EIGHTEENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY TEAM 10 ON BEHALF OF: AGAINST: INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD FURNACE TRADING PTE LTD AND IDONCARE BERJAYA UTAMA PTY LTD CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS COUNSEL Margery Harry Declan Haiqiu Ai Godber Noble Zhu TEAM 10 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... III LIST OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................ V STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................ 1 APPLICABLE LAW ......................................................................................................................... 2 I. SINGAPOREAN LAW APPLIES TO ALL ASPECTS OF THE DISPUTE ............................................... 2 A. Singaporean law governs the procedure of the arbitration ................................................... 2 B. Singaporean law is the substantive law applying to FURNACE and INFERNO’s dispute ....... 2 C. Singaporean law is also the substantive law applying to FURNACE and IDONCARE’s dispute ................................................................................................................................... 3 ARGUMENTS ON THE INTERIM APPLICATION FOR SALE OF CARGO ......................... 4 II. A VALID AND ENFORCEABLE LIEN ON THE CARGO HAS BEEN EXERCISED ................................ 4 A. A right to lien on cargo in FURNACE’s favour arises under the Bill of Lading .................... 5 B. The lien on cargo may be exercised as INFERNO owes a freight debt to FURNACE .............. 5 C. Imlam properly exercised the lien on cargo ......................................................................... 7 1. Imlam has possession of the cargo ................................................................................. 7 2. The exercise of the lien was within reasonable limits .................................................... 8 III. THE TRIBUNAL CAN AND SHOULD ORDER THE SALE OF THE CARGO ....................................... 8 A. Tribunal has the power to order a sale of the cargo pendente lite ....................................... 8 1. The cargo forms part of the subject-matter of the dispute .............................................. 9 2. A sale of the cargo is necessary .................................................................................... 10 3. In the alternative, the parties have contractually agreed to give the Tribunal the wider power to make interim awards as it sees fit .................................................................. 11 4. The location of the cargo is immaterial to the Tribunal’s power to order a sale .......... 12 I TEAM 10 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT B. The Tribunal should exercise its discretion and order a sale of the cargo ........................ 12 ARGUMENTS ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM ................................................................... 13 IV. INFERNO BREACHED THE VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY BY FAILING TO NOMINATE A LEGITIMATE DISCHARGE PORT IN TIME .................................................................................. 13 A. INFERNO’s obligation to nominate a discharge port was not fulfilled by the attempted nomination of Busan .......................................................................................................... 14 B. INFERNO breached the agreement by not declaring a discharge port in time .................... 16 V. THE VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY WAS NOT FRUSTRATED .......................................................... 16 VI. FURNACE HAS A VALID LIEN ON SUB-FREIGHT PAYABLE BY IDONCARE ................................ 17 A. FURNACE possesses the right to collect sub-freight from IDONCARE ................................ 17 B. FURNACE perfected its lien by sending written notice to IDONCARE ................................. 19 C. FURNACE retains its lien, despite termination of the Voyage Charterparty ....................... 20 VII. FURNACE’S TERMINATION OF THE VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY WAS NOT WRONGFUL ........... 20 A. INFERNO’s conduct constituted a repudiation of the agreement ........................................ 21 B. INFERNO’s failure to comply with FURNACE’s notice to perform gave FURNACE the right to terminate the Voyage Charterparty ............................................................................... 22 1. FURNACE was entitled to give notice to perform .......................................................... 22 2. The time stipulated for performance by the notice was reasonable .............................. 22 C. FURNACE’s election to terminate was not wrongful .......................................................... 23 VIII. FURNACE IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR BREACH FROM INFERNO ..................................... 23 A. FURNACE can recover detention costs caused by INFERNO’s breach ................................. 24 B. FURNACE is indemnified for costs incurred after termination of the Voyage Charterparty ....................................................................................................................... 24 REQUEST FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................... 25 II TEAM 10 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT ABBREVIATIONS art Article BBB Before Breaking Bulk Bill of Lading Bill no. IMOBL11223344X, dated 4 October, in the custom form of Imlam Consignorist GmbH, between Imlam and IDONCARE Cargo 80,000 Mt 10% MOLOO Australian Steam Coal COAL-OREVOY “COAL-OREVOY” Standard Coal and Ore Charter Party Clarification 2017 International Maritime Law Arbitration Moot Scenario Clarifications Fixture Recap Email of concluded terms of charterparty between FURNACE and INFERNO, from Eric Yan to Gordon Grill, dated 1 September 2016 Freight Clause Clause 19 of the Fixture Recap FURNACE Furnace Trading Pte Ltd IAA International Arbitration Act (Singapore, cap 143A, 2002 rev ed) IDONCARE Idoncare Berjaya Utama Pty Ltd Imlam Imlam Consignorist GmbH INFERNO Inferno Resources Sdn Bhd Lien Clause Clause 19(a) of the “COAL-OREVOY” Standard Coal and Ore Charter Party LT Local Time Master Tan Xiao Ming Model Law UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration (1985) Nomination Clause Clause 16 of the Fixture Recap Parties FURNACE, INFERNO and IDONCARE III TEAM 10 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT Record 2017 International Maritime Law Arbitration Moot Scenario s Section sch Schedule rd SCMA Rules Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration Rules (2015, 3 ed) Sub-Voyage Charterparty Voyage Charterparty, between INFERNO and IDONCARE, date unknown Tardy Tessa M.V. Tardy Tessa Time Charterparty Time Charterparty, between Imlam and Furnace, dated 15 February 2016 Voyage Charterparty Fixture Recap and “COAL-OREVOY” Standard Coal and Ore Charter Party, between Furnace and Inferno, dated 1 September 2016 IV TEAM 10 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT LIST OF AUTHORITIES CASES AND ARBITRAL AWARDS Referred to at page: Actis Co Ltd v The Sanko Steamship Co Ltd (‘The Aquacharm’) 8 [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 7 A/S Tank v Agence Maritime L Strauss (1939) 64 Ll L Rep 19 16 Aktieselskabet Olivebank v Dansk Svorlsyre Fabrik [1919] 2 KB 162 15, 24 Albemarle Supply Co Ltd v Hind & Co [1928] 1 KB 307 7, 8 Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd v Comfort Resources Pte Ltd 23 [2009] SLR 602 American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 12 Annangel Glory Compania Naviera SA v M Golodetz Ltd Middle 5, 17, 18, 19, 20 East Marketing Corporation (UK) Ltd and Clive Robert Hammond (‘The Annangel Glory’) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 45 Associated Asian Securities Pte Ltd v Lee Kam Wah [1992] 3 19 SLR(R) 812 Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng [2017] SGCA 6 (16 January 9 2017) Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation v Stephens (Henry) 4 Shipping Co and Tex Dilan Shipping Co [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 389 Bank of Boston Connecticut v European Grain and Shipping (‘The 7 Dominique’) [1989] AC 1056 Behzadi v Shaftesbury Hotels Ltd [1992] Ch 1 22 Blackburn v Flavelle (1881) 6 App Cas 628 14 Brani Readymix Pte Ltd v Yee Hong Pte Ltd [1994] SLR 1004 21 British Movietonews Ltd v London and District Cinemas Ltd [1952] 17 AC 166 Care Shipping Corp v Latin American Shipping Corp (‘The Cebu’) 19 [1983] QB 1005 Care Shipping Corporation v Itex Itagrani Export SA (‘The Cebu’) 3, 21 (No 2) [1993] QB 1 V TEAM 10 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT Cascade Shipping Inc v Eka Jaya Agencies (S) Pte Ltd [1993] 1 8, 17, 20 SLR(R) 187 Challenger Technologies Pte Ltd v Public Prosecutor [1994] 9 SLR(R) 849 Chua June Ching Michelle v Chai Hoi Tong [2011] 4 SLR 418 8 Chuan Hong Petrol Station Pte Ltd v Shell Singapore (Pte) Ltd 13 [1992] 2 SLR 1 Colonial Bank v European Grain & Shipping Ltd (‘The Dominique’) 6 [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 239 (Queen’s Bench) Colonial Bank v European Grain & Shipping Ltd (‘The Dominique’) 6 [1988] 3 WLR 60 (Court of Appeal) Compania Naviera General SA v Kerametal Ltd (‘The Lorna I’) 6, 7 [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 373 D Amico Shipping Italia SP v Endofa DMCC [2016] EWHC 2223 6 (Comm) (24 June 2016) Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v The Minister of 2 Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan [2010] 2 Lloyd's Rep 691 Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] 16, 17 AC 696 Donmar Productions Ltd v Bart [1967] 2 All ER 338 9 Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd [2013] 3 SLR 9 354 “Dwima