EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime...

30
EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT \ UNIVERSITAS AIRLANGGA TEAM 18 FURNACE TRADING PTE LTD INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD (Claimant) (Respondent) V. TEAM 18 ANGGRAENI KESUMA N. SAMPURNA CRISTIAN REGINE WIRANATA SHOFY SUMA NISRINA TAMARA MEILIANA SISWANTO WALIDA AHSANA HAQUE

Transcript of EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime...

Page 1: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

i

EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT

2017

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

\

UNIVERSITAS AIRLANGGA

TEAM 18

FURNACE TRADING PTE LTD INFERNO RESOURCES SDN BHD

(Claimant) (Respondent)

V.

TEAM 18

ANGGRAENI KESUMA N. SAMPURNA

CRISTIAN

REGINE WIRANATA

SHOFY SUMA NISRINA

TAMARA MEILIANA SISWANTO

WALIDA AHSANA HAQUE

Page 2: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

ii

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... ii

ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................ v

LIST OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................... vi

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 1

I. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ORDER THE SALE OF THE

CARGO ON BOARD THE TARDY TESSA PENDENTE LITE ..................................... 3

A. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PRESENT DISPUTE ........ 3

(i) This Tribunal has jurisdiction over the Parties to the dispute ...................................... 3

(ii) This Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine issues arising out of the Voyage

Charterparty ......................................................................................................................... 3

(iii) This Tribunal has the jurisdiction to apply the International Arbitration Act (Cap

143A) .................................................................................................................................... 4

B. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ORDER PENDENTE LITE SALE

OF THE CARGO ................................................................................................................... 4

(i) The cargo belongs to a third party to the Voyage Charterparty .................................... 4

(ii) The Voyage Charterparty is not incorporated into the Bill of Lading ........................ 5

II. RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE TO CLAIMANT FOR DETENTION AND

OTHER DAMAGES UNDER THE VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY ................................ 7

A. RESPONDENT HAS NOT BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION TO NOMINATE A

SAFE PORT ........................................................................................................................... 7

(i) Respondent’s delay in nominating a Chinese port is justified ...................................... 7

Page 3: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

iii

(ii) Respondent has the right to nominate Busan as a discharge port earlier................... 9

B. RESPONDENT’S DELAY IN REMITTING FREIGHT IS NOT A

REPUDIATORY BREACH OF THE VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY ............................. 9

(i) Respondent’s obligation to pay freight is not a condition ............................................. 9

(ii) Claimant’s request to remit freight on discharge is not a fundamental breach ....... 10

C. HENCE, CLAIMANT HAS WRONGFULLY REPUDIATED THE VOYAGE

CHARTERPARTY .............................................................................................................. 11

(i) Claimant’s termination of the Voyage Charterparty is wrongful ............................... 11

(i) Consequently, Claimant has deprived itself from its rights thereunder ..................... 12

III. CLAIMANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXERCISE ANY LIEN OVER THE

CARGO ................................................................................................................................. 12

A. CLAIMANT HAS NO RIGHT TO EXERCISE LIEN OVER THE CARGO PER SE

................................................................................................................................................ 12

(i) Claimant has no common law lien over the cargo ...................................................... 12

(ii) Claimant has no contractual right to lien ................................................................... 14

B. IMLAM HAS NO RIGHT TO EXERCISE LIEN ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANT . 15

C. IN ANY EVENT, CLAIMANT CANNOT EXERCISE LIEN ON THE CARGO

TALIS QUALIS ..................................................................................................................... 17

IV. IT IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR JUST FOR THE CARGO ON BOARD THE

TARDY TESSA TO BE SOLD PENDENTE LITE .......................................................... 17

A. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CARGO TO BE SOLD PENDENTE LITE ... 17

(i) Sale of the cargo fails to preserve its value .................................................................. 17

(ii) There exist alternatives to the sale of the cargo ......................................................... 18

Page 4: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

iv

B. IT IS NOT JUST FOR THE CARGO TO BE SOLD PENDENTE LITE ................. 18

(i) Pendente lite sale of the cargo causes disproportionate harm to Respondent ........... 19

(ii) The harm suffered by Claimant is adequately reparable by an award of damages .. 19

REQUEST FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................... 21

Page 5: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

v

ABBREVIATIONS

Voyage Charterer

Inferno

Time Charterer Furnance

M/V Merchant Vessel

Master Tan Xiao Ming

SCMA Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration

SPSB Safe Port Safe Berth

Parties Claimant and Respondent

Vessel M/V Tardy Tessa

Port Discharge Port

IAA International Arbitration Act

Tribunal Present Arbitral Tribunal

Page 6: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

vi

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATION

International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) 2002...............................................................4,5,6

Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China 1992......................................................17

Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 179) 1996........................................................................18

Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration Rules 2015 (SCMA Rules).....................3,4

CASES and ARBITRAL AWARDS

Aegean Sea Traders Corporation v Repsol Petroleo SA

and Another [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 39....................................................................................8

Attorney-General of the Republic of Ghana v. Texaco

Overseas Tankships (The Texaco Melbourne) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 4731.........................19

Astrata (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Tridex Technologies Pte Ltd

and another and other matters [2010] SGHC 250........................................................ 18,19

Australian Wheat Board v Reardon Smith Line Ltd

(The Houston City) [1954] HCA 27....................................................................................8,9

Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation v Henry

Stephens Shipping Co Ltd and Tex-Dilan Shipping Co Ltd

(The SLS Everest) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 389........................................................................6

Bovis Lend Lease Pte Ltd v Jay-Tech Marine Projects Pte Ltd

and Another Application [2005] SGHC 91............................................................................3

Canadian Pacific (Bermuda) Ltd v. Lagon Maritime Overseas

(The Fort Kipp) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 168.........................................................................10

Cascade Shipping Inc v Eka Jaya Agencies (Pte) Ltd [1993] 1 SLR 980.....................13,14

Castleton Commodities Shipping Co Pte Ltd v Silver Rock Investments

(The “Clipper Monarch”) [2015] EWHC 2584.................................................................17

Cetelem SA v Roust Holdings Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 618.................................................17

Challenger Technologies Limited v Courts (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2015]

SGHC 218................................................................................................................18,19,20

Page 7: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

vii

Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd. v Coral (UK) Ltd. [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 641......................16

Concordia Agritrading Pte Ltd v Cornelder Hoogewerft (Singapore) Pte Ltd

[1999] 3 SLR(R) 618...........................................................................................................6

Dalwood Marine Co v Nordana Line A/S (The “Elbrus”) [2009]

EWHC 3394 (Comm).........................................................................................................12

Elder Dempster v. Paterson, Zochonis [1924] A.C. 552 (H.L.).....................................6,15

Emilia Shipping Inc v State Enterprises for Pulp and Paper Industries

[1991] 2 MLJ 379.........................................................................................................17,18

ENE Kos Ltd v Petroleo Brasileiro SA (The “Kos”) [2010]

1 Lloyd’s Rep 87; [2010] EWCA CIV 713; [2012] UKSC 17...........................................10

Five Ocean Corporation v Cingler Ship Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 311..........12,13,15,17,18

Harrison v. Huddersfield Steamship [1903] 19 T.L.R. 386..............................................15

Hongkong Fir Shipping Company v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Limited,

[1961] EWCA Civ 7..................................................................................................8,10,11

Hutton v Bragg [1974] 7 Taunt. 14 S.C. 2. Marsh. 339...................................................13

Italian State Railways v Mavrogordatos and Another [1919] 2 KB 305

(The “Antonios M Mavrogordatos”)................................................................................10

Jiang Haiying v Tan Lim Hui and Another Suit [2009] 4 SLR(R) 460..............................5

Jurong Engineering Ltd v Black & Veatch Singapore Pte Ltd

[2003] SGHC 292. P. 3.......................................................................................................3

Kirchner v Venus [1859] 12 Moore 361, 390...................................................................12

L&M Concrete Specialist Pte Ltd v United Eng Contractors Pte Ltd

[2000] 2 SLR(R) 852..........................................................................................................6

Leeds Shipping Co v Soci t Fran aise Bunge

(The Eastern City) [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127.....................................................................7

Leonis Steamship Co v. Rank (No. 2) [1908] Com. Cas. 295 (CA)....................................8

London and Northern Steamship Co Ltd v. Central Argentine Railway Ltd

[1913] 108 LT 527. .............................................................................................................8

Page 8: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

viii

Manchester Trust v. Furness, Withy [1895] 2 Q.B. 539 (C.A.).........................................15

Miramar Maritime Corporation v Holborn Oil Trading Ltd

(The “Miramar”) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 319...............................................................13,16

Molthes Rederi Aktieselskabet v Ellerman’s Wilson Line Ltd

[1926] 36 LI.L.Rep. 259.....................................................................................................13

Morris v. Baron & Co [1918] AC 1....................................................................................10

Mottram Consultants Ltd. v. Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd. [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 197.....15

Obestain v National Mineral Development Corp

(The Sanix Ace) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 465.........................................................................19

Samuel v. West Hartlepool Steam Navigation [1906] 11 Com Cas 115.............................15

Spar Shipping A.S v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd

[2016] EWCA CIV 982...................................................................................................10,11

Star-Trans Far East Pte Ltd v Norske-Tech Ltd [1996] 2 SLR(R) 196.................................6

The “Berkshire” [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 185........................................................................14

The “Dwima 1” [1996] 2 SLR 670; [1996] SGHC 83.........................................................12

The Federal Bulker [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 103......................................................................5

The Rena K [1979] Q.B. 377..................................................................................................5

The Rewia [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325 (C.A.).......................................................................14

The “Star Quest” and others [2016] SGHC 100...................................................................6

The “Starsin” [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 85..............................................................................14

Tillmanns v. Knutsford [1908] 2 K.B. 385 (C.A.), [1908] A.C. 406 (H.L.)........................14

Tradigrain SA v. King Diamond Marine Ltd

“The Spiros C” [2000] Int.Com.L.R. 07/13........................................................................16

Tudor Marine v. Tradax (The Virgo) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 135, 143.................................5

Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] EWHC K57 (QB)......................................................................5

Page 9: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

ix

Wegener v Smith (1854) 15 CB 285, 139 ER 432.................................................................6

Wehner & Ors v Dene Steam Shipping Co & Ors [1905] 2 KB 92...............................13,14

Wilston v. Andrew Weir [1925] 22 L.I.L.Rep. 521..............................................................14

WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd v. Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka [2002] 1 SLR(R)......19

Zim Israel Navigation Co Ltd v. Tradax Export SA

(The Timna) [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 409.................................................................................8

OTHER SOURCES

David Joseph & David Foxton, Singapore International Arbitration: Law and Practice

(Singapore: LexisNexis, 2014).......................................................................................4,5,18

John F. Wilson, Carriage of Goods by Sea (Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2010).................9

Julian Cooke et al., Voyage Charters (London: Informa Law, 1993)...........................16,19

Leonard A. Jones, A Treatise on the Law of Liens, Common Law,

Statutory, Equitable and Maritime (New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, 2005)...........15

Martin Dockray, Cases and Materials on the Carriage of Goods by Sea,

(Psychology Press, 2004).......................................................................................................8

Richard Aikens, Richard Lord, & Michael Bools, Bills of Lading

(Oxon: Informa Law, 2016)..................................................................................................6

The Law of Contract (East Kilbride: LexisNexis, 2003)........................................................5

Voyage Charterparty.................................................1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16

Yong Hai Fa Wen Quan Zi [2011] NMC No. 1...................................................................17

Yvonne Baatz, Maritime Law (Oxon: Informa Law, 2008)..................................................15

Page 10: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

1

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The vessel M/V Tardy Tessa, owned by Imlam Consignorist GmbH, was chartered on a

Time Charterparty to Furnace Trading Pte Ltd (CLAIMANT). Subsequently, it was

chartered by CLAIMANT to Inferno Resources Pte Ltd (RESPONDENT) on a Voyage

Charterparty for a shipment of Australian Anthracite dated September 1, 2016. Under the

Charterparty, freight was to be paid 5 days after the beginning of the voyage, and the

discharge port was to be a safe port and safe berth in China, to be declared by

RESPONDENT when the vessel passed Singapore for bunkering.

2. RESPONDENT in turn sub-let the vessel to Idoncare Berjaya Utama Pty Ltd, owners of the

shipped cargo. A Bill of Lading was issued, naming Idoncare as shipper and signed by the

Master of the vessel. The vessel began its voyage on December 4, 2016.

3. On October 10, 2016, CLAIMANT notified RESPONDENT that the vessel had arrived in

Singapore and demanded freight, which had been due a day earlier, and the nomination of a

port. RESPONDENT replied that it was unable to do either for the time being, as Idoncare

had neither remitted freight nor nominated a port.

4. Due to a congestion in Chinese ports, on October 16, 2016, RESPONDENT requested

CLAIMANT to redirect the vessel for a discharge at Busan, South Korea. CLAIMANT

refused on the basis of it being outside of the permitted range under the Voyage Charterparty

and Time Charterparty, and alleged that it was not a safe port due to the arrival of zombies

onboard a train. RESPONDENT’s evidence to the contrary was dismissed by CLAIMANT.

5. CLAIMANT gave an ultimatum to RESPONDENT that if RESPONDENT did not nominate

a discharge port or remit freight by October 20, 2016, CLAIMANT would terminate the

Page 11: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

2

Voyage Charterparty and claim all losses incurred. As Idoncare had yet to remit freight or

nominate a port, RESPONDENT could not do so by the set date.

6. On October 20, 2016, CLAIMANT sent a notice of lien to RESPONDENT and Idoncare via

All’s Good over the cargo on board the vessel. The next day, RESPONDENT nominated the

discharge port of Ningbo, China, and promised to remit freight after discharge of the cargo.

In spite of this, On October 22, 2016, CLAIMANT arbitrarily the Voyage Charterparty.

7. CLAIMANT sent a notice of arbitration to RESPONDENT and Idoncare on November 25,

2016. RESPONDENT and Idoncare consented to it being dealt with by an arbitration under

the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration. Subsequently, CLAIMANT created an

urgent application for consolidation and liberty to sell the cargo, on December 1, 2016.

RESPONDENT and Idoncare agreed to the consolidation, and Idoncare declined to make

submissions at the oral hearing.

Page 12: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

3

ARGUMENT ON JURISDICTION

I. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ORDER THE SALE OF THE

CARGO ON BOARD THE TARDY TESSA PENDENTE LITE

A. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PRESENT DISPUTE

(i) This Tribunal has jurisdiction over the Parties to the dispute

8. The arbitration regime which governs an arbitral proceedings is to be determined by the

parties to a dispute.1 In the present case, the Parties have agreed to resolve their disputes

under the SCMA: Claimant and Respondent pursuant to Clause 29 of the Voyage

Charterparty;2 and Claimant and Idoncare pursuant to the Notice of Arbitration and

Response thereto.3 The Parties have further agreed to consolidate the two aforementioned

arbitration proceedings,4 and pursuant to such consent, under Rule 33.2 of the SCMA Rules

parties may be added by this Tribunal to the arbitration proceedings.5 Consequently, this

Tribunal has the power to determine disputes between the Parties.

(ii) This Tribunal has the jurisdiction to determine issues arising out of the Voyage

Charterparty

9. Rule 20 of the SCMA Rules grants this Tribunal jurisdiction to determine all disputes arising

under or in connection with the subject of reference.6 Claimant and Respondent have agreed

that a dispute has arisen out of the Voyage Charterparty.7 As such, with regards to the

1 Jurong Engineering Ltd v Black & Veatch Singapore Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 292; Bovis Lend Lease Pte Ltd v

Jay-Tech Marine Projects Pte Ltd and Another Application [2005] SGHC 91 2 Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 26, Clause 29

3 Ibid at 72, 84

4 Ibid at 90, 93, 95

5 Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration Rules 2015 (“SCMA Rules”); Rule 33.2

6 SCMA Rules; Rule 20

7 Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 76-82, 86-88

Page 13: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

4

subject of the current dispute, this Tribunal has the jurisdiction over issues arising out of, or

in connection with, the Voyage Charterparty.

(iii) This Tribunal has the jurisdiction to apply the International Arbitration Act (Cap

143A)

1. 10. The doctrine of Kompetenz-Kompetenz as embodied in Article 16(1) of the

UNCITRAL Model Law dictates that this Tribunal has the competence to rule on its

jurisdiction.8 Pursuant to Rule 21 of the SCMA Rules, this Tribunal shall apply the law

designated by the parties as applicable to the substance of the dispute,9 which in Clause 29.

LAW AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION is Singapore law.10

Rule 2 of the SCMA Rules gives

a force of law to the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A).11

The present dispute is an

international arbitration under the IAA,12

two Parties, Respondent and Idoncare, have their

places of business outside of Singapore, in Malaysia and Australia respectively.13

B. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ORDER PENDENTE LITE SALE

OF THE CARGO

(i) The cargo belongs to a third party to the Voyage Charterparty

11. Although the International Arbitration Act indeed empowers this Tribunal to grant interim

relief,14

such a relief does not exist against third parties.15

Claimant’s assertion that its right

8 International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) 2002 (“International Arbitration Act”); Sect 3(1);

UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (“UNCITRAL Model Law”); Art 16(1) 9 SCMA Rules; Rule 21

10 Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 23

11 SCMA Rules; Rule 2

12 International Arbitration Act; Sect 5(2)

13 Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 71, 77

14 International Arbitration Act; Sect 12(1)

15 David Joseph & David Foxton, Singapore International Arbitration: Law and Practice (Singapore:

LexisNexis, 2014)

Page 14: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

5

to sell the cargo pursuant to its right to lien under the Voyage Charterparty is erroneous,16

as

the cargo belongs to no party named thereunder as owners and charterers,17

but instead to

Idoncare, who is a third party to the contract.18

12. Idoncare remains a third party in spite of its inclusion into the arbitration proceedings.

According to the doctrine of privity of contract, Idoncare may not be forced to arbitrate

under an arbitration agreement to which it is not a party.19

Claimant and Idoncare’s

arbitration is non-contractual for purposes of the IAA,20

as Idoncare has disagreed to

arbitrate under the Voyage Charterparty.21

Hence, it remains a third party, against whom

interim relief may not be enforced.

(ii) The Voyage Charterparty is not incorporated into the Bill of Lading

13. The right to lien, if any, exists only under the Bill of Lading under which the cargo is

shipped, which names Imlam as carrier and Idoncare as shipper.22

However, such a bill of

lading falls outside the scope of the present dispute. A bill of lading is in essence the contract

between the Parties to the bill,23

and for commercial certainty, terms outside of it may only

apply through a strict test of incorporation.24

In the present case, no such incorporation has

been made to the Voyage Charterparty.

16

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 74 17

Tudor Marine v. Tradax (The Virgo) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 135, 143 18

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 20, 41-46, 72, 83-84 19

Jiang Haiying v Tan Lim Hui and Another Suit [2009] 4 SLR(R) 460; Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] EWHC

K57 (QB); David Joseph & David Foxton, Singapore International Arbitration: Law and Practice (Singapore:

LexisNexis, 2014); Hugh Collins, The Law of Contract (East Kilbride: LexisNexis, 2003), at 302 20

International Arbitration Act; Sect 2A(1) 21

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 84 22

Ibid, at 41, 43, 45. 23

The Rena K [1979] Q.B. 377 24

The Federal Bulker [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 103

Page 15: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

6

14. Clauses contained within a charterparty can be invoked if it is incorporated into the Bill of

Lading,25

in specific and sufficiently clear terms.26

On the contrary, the Bill of Lading states

only “freight payable as per charterparty” in the face of the Bill of Lading, and incorporates

“all terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the Charter Party, dated as overleaf”

in the Conditions of Carriage, with no identification of the incorporated charter party.27

15. Consequently, the provisions could be construed to refer to the sub-voyage charterparty

between Respondent and Idoncare, under which the goods are being carried.28

Shipping

practices allow the use of the term “freight payable as per charterparty” for a shipper to

protect himself against the “double jeopardy” of a claim for freight under a charter party and

a bill of lading.29

It would only be reasonable for Idoncare to infer that such a term is

intended to protect it against such a claim.

25

International Arbitration Act; Art 2A(8), Wegener v Smith (1854) 15 CB 285, 139 ER 432 26

Star-Trans Far East Pte Ltd v Norske-Tech Ltd [1996] 2 SLR(R) 196; Concordia Agritrading Pte Ltd v

Cornelder Hoogewerft (Singapore) Pte Ltd [1999] 3 SLR(R) 618; L&M Concrete Specialist Pte Ltd v United

Eng Contractors Pte Ltd [2000] 2 SLR(R) 852 27

Ibid, at 41, 73 28

The “Star Quest” and others [2016] SGHC 100; Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation v Henry

Stephens Shipping Co Ltd and Tex-Dilan Shipping Co Ltd (The SLS Everest) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 389 at 391–

392 29

Richard Aikens, Richard Lord, & Michael Bools, Bills of Lading (Oxon: Informa Law, 2016)

Page 16: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

7

ARGUMENTS ON MERITS

II. RESPONDENT IS NOT LIABLE TO CLAIMANT FOR DETENTION AND

OTHER DAMAGES UNDER THE VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY

A. RESPONDENT HAS NOT BREACHED ITS OBLIGATION TO NOMINATE A

SAFE PORT

(i) Respondent’s delay in nominating a Chinese port is justified

a. Respondent’s delayed nomination of a Chinese port is due to unsafe conditions thereof

16. Respondent has nominated Ningbo as the discharge port, right before the contract was

arbitrarily repudiated by the Claimant.30

Although Respondent’s initial inability to nominate

a Chinese port when the vessel passed Singapore was due to a delay from the sub-

charterers,31

however subsequent reports that there was congestion in the Chinese ports had

made it impossible for Respondent to nominate a safe port within the scope of the

Charterparty.32

17. Even though a safe port warranty clause is absent from the charterparty, the charterer would

still have an obligation to fulfill a safe port warranty.33

A port will not be safe unless, in the

relevant period of time, a particular ship can reach it, use it and return from it without, in the

absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by

good navigation and seamanship.34

For a charterer to order a ship to a port that is unsafe

30

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 67. 31

Ibid, at 57. 32

Ibid, at 58. 33

The Aegean Sea [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 39 34 Leeds Shipping Co v Soci t Fran aise Bunge (The Eastern City) [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127 at 131.

Page 17: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

8

itself is a breach of obligation imposed by the charter,35

and if the ship is damaged through

going there, he will be liable for the damage.36

18. Congestion in a discharge port due to strike and other hindrances may bring high risks in

damaging the cargo through delay of the discharge. Further, congestion requires extra costs,

loss of trade, and disruption of trade and transport agreements, as cargo and equipment do

not move efficiently through the terminals.37

To avoid liability for dangers posed by the

congestion, Respondent could not nominate a safe port in China until October 21, 2016.

b. The delay is not a serious breach under the Voyage Charterparty a quo

19. In itself, a failure to nominate a discharge port in sufficient time by a charterer would only

entitle a shipowner to claim detention for the delay until the charterers did give orders as to

which port to proceed to.38

Any term within a charter party can only be categorized as a

condition should it be the intention of the Parties.39

Hence, in the absence of an agreement

between the Parties to establish timely nomination as a condition,40

a delay in the nomination

of the safe port is not a condition of the Voyage Charterparty. Instead, it is an innominate

term, where the effect of non-performance will only depend on the nature or the

consequences of the breach.41

In the present case, Respondent had eventually nominated a

safe port in Ningbo, China,42

with no adverse consequences to Claimant. Hence, Claimant

has no right to treat the breach as repudiatory.

35

Australian Wheat Board v Reardon Smith Line Ltd (The Houston City) [1954] HCA 27, para 10. 36

The Houston City; Hall Bros Steamship Co, Ltd v R and W Paul, Ltd (1914) 111 LT 811 at para 81; Aegean

Sea Traders Corporation v Repsol Petroleo SA and Another [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 39. 37

Leonis Steamship Co v. Rank (No. 2) [1908] Com. Cas. 295 (CA); London and Northern Steamship Co Ltd v.

Central Argentine Railway Ltd [1913] 108 LT 527. 38

Zim Israel Navigation Co Ltd v. Tradax Export SA (The Timna) [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 409 39

Hongkong Fir Shipping Company v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Limited, [1961] EWCA Civ 7 40

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 20-23. 41

Martin Dockray, Cases and Materials on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, (Psychology Press, 2004, p. 25. 42

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 67.

Page 18: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

9

(ii) Respondent has the right to nominate Busan as a discharge port earlier

20. If a charterer considers a port of discharge unsafe, he may discharge the cargo elsewhere and

justify the course he has taken as to the unsafeness of the original port.43

In the present case,

Respondent has deemed Chinese ports unsafe, and hence nominated Busan as a discharge

port.44

However, Claimant refused such a nomination.45

21. Whereby the safety of a port is in doubt, it is the charterer who must bear the responsibility

of his choice,46

and owners should be entitled to rely on the place nominated being safe.47

Claimant’s refusal to comply by alleging that Busan was unsafe is hence not justified.

Respondent has guaranteed the safety of the port, as Korean military have secured the area

and vessels have berthed in Busan with no issues.48

Consequently, Claimant bears no risk in

accommodating Respondent’s request. Even if Busan eventually turned out to be unsafe,

Claimant could seek remedies based on the safe port warranty, but still would not be

justified in terminating the contract.49

B. RESPONDENT’S DELAY IN REMITTING FREIGHT IS NOT A

REPUDIATORY BREACH OF THE VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY

(i) Respondent’s obligation to pay freight is not a condition

22. Respondent had indeed failed to pay freight by the time stated on the charter party, due to

the not having received the same from Idoncare.50

However, a late payment is not of itself a

43

Australian Wheat Board v Reardon Smith Line Ltd (The Houston City) [1954] HCA 27, para 7. 44

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 57 45

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 58, 60 46

Australian Wheat Board v Reardon Smith Line Ltd (The Houston City) [1954] HCA 27, para 8. 47

Australian Wheat Board v Reardon Smith Line Ltd (The Houston City) [1954] HCA 27 48

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 60 49

John F. Wilson, Carriage of Goods by Sea (Harlow: Pearson Longman, 2010), p. 16. 50

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 56

Page 19: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

10

repudiatory breach entitling the owners, in the absence of a withdrawal provision, to

terminate the charter.51

In the present case, such a provision is absent from the Voyage

Charterparty.52

Moreover, the shipping community does not consider the desideratum of

commercial certainty for future performance to be such as to require payment to be treated as

a condition.53

(ii) Claimant’s request to remit freight on discharge is not a fundamental breach

23. Instead, the categorization of freight as a term by default is an innominate term,54

and

Claimant can only be considered to have fundamentally breached the contract if it denies

Respondent the benefit of the contract.55

In the present case, such a benefit is the receipt of

freight by Claimant, which Respondent has agreed to fulfill through the payment of freight at

the discharge of the cargo.56

The payment of freight on completion of discharge would not

deprive Claimant of the right to guarantee freight due to it, as a shipowner would still be

entitled to exercise lien for the cargo as remained under its control.57

Although such a

method of payment indeed deviates from Clause 19. FREIGHT of the Voyage Charterparty,

Claimant and Respondent may alter such a term pursuant to an agreement.58

51

Spar Shipping A.S v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd [2016] EWCA CIV 982; Italian State

Railways v Mavrogordatos and Another (The “Antonios M Mavrogordatos”) [1919] 2 KB 305; ENE Kos Ltd v

Petroleo Brasileiro SA (The “Kos”) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87; [2010] EWCA CIV 713; [2012] UKSC 17. 52

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 20 - 23. 53

Spar Shipping A.S v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd [2016] EWCA CIV 982, para 201. 54

Spar Shipping A.S v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd [2016] EWCA CIV 982. 55

Hongkong Fir Shipping Company v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Limited, [1961] EWCA Civ 7 56

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 69. 57

Canadian Pacific (Bermuda) Ltd v. Lagon Maritime Overseas (The Fort Kipp) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 168 58

Morris v. Baron & Co [1918] AC 1

Page 20: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

11

C. HENCE, CLAIMANT HAS WRONGFULLY REPUDIATED THE VOYAGE

CHARTERPARTY

(i) Claimant’s termination of the Voyage Charterparty is wrongful

24. In the absence of any relevant contractual or statutory provision, the contract can be treated

as terminated by the innocent party only when a breach of a condition has occurred.59

Such

a breach goes to the root of the contract or is one that deprives the innocent party of

substantially the whole benefit of the contract.60

Upon the breach of innominate terms, the

legal consequences of the breach only depend upon the factual consequences caused by the

breach.61

If the breach of contract does not make the performance stray significantly from

the parties’ intention, the contract shall not be undermined.62

25. Hence, the Voyage Charterparty would only be terminated if Respondent has shown any

intention to not perform their obligations any longer or a refusal to perform all, or

substantially all, of its obligations under the charterparty.63

On the contrary, until right

before the Charterparty was terminated, Respondent had attempted to perform their

obligations under the charterparty and had no intentions to end the contract. 64

Thus,

Claimant has wrongfully terminated the Voyage Charterparty.

59

Spar Shipping A.S v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd [2016] EWCA CIV 982, para 96. 60

Spar Shipping A.S v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd [2016] EWCA CIV 982, Ibid;

Hongkong Fir Shipping Company v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Limited, [1961] EWCA Civ 7. 61

Hongkong Fir Shipping Company v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Limited, [1961] EWCA Civ 7. 62

Hongkong Fir Shipping Company v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Limited, [1961] EWCA Civ 7. 63

Hongkong Fir Shipping Company v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Limited, [1961] EWCA Civ 7. 64

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 58 and 61.

Page 21: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

12

(i) Consequently, Claimant has deprived itself from its rights thereunder

Claimant has, as a consequence of its unjustified termination of the contract, wrongfully

repudiated the Voyage Charterparty. Such a declaration could become a wrongful act, if the

injured party elects to treat it as such.65

In the present case, Respondent has accepted

Claimant’s termination as a repudiatory breach under the Voyage Charterparty.66

Wrongful

repudiation, in itself, results in the loss of benefit that was intended in the making of the

contract. 67

Hence, Claimant is not entitled to claim the benefits of the Voyage Charterparty

in the form of freight and other sums due to it.

III. CLAIMANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXERCISE ANY LIEN OVER THE

CARGO

A. CLAIMANT HAS NO RIGHT TO EXERCISE LIEN OVER THE CARGO PER SE

(i) Claimant has no common law lien over the cargo

29. A right to lien at common law, which is recognized by Singaporean law,68

arises

independently by implication of law for freight due under a carriage.69

Such a right is a self-

help remedy enacted in defense to an action for recovery of the goods by a person who

would otherwise be entitled to immediate possession.70

On the contrary, Claimant neither

has possession of the cargo, nor right to freight due under the carriage.

65

Hochster v. De La Tour [1853] 2 E&B 678 66

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 69 67

Dalwood Marine Co v Nordana Line A/S (The “Elbrus”) [2009] EWHC 3394 (Comm) 68

Five Ocean Corporation v Cingler Ship Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 311 69

Kirchner v Venus [1859] 12 Moore 361, 390 70

The “Dwima 1” [1996] 2 SLR 670; [1996] SGHC 83

Page 22: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

13

a. Claimant has no possession of the cargo

30. A common law lien is possessory in nature.71

On the contrary, Claimant has no possession of

the cargo. Clause 26. NAVIGATION of the Time Charterparty provides that the Vessel is

not demised to Claimant, and that IMLAM remains responsible for navigation of the

Vessel.72

Consequently, Claimant has no possession of the ship as a time charterer,73

which

amounts to it not having any possession over the goods.74

Consequently, it is not entitled to

exercise any common law lien over the cargo.

b. Claimant has no freight due to it from Idoncare

31. In order for Claimant to claim lien over the cargo, Idoncare as its owner must owe its debt in

respect to Claimant which is entitled to the lien.75

On the contrary, Idoncare has no

contractual relation with Claimant over which Claimant is entitled to freight. Even if the

freight clause is incorporated into the Bill of Lading, the Voyage Charterparty only imposes

freight on Respondent.76

The incorporation of a clause into a Charterparty does not allow for

a construction as to change the identity of the party in said clause into a party in the bill of

lading.77

As Claimant is not entitled to freight from Idoncare, it has no claim over the cargo.

71

Five Ocean Corporation v Cingler Ship Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 311 72

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 10 73

Cascade Shipping Inc v Eka Jaya Agencies (Pte) Ltd [1993] 1 SLR 980; [1993] SGCA 7; Wehner & Ors v

Dene Steam Shipping Co & Ors [1905] 2 KB 92; Molthes Rederi Aktieselskabet v Ellerman’s Wilson Line Ltd

[1926] 36 LI.L.Rep. 259 74

Hutton v Bragg, 7 Taunt. 14 S.C. 2. Marsh. 339 75

Molthes Rederi Aktieselskabet v. Ellerman's Wilson Line Ltd [1926] 26 Ll.L.Rep. 259 76

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 22. 77

Miramar Maritime Corporation v Holborn Oil Trading Ltd (The “Miramar”) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 319

Page 23: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

14

(ii) Claimant has no contractual right to lien

a. Claimant has no right to lien under the Bill of Lading

i. IMLAM is the carrier under the Bill of Lading

32. A bill of lading is essentially an evidence of contract between a shipowner and a shipper.78

Where a Charterparty does not amount to a demise of the ship, and possession thereof is not

given up to the charterer, the contract contained in the bill of lading is made with the

owner.79

As proven supra, Claimant is not established as the shipowner.80

Consequently, the

Bill of Lading is an evidence of contract between Idoncare as shipper and IMLAM as carrier,

and not Claimant.

ii. The Bill of Lading was not issued on behalf of Claimant

33. Claimant may no further contend that such Bill of Lading was issued pursuant to the

Voyage Charterparty. To determine whether a contract of carriage is made with a shipowner

or time charterer, the manner of the signature of the bill must be the primary consideration.81

In the present dispute, the Bill of Lading was signed by the Master of the M/V Tardy

Tessa,82

who by default is an agent of IMLAM.83

34. A Master’s signature can only bind Claimant as charterer if the wording of the bill of lading

and the surrounding circumstances unambiguously state that the Master, in signing, was

78

The “Berkshire” [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 185 79

Cascade Shipping Inc. v Eka Jaya Agencies (Pte) Ltd [1993] 1 SLR 980; [1993] SGCA 7 80

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 10. 81

The “Starsin” [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 85 82

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 41, 43, 45 83

Wehner v Dene Steam Shipping Co [1905] 2 K.B. 92; Tillmanns v. Knutsford [1908] 2 K.B. 385 (C.A.),

[1908] A.C. 406 (H.L.); Wilston v. Andrew Weir [1925] 22 L.I.L.Rep. 521; The Rewia [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep

325 (C.A.).

Page 24: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

15

acting as an agent of Claimant.84

This must be done through an agreement between the

shipowner and charterer that the master had no authority to enter into a bill of lading contract

on behalf of the shipowner,85

and a clear statement on the bill of lading indicating that the

master signed as agent for charterer.86

On the contrary, there was no such indication in the

Time Charterparty between IMLAM and Claimant,87

nor on the Bill of Lading.88

b. Claimant has no right to lien under the Voyage Charterparty

35. Claimant would only be entitled to lien over third party cargo if the Voyage Charterparty

incorporated into the Bill of Lading itself contained an express contractual right to lien on

behalf of Claimant for cargo aboard the Vessel.89

On the contrary, there is no right to lien

embodied in the Voyage Charterparty in the present case.90

Such right only exists under the

STANDARD COAL-OREVOY sent to Claimant as an attachment,91

however the lien clause

was deleted in the Voyage Charterparty, thus it ceases to exist.92

Without such clause,

Claimant has no right to exercise lien for amounts due to it from Respondent.

B. IMLAM HAS NO RIGHT TO EXERCISE LIEN ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANT

36. A time charterer’s contractual right to lien may indeed entitle it to direct the shipowner to

detain a shipper’s cargo as an equitable assignee, by the means of the term “freight payable

as per charterparty”.93

However, such term only enables a shipowner to exercise lien if it has

84

Harrison v. Huddersfield Steamship [1903] 19 T.L.R. 386; Samuel v. West Hartlepool Steam Navigation

[1906] 11 Com Cas 115; Elder Dempster v. Paterson, Zochonis [1924] A.C. 552 (H.L.) 85

Harrison v. Huddersfield Steamship [1903] 19 T.L.R. 386 86

Manchester Trust v. Furness, Withy [1895] 2 Q.B. 539 (C.A.). 87

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 1-19. 88

Ibid, at 41-46 89

Yvonne Baatz, Maritime Law (Oxon: Informa Law, 2008), Leonard A. Jones, A Treatise on the Law of

Liens, Common Law, Statutory, Equitable and Maritime (New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, 2005) 90

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 20-23. 91

Ibid at 31, Clause 19 92

Mottram Consultants Ltd. v. Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd. [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 197 93

Five Ocean Corporation v Cingler Ship Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 311

Page 25: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

16

the legal right to the freight, whoever else may have equitable or beneficial rights to the

freight in its hands.94

On the contrary, no such right exists for IMLAM in the present dispute.

37. The Voyage Charterparty does not concoct an obligation for Idoncare to pay freight.

Whereby a charter party contains provisions on freight, a shipowner’s claim is limited to the

ones contained within the charterparty, and is a subject to any variations therein.95

Clause 19.

FREIGHT stipulates that freight is payable by the Charterers, which under Clause 4.

CHARTERERS is Respondent and not Idoncare.96

No construction of the contract may be

made to alter the identity of the Parties.97

Hence, Idoncare has no obligation to pay freight

under the Voyage Charterparty.

38. Furthermore, Idoncare is only contractually obliged to pay Respondent under its agreement.

A shipper does not necessarily need to agree to pay freight under a bill of lading. In the

condition where the agreement for freight is between the shipper and a third party who is not

the shipowner, there exists no agreement to pay freight between the shipper and shipowner.98

Idoncare has agreed for freight to be payable towards Respondent and not IMLAM,99

and

there exists no right for IMLAM to demand freight from Idoncare.

94

Julian Cooke et al., Voyage Charters (London: Informa Law, 1993) 95

Tradigrain SA v. King Diamond Marine Ltd “The Spiros C” [2000] Int.Com.L.R. 07/13 96

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 20-21. 97

Miramar Maritime Corp v. Holborn Oil Trading Ltd [1984] 1 AC 676 98

Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd. v Coral (UK) Ltd. [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 641 99

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 83-84.

Page 26: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

17

C. IN ANY EVENT, CLAIMANT CANNOT EXERCISE LIEN ON THE CARGO

TALIS QUALIS

39. A lien is, essentially, the denial of possession of the cargo to someone who wants it. Under

such basis, as no party wants delivery of the cargo at the bunkering port en route to the

discharging port, at that point a shipowner is not entitled to enforce the lien. Such action

would only be justified should lien not be enforceable at the port of discharge.100

40. In the event that this Tribunal holds that a lien exists, and is validly incorporated into the Bill

of Lading, Claimant would be entitled to lien at the last nominated port of discharge in

Ningbo, China. Pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the Chinese Maritime Code, lien for cargo

in the international carriage of goods by sea is enforceable.101

In addition, The Ningbo local

court recognizes the existence of lien.102

As a consequence, as Claimant has not exercised its

lien in the appropriate location, its assertion of a right to lien is unenforceable.

IV. IT IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR JUST FOR THE CARGO ON BOARD THE

TARDY TESSA TO BE SOLD PENDENTE LITE

A. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CARGO TO BE SOLD PENDENTE LITE

(i) Sale of the cargo fails to preserve its value

41. An order to sell a cargo could be considered necessary in order to preserve the value of the

cargo, which would otherwise be lost or diminished.103

Contrary to the purpose of

preservation, the Parties’ joint expert report in valuation of the coal notes that the distressed

100

International Bulk Carriers v Evlogia Shipping (The Mihalios Xilas) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 186. 101

Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China 1992; Art. 87-88. 102

Yong Hai Fa Wen Quan Zi [2011] NMC No. 1 103

Five Ocean Corporation v Cingler Ship Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 311; Emilia Shipping Inc v State Enterprises

for Pulp and Paper Industries [1991] 2 MLJ 379, Castleton Commodities Shipping Co Pte Ltd v Silver Rock

Investments (The “Clipper Monarch”) [2015] EWHC 2584; Cetelem SA v Roust Holdings Ltd [2005] EWCA

Civ 618.

Page 27: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

18

nature of the cargo would itself diminish such a value.104

Accordingly, the very purpose of

preservation would not be achieved through a sale of the cargo.

(ii) There exist alternatives to the sale of the cargo

42. Sale of distressed cargo could be held necessary in the event that no alternatives exist to

preserve the right to lien.105

On the contrary, even if this Tribunal holds that Claimant is

entitled to lien, as argued supra, Claimant has the ability to exercise lien in the discharge

port of Ningbo, without having to order the ship to remain afloat off-port outside Singapore

in deprived conditions.

43. Alternatively, in the event that this Tribunal holds that Claimant does not have the ability to

exercise lien in Ningbo, Claimant has the option of berthing in Singapore, where the Vessel

is remaining afloat off-port limits.106

Singaporean law recognizes that liened cargo remains

subject to lien when discharged to the custody of a wharfinger or warehouseman with

written notice of such.107

As such, through discharge, Claimant can prevent further

deterioration of the cargo and the crew of the vessel without reducing its value.

B. IT IS NOT JUST FOR THE CARGO TO BE SOLD PENDENTE LITE

44. To fulfill the element of justice, the pendente lite sale must fulfill the American Cyanamid

Co v Ethicon Ltd test of balance of convenience.108

Such a test stipulates that the harm

caused by a lack of enforcement substantially outweighs the harm that is likely to result to

the party against whom measure is sought, and is not adequately reparable by an award of

104

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 101-102. 105

Five Ocean Corporation v Cingler Ship Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 311; Castleton Commodities Shipping

Company Pte Ltd v Silver Rock Investments [2015] EWHC 2584; Emilia Shipping Inc v State Enterprise for

Pulp and Paper Industries [1991] 1 SLR(3) 411. 106

Moot Scenario (9 December 2016) at 97. 107

Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 179) 1996; Art. 127 108

Astrata (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Tridex Technologies Pte Ltd and another and other matters [2010] SGHC

250; Challenger Technologies Limited v Courts (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 218;

David Joseph QC & David Foxton QC (ed.), Singapore International Arbitration: Law & Practice (Singapore:

LexisNexis, 2014).

Page 28: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

19

damages.109

Should the balance of convenience tip in favor of Respondent’s request not to

create an interim measure, such measure may not be enforced.110

(i) Pendente lite sale of the cargo causes disproportionate harm to Respondent

45. This Tribunal must take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice in the

event that relief is granted to a party.111

Should this Tribunal make an order for sale of the

cargo, in the event that this Tribunal eventually grants an award in favor of Respondent,

substantial losses would have been suffered by Respondent and Idoncare. As argued supra,

Idoncare would have been deprived of full proceeds of the cargo. Idoncare would further

have a reason to indemnify Respondent for losses of the cargo.112

Such damages clearly

outweigh that suffered by Claimant in the event that interim sale is not granted, which is the

necessity to lay berth and lien the cargo off the ship, costs of which would be payable to

Claimant should this Tribunal hold Respondent wrongful.113

(ii) The harm suffered by Claimant is adequately reparable by an award of damages

46. The test additionally stipulates the provision of evidence adduced by both parties that if a

relief is not granted, the applicant’s legal rights would be violated in a manner that would be

incapable of being compensated.114

In contrast, in the present dispute, Claimant’s alleged

right to freight and damages would not be violated in the event that this Tribunal does not

grant the right to sale over the cargo. Claimant would still be able to seek damages arising

109

Astrata (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Tridex Technologies Pte Ltd and another and other matters [2010] SGHC

250; Challenger Technologies Limited v Courts (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 218; 110

WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd v. Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka [2002] 1 SLR(R). 111

Challenger Technologies Limited v Courts (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 218; 112

Attorney-General of the Republic of Ghana v. Texaco Overseas Tankships (The Texaco Melbourne) [1994]

1 Lloyd’s Rep 473; Obestain v National Mineral Development Corp (The Sanix Ace) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep

465. 113

Julian Cooke et al., Voyage Charters (London: Informa Law, 1993). 114

American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396.

Page 29: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

20

under the alleged breaches of contract by Respondent through the decision of this

Tribunal.115

115

Challenger Technologies Limited v Courts (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 218

Page 30: EIGHTEENTH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT … · i eighteenth international maritime law arbitration moot 2017 memorandum for the respondent \ universitas airlangga team

21

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

For the reasons set above, the Respondent requests the Tribunal to adjuge and declare :

1) This Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction and/or power to grant liberty to the

Claimant to sell the cargo on board the MV TARDY TESSA pendente lite.

2) The Respondent is not liable to the Claimant for detention and/or other damages

under the Voyage Charterparty.

3) The Claimant is not entitled to exercise any lien over the cargo

4) It is neither necessary nor just for the cargo on board the MV TARDY TESSA to be

sold pendente lite.