointment as consignee ....................................................................................... 5 ii. The Claimant’s entitlement to receive delivery of the cargo also emanates from its position as the cargo owner under the PFAD contract ..................................... 6 B. The Respondent breached its obligation to deliver by discharging the cargo without the presentation of the Bills of Lading ........................................................................ 6 C. The Respondent was bound to deliver the cargo at Liverpool, as the port of discharge has not been modified to Rotterdam ............................................................ 7 i. The Liberty Clause cannot justify discharge at Rotterdam, as this would defeat the purpose of the Charterparty .............................................................................. 7 ii. Alternatively, the change of port of discharge to Rotterdam was not validly made ................................................................................................................................. 8 D. The LOI issued by the Beatles did not justify the discharge at Rotterdam ................. 9 E. The Respondent’s obligation to deliver the cargo to the Claimant is not exhausted by the discharge .............................................................................................................. 10 III. THE RESPONDENT HAS BREACHED ARTICLE III RULE 2 OF THE HAGUE- VISBY RULES .............................................................................................................. 11 14TH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT 2013 TEAM 18 − MEMORANDUM FOR THE CLAIMANT | ii A. The Respondent is obliged to properly and carefully handle, carry, keep, and care for the goods carried ........................................................................................................ 11 B. The Respondent failed its obligation to properly care for the cargo ......................... 12 i. The Respondent failed to maintain the quality of cargo to be of a Good Merchantable Quality ........................................................................................... 12 ii. The Respondent had failed to implement a system of care for the cargo due to its unseaworthiness .................................................................................................... 13 C. The Respondent cannot rely upon the exemptions of liability under Article IV Rule 2 of the Hague-Visby Rules .......................................................................................... 14 i. The peril was foreseeable ..................................................................................... 14 ii. The peril was surmountable .................................................................................. 14 D. The Respondent did not take cargo care measures during the captivity nor its subsequent voyage ..................................................................................................... 16 IV. THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE FOR LOSSES INCURRED BY THE CLAIMANT DUE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE ............................................................... 16 A. The Respondent’s actions fulfills the element of causation ...................................... 16 B. The damages incurred as a result of the Respondent’s actions fulfills the test of remoteness ................................................................................................................. 18 i. The loss was foreseeable ....................................................................................... 18 ii. The Respondent had assumed responsibility for its failure to deliver the goods to Liverpool ............................................................................................................... 19 C. The types of damages invoked by the Claimant are reasonable ................................ 20 i. The Claimant is entitled to be restituted of the PFAD losses ............................... 20 ii. The Claimant is entitled towards replacement expenses for the damages arising from the Respondent’s actions .............................................................................. 21 iii. The Respondent is obliged to cover the expenses of the Dutch proceedings ........ 22 D. The proper standard of damages applied is the prices of PFAD at Liverpool ........... 22 E. The Claimant has not excessively mitigated its losses by purchasing substitute cargo in Liverpool ............................................................................................................... 23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF........................................................................................................ 25 14TH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT 2013 TEAM 18 − MEMORANDUM FOR THE CLAIMANT | iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ¶ Paragraph B/L The bills of lading dated 25 October 2008 covering the shipment the subject of these proceedings Beatles Oils & Fats Ltd. Beatles Oils & Fats Ltd./ Charterer of the Twilight Trader/Sellers of PFAD for Claimant BMP Best Management Practices for Protection against Somalia Based Piracy CAD Cash Against Document CIF Cost, Insurance and Freight Claimant Aadvark Ltd. COGSA Carriage of Goods by Sea FOSFA Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fats Associations GMQ Good Merchantable Quality LOI Letter of Indemnity PFAD Palm Fatty Acid Distillate pp. Pages Respondent Twilight Carriers Inc. The Charterparty The charter party concluded between Beatles Oils & Fats Ltd. and Twilight Carriers Inc. The Dutch proceedings The District Court of Rotterdam proceeding, commencing on 15 July 2009 and its appeal to the Court of Appeal on 21 August 2009 14TH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT 2013 TEAM 18 − MEMORANDUM FOR THE CLAIMANT | iv The Hague-Visby Rules Protocol to Amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading (Brussels 1968) The Tribunal The current London arbitration proceedings to hear the dispute between Aadvark Ltd. and Twilight Carriers Vessel The Twilight Trader 14TH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT 2013 TEAM 18 − MEMORANDUM FOR THE CLAIMANT | v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Aktieselskabet de Danske Sukkerfabrikker v Bajamar Compania Naviera SA (The Torenia) [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 210 .................................................................................... 18 Alexander v Railway Executive [1951] 2 KB 882 ................................................................... 11 Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 ......................................................... 4 Associated Metals v Olympic Mentor [1997] AMC 1140 (SD NY 1997) ............................... 13 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 11 .......... 4 Astro Vencedor Compania Naveria SA of Panama v Mabanaft GmbH 204 [1971] 2 All ER 1301...................................................................................................................................