THE NINETEENTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT UNIVERSITAS PADJADJARAN TEAM 23 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT ON BEHALF OF AGAINST CERULEAN BEANS AND DYNAMIC SHIPPING LLC AROMAS LTD AND THE SHIP ‘MADAM DRAGONFLY’ CLAIMANT RESPONDENT COUNSEL M IRFAN DIMASYQI YOGI BRATAJAYA PUTRI PARIMARMA ANANTA TAQWA ESTHER CHRISTIE E M TEAM 23 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................................... iv STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................................... 1 I. THE TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE DISPUTE ............................................ 2 A. Clause 27(d) is not applicable ............................................................................................................. 3 B. Alternatively, clause 27(d) shall be set aside ...................................................................................... 4 i. Master Mariner lacks experience in settling the disputed technical matters ..................................... 5 ii. Clause 27 lacks procedural rules for expert determination ............................................................... 5 iii. Resolution of dispute before an expert is a duplication of effort ...................................................... 5 II. RESPONDENT IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE HAGUE-VISBY RULES ................................. 6 A. RESPONDENT has Failed to Provide a Seaworthy Vessel .................................................................... 6 B. RESPONDENT has Breached Article III rule 1 of the Hague-Visby Rules on Seaworthiness .............. 8 C. Alternatively, RESPONDENT Breached Article III Rule 2 on Storage and Care of Goods ................... 8 D. As a Result, RESPONDENT Cannot Rely on the Exceptions Contained within Article IV rule 2 ........ 9 III. RESPONDENT HAS BREACHED THE CHARTERPARTY ....................................................... 9 A. The Deviation to Spectre was Unjustifiable ........................................................................................ 9 B. The Delivery Occured on 31st July ................................................................................................... 10 i. Mere provision of the barcode does not amount to a delivery ........................................................ 11 ii. The discharge to port authority does not amount to delivery .......................................................... 11 iii. The provisions of the barcode does not constitute as symbolic delivery ........................................ 12 iv. RESPONDENT has not divested all of its power to control any physical dealing with the CARGO .. 13 C. RESPONDENT Cannot Rely on the Force Majeure Clause.................................................................. 14 i TEAM 23 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT i. The solar flare was a pre-existing condition ................................................................................... 14 ii. The hindrance by the storm has a causal connection with RESPONDENT’s breach of contract ....... 15 IV. RESPONDENT IS LIABLE FOR THE LOSS AND DAMAGES ............................................... 16 A. RESPONDENT is Liable for USD15,750,000 on Account of the Damaged CARGO ........................... 16 B. RESPONDENT’s Liability for the Damaged CARGO is not Limited by The Hague-Visby Rules ........ 16 C. In Any Event, the Limitation of Liability shall be Counted According to the Bags of Coffee......... 17 D. RESPONDENT is Liable for USD9,450,000 for the Replacement Coffee and USD 5,000,000 for the Settlement Payment.................................................................................................................................. 18 V. CLAIMANT HOLDS A MARITIME EQUITABLE LIEN OVER THE MADAM DRAGONFLY ............................................................................................................................................. 18 A. RESPONDENT has been Unjustly Enriched......................................................................................... 19 B. CLAIMANT is Subrogated for the Crew’s Maritime Lien for Wages ................................................. 20 VI. CLAIMANT IS NOT LIABLE FOR SUMS CLAIMED BY RESPONDENT ........................... 20 A. CLAIMANT is not Liable for Demurrage ............................................................................................ 20 B. RESPONDENT is not Entitled to Freight .............................................................................................. 21 C. CLAIMANT is not entitled to the cost of repairs to hull ...................................................................... 22 D. CLAIMANT is not Liable for the Agency Fees at the Port of Dillamond ........................................... 24 E. CLAIMANT is not Liable for Agency Fees at the Port of Spectre ....................................................... 24 F. CLAIMANT is not Liable for the Use of Electronic Access Systems at the Port of Dillamond .......... 24 REQUEST FOR RELIEF ......................................................................................................................... 25 ii TEAM 23 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CLAIMANT Cerulean Beans and Aromas ltd. RESPONDENT Dynamic Shipping LLC Charterparty The Voyage Charterparty between Claimant and Respondent CARGO 70.000 kg Coffee beans Force Majeure Event An event listed in Clause 17 of the Charterparty HVR Hague-Visby Rules 1968 UK Arbitration Act UK Arbitration Act 1996 LMAA Terms 2017 London Maritime Arbitrators Arbitration 2017 Parties Claimant and Respondent ¶ Paragraph iii TEAM 23 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT LIST OF AUTHORITIES Cases Amies v Stevens, [1795] EngR 38, 1 Str. 128 .............................................................................................. 19 Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36 ............................................................................................................... 30 Asfar v. Blundell [1896] 1 Q.B. 123 ............................................................................................................ 28 Austotel Pty Ltd v Franklins Selfserve Pty Ltd [1989] 16 NSWLR 582....................................................... 17 Badgin Nominees Pty. Ltd. v Oneida Ltd. anor [1998] VSC 188 ................................................................. 9 Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd v Menelaou [2015] UKSC 66 ......................................................................... 25, 26 Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd [1999] 1 AC 221 ............................................... 25, 26 Barker v Corus (UK) plc [2006] 2 W.L.R. 1027 ......................................................................................... 20 Benedetti v Sawiris [2014] AC 938 ............................................................................................................. 25 Bourne v Gatliff [1844] 11 Cl & Fin 45, 70; 8 ER 1019, 1029 ................................................................... 14 British Shipbuilders v VSEL Consortium Plc [1997] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 106. .................................................... 7 Bute (Marquess) v Barclays Bank Ltd [1955] 1 QB 202 ............................................................................. 17 Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130 ............................................ 17 Channel Tunnel Group v. Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [1993] A.C. 334 (H.L.).................................... 8 Commonwealth v Verwayen [1990] 170 CLR 394 ...................................................................................... 17 Cott UK Ltd. v. FE Barber Ltd. [1997] 3 All E.R. 540. ...................................................................... 8, 9, 10 CV Sheepvaartonderneming Ankergracht v Stemcor (A/sia) Pty Limited [2007] FCAFC 77 .............. 11, 21 DGT Steel and Cladding Ltd v Cubitt Building & Interiors Ltd [2007] BLR 371 ........................................ 7 Duthie v Hilton [1868] L.R. 4 C.P. 138 ....................................................................................................... 28 E. L. Oldendorff & Co. v. Tradax Export (The Johanna Oldendorff) [1974] A.C. 479 .............................. 27 iv TEAM 23 MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT F.C. Bradley & Sons Ltd. v Federal Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1927] 27 Ll. L. Rep. 395 ...................... 11 Fairchild v Glenhaven [2003] 1 A.C. 32 ..................................................................................................... 20 Federal Commerce v. Tradax Export (The Maratha Envoy) [1978] A.C. 1 ............................................... 27 Felthouse v Bindley [1862] 11 CB(NS) 869 ................................................................................................ 17 Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation and Others v Privalov and Others [2007] EWCA Civ 20 ............. 10 Fyffes v. Reefer Express (The Kriti Rex) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 .......................................................... 11 Gard Marine and Energy Limited v. China National Chartering Company Limited and others (Ocean Victory) [2017] UKSC 35. ................................................................................................................