Team 15 UPadjadjaran Respondent

16TH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT 2015
UNIVERSITAS PADJADJARAN
TEAM 15
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT
ON BEHALF OF AGAINST
LDT Pte. Western Tankers Inc.
RESPONDENT CLAIMANT
TEAM
BAGAS TIARNIKO SUSETIO • DEBBY YERICA CHRISTINE • FAUZI MAULANA HAKIM •
M. N. MAHATMANTA • RICARDO YOHANES OLIVER

TEAM 15, UNIVERSITAS PADJADJARAN MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... v
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................ vi
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................... 1
ARGUMENTS
I. LONDON ARBITRATION HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE
THIS MATTER .............................................................................................. 3
A. The Parties have Never Reached an Agreement on London Arbitration.... 3
B. The Proper Forum to Determine this Dispute is Singapore Arbitration ..... 4
C. In the Event that English Law is Applied and London is the Seat of
Arbitration, the Tort of Fraud Claim is Inadmissible ................................. 5
i. The arbitration clause was not intended to extend to the tort of fraud
even if it was within the scope of arbitration .................................. 6
II. THE RESPONDENT DID NOT BREACH THE CHARTER PARTY .... 7
A. The Respondent has Fulfilled its Obligation to Provide Sufficient Bunker for
the Vessel and to Nominate Bunkering Ports ............................................. 7
B. The Master’s Actions are not Attributable to the Respondent .................... 8
C. ASA2’s Instructions were not on the Respondent’s Behalf........................ 8
D. ASA2’s Instruction to Proceed to the Alternative Discharge Place was not
under the Respondent’s behalf .................................................................... 9
E. The Vessel was Considered Off-Hire due to the Master’s Breach of Orders
and Negligence............................................................................................ 10
ii
i. The Master’s breach of orders by following orders other than from the
Respondent ...................................................................................... 10
ii. The Master’s negligence by following coordinate given by ASA2 . 11
III. THE RESPONDENT DID NOT COMMIT A TORT OF FRAUD ........... 13
A. The Intention to Rebunker the Vessel in Durban is not a Misrepresentation
..................................................................................................................... 13
i. Alternatively, even if the intention is a misrepresentation, it is not a
fraudulent misrepresentation .......................................................... 14
B. The Respondent is not liable for any misrepresentation made by ASA2 ... 15
i. The Respondent is not liable for the intention to rebunker the Vessel
stated in 28 June 2014 correspondence .......................................... 15
ii. The Respondent is not liable for the intention to discharge 72,000-mt
gasoil and the receiving of 300mt IFO bunkers.............................. 15
IV. THE CLAIMANT HAS BREACHED THE CHARTER PARTY AND IS
LIABLE TO ALL LOSS AND DAMAGE ................................................... 16
A. The Claimant has Failed to Exercise Anti-Piracy Precautions ................... 16
B. The Master’s Compliance with the Instructions Other than from the
Respondent is a Breach of Contract ............................................................ 17
C. The Claimant is Liable to All Damages Caused by the Breach of Contract
..................................................................................................................... 18
i. The Claimant is liable in respect to the piracy incident that occurred
during the deviation ........................................................................ 19
ii. The Claimant is liable for damages in respect to its failure to exercise
anti-piracy precautions ................................................................... 19
iii
V. THE RESPONDENT IS UNDER NO LIABILITY TO INDEMNIFY THE
CLAIMANT FOR ANY DAMAGES ............................................................ 20
A. The Damages were Caused by the Master’s Deviation .............................. 20
B. The Off-Hire Clause has Relieved the Respondent from Paying Second Hire
Period .......................................................................................................... 21
C. The Claimant has Lost its Right to be Indemnified from the Respondent
Resulting from the Piracy Incident ............................................................. 21
D. Alternatively, if the Respondent was at Fault on the Piracy Incident, the
Claimant Cannot Claim for the Whole Damage ......................................... 23
PRAYER FOR RELIEF................................................................................................... 24
iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Arbitration Act United Kingdom Arbitration Act 1996
ASA Atlantic Service Agency
ASA2 Atlantic STS Agency
BIMCO Baltic and International Maritime Council
BMP 4 Best Management Practices 4
FONASBA The Federation of National Associations of
Ship Brokers & Agents
IFO Intermediate Fuel Oil
Lloyd’s Rep Lloyd’s Law Report
LMLN Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter
OPL Off-Port Limit
p. Page
PDPR Per Day Pro Rata
Master Captain Stelios Smith of Western Dawn
mt Metric tonnes
Respondent Less Dependable Traders Pte.
§ Section
Shipbroker IMWMB
STS Ship-to-Ship
The Charterparty Shelltime 4 Charterparty with special provisions
The Vessel Western Dawn
USD United States Dollar
v
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES REFERRED TO IN:
AIG Europe (UK) Ltd &ors v The Ethniki [2000] 2 All ER 566, CA. ..................................4
AXA Versicherung AG v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 05 Civ. 10180 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. 2010) . 6
Barclays Bank plc v Fairclough Building Ltd [1995] QB 214 .............................................. 23
Baron v Sunderland Corp [1966] 2 QB 56, 1 All ER 349..................................................... 4
Bennett v. Skinner [2012] WL 2161641 ...............................................................................6
The Berge Sund [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 453 .......................................................................... 10
Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 ......................................................................................... 13
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Ex R781 ...........................................................12
Braes of Doune Wind Farm (Scotland) Ltd v Alfred McaLpine Business Services Ltd [2008]
EWHC 426 .............................................................................................................................3
Bulk Ship Union SA v Clipper Bulk Shipping Ltd (The “Pearl C”) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 533
................................................................................................................................................ 11
Clayton v Simmonds (1741) 1 Burr. 343................................................................................ 17
Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (The Hansa Nord) [1975] 3 All ER 739
The Christel Vinnen [1924] P 208, CA .................................................................................20
CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2008] 4 SLR(R) 543........................................ 5
Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v. Benjamin F. Shaw Co., 706 F.2d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1983) .. 7
Coggs v Barnard (1703) 2 Ld Raym 918 .............................................................................. 16
Compania Naviera Maropan SA v Bowaters Lloyd Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd (The Stork),
[1955] 2 QB 68, CA .............................................................................................................. 22
vi
Crisp v Pratt (T1639) Cro Car 550, March NC 34, W Jon 437 ............................................ 14
Dahlen v. Gulf Crews, Inc. [2002] Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ....................................... 6
Davidson v Gwynne [1810] EngR 263; (1810) 12 East 381 .................................................. 19
Davis v Garrett (1830) 6 Bing 716 ........................................................................................ 19,

20
Decro-Wall International S.A. v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 361........... 16,
19
Derry v Peek (1889) 14 AC 337 ........................................................................................... 14
The Derby [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325, 331, 333 .................................................................... 16
E. L. Oldendorff & Co. G.M.B.H. Appellants v. Tradax Export S.A. Respondents (The
Johanna Oldendorf), [1974] AC 479 ..................................................................................... 19
Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459....................................................................... 13
Eng Liat Kiang v Eng Bak Hern [1995] 3 SLR 97 ................................................................4
Fesa UK Ltd v M/V "Artis Sun" and Ors, US District Court (SDNY 2003)(Stein DJ) 589
LMLN 3(2)............................................................................................................................. 5
FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45 ..................9
Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and Others v Privalov and Others [2008] 1 Lloyd Rep
254.......................................................................................................................................... 3, 6
Forsikringsaktieselskapet Vesta v Butcher [1989] AC 852 ................................................... 23
The Forum Craftsman [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. .......................................................................6
Giffen v Drake and Scull [1991] 57 BLR 1 ........................................................................... 4
The Glendarroch [1894] P 226 .............................................................................................. 20
Granit SA v. Benship [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 526 ...................................................................16
Hain Steamship Company Ltd v Tate & Lyle Ltd [1936] 2 All ER 597 ................................19,
20
vii
Haryana Telecom Ltd v Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd [1999] AIR SC 2354 ....................... 6
Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton [1913] AC 30.................................................................14
The Herceg Novi and Ming Galaxy [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 454 ............................................. 5
Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (The “Hill Harmony”) [2001] 1 AC 638
................................................................................................................................................ 8, 11, 13, 16,
18, 22
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki [1962] 2QB26 ...................................................... 19
Hopkins v Grazebrook 6 B&C 31 .......................................................................................... 19
The Houda [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. ......................................................................................... 12
Hugh Hogarth & others v Alexander Miller, Brother, & Co. (TheWestfalia) [1891] A.C. 48
................................................................................................................................................ 10
Imports Ltd v Saporiti Italia SpA 117 F 3d 655, 666 (2d Cir 1997) ...................................... 5
Iragorri v United Techs Corp 274 F3d 65 (2d Cir 2001) ......................................................4
J. & E. Kish v Charles Taylor, Sons & Co [1912] AC 604 ................................................... 18
JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises Ltd [2010] SGCA 41 ......................... 5
Jones v Flying Clipper [1954] 116 Fed Supp 386 ................................................................. 8
Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd [1942] AC 154 ....... 14
Joseph Thorley Ltd v Orchis Steamship Co. Ltd [1907] 1 KB 660 ...................................... 18,
19, 20
The Junior K [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 583 ...............................................................................16
The Kanchenjunga [1987] 2 Lloyd’s rep 509 ........................................................................ 21
Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 404 Ill. App. 3d 892, 935 N.E.2d 1174, 343 Ill. Dec. 946 (Ill.
App. 4 Dist. 2010); ................................................................................................................ 6
Kinoshita & Co Ltd et al. v. American Oce-anic Corporation, 287 F.2d 951 (U.S.Court of
Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1961) .................................................................................................... 6
viii
The Kitsa, 3119 (Arb. in N. Y. 1994) .................................................................................... 18
Kruse v. AFLAC International, 458 F. Supp. 2d 375 (E.D. Ky. 2006).................................. 6, 7
Lauritzen A.S. v Wijsmuller B.V. (The Super Servant Two), [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .......... 20
Larrinaga Steamship Co Ltd v The King [1945] AC 246 ...................................................... 22
Lavabre v Wilson (1779) 1 Dougl. 284 .................................................................................. 17,

20
Leeds Shipping Co Ltd v Societe Francaise Bunge [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127 ..................... 5,
16
Leduc & Co v Ward (1888) 20 QBD 475 ............................................................................. 17,

20
Lexair Ltd v W Taylor Ltd. (1993) 65BLR 87 ....................................................................... 4
London Arbitration 1/06 (2006) 682 LMLN 3 ......................................................................18
The London Explorer [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.......................................................................... 11
Lubbe v Cape plc [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep ................................................................................ 5
The Merak [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 527....................................................................................4
The Madeleine [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. ................................................................................... 11
The Makedonia [1962] 1 Lloyd's Rep 316............................................................................. 16
Mareva Navigation Co v Canaria Armadora SA ( The Mareva AS) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 368
................................................................................................................................................ 10,
21
McFadden v Blue Star Line, [1905] 1 K.B. 697 703 ............................................................. 20

................................................................................................................................................
Midwest Shipping Co. v D. I. Henry (The Anastasia) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 375 p. 379 ..... 8,
12
Monarch Steamship Company Ltd v A/B Karlshamns Oljefabriker [1949] 1 All ER 1 ........ 20
ix
Montague v Bath (M1692) 3 Ch Cas 55 ................................................................................ 14
Morse v Slue (1671) 1 Ventris Rep 190, 238 ......................................................................... 16
M/V Naiad [1978] AMC 2049 .............................................................................................. 11
N. Radhakrishnan v Maestro Engineers and Others [2009] (13) SCALE 403 ..................... 6
The Nanfri [1979] 1 Lloyd’s rep 201 ..................................................................................... 8,

11, 18
Naviera Amazonica Peruana SA v Compania Internacionale De Seguros Del Peru [1988] 1

Lloyds Rep 116 ...................................................................................................................... 4
Nettleship v Weston [1971] 3 WLR 370 ................................................................................ 23
New Hampshire Insurance Company v Sphere Drake Insurance Ltd and Ors, US Court of
Appeals (2d Cir 2003) 605 LMLN 4...................................................................................... 4, 6
Notara v. Henderson [1872] L.R.7. Q.B. 236........................................................................ 8
OW Bunker & Trading Company Ltd A/S v The Ship MV "Mawashi Al Gasseem" (No 2)[
2007] FCA 1139 .................................................................................................................... 7
Paal Wilson & Co A/S v Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal (The Hannah Blumenthal)
[1983] 1 All ER 34.................................................................................................................3
Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian [2006] 2 SLR 381 ..........................................5
Petrofina SA v AOT Limited (The Maersk Nimrod) [1991] 3 All ER 161............................. 6
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. v E.N.E. Kos 1 Limited [2012] UKSC 17 ...................................... 20
Phelps, James & Co v Hill [1891] 1 QB 605, CA ................................................................17
Pitts v Hunt [1990] 3 All ER 344........................................................................................... 23
Platform Home Loans Ltd v Oyston Shipways, [2000] 2 AC 190 ......................................... 23
Pole v Cetcovitch (1860) 9 CBNS 430 .................................................................................. 17
Porter Hayden Co. v Century Idem Co. 136 F3d 380 ........................................................... 5
x
Portsmouth Steamship Co Ltd v Liverpool and Glasgow Salvage Association (1929) 34 LlL
Rep 459 .................................................................................................................................. 22
President of India v Metcalfe Shipping Co [1970] 1 QB 289 ................................................19
Taylor v Curtis [1816] 6 Taunt 608 .......................................................................................17
The Teutonia [1872] LR 4 PC 171......................................................................................... 17
The Terneuzen [1935] 52 LLR 141 ........................................................................................ 21
Tracer Research Corporation v. National Environmental Services Company, 42 F.3d 1292

(U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1994) .............................................................................6
Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corpn (The Gregos) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 ....... 11,
18
R v White [1910] 2 KB 124 .................................................................................................... 20
The Ramon de Larrinaga (1945) 78 L1 L Rep 167 ............................................................... 16
The Rainbow Joy [2005] 1 S.L.R. 589 ................................................................................... 6
Rio Tinto v Seed Shipping (1926) 24 LlL Rep 316 ............................................................... 18
Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850 ............................................................................... 16,

19
Roche Products Ltd v Freeman Process System Ltd [1996] 80 BLR 102 ............................. 4
Royal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (The Ilissos) [1949] 1 All ER 17 ........... 21
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344 ..................................... 16
The San Roman (1873) LR 5 PC 301..................................................................................... 17
Scaramanga v Stamp (1880) 5 CPD 295, CA ....................................................................... 18
Sea and Land Securities v Dickinson [1942] 2 K.B. 65......................................................... 11
Shagang South -Asia (Hong Kong) Trading Co Ltd v Daewoo Logistics [2015] EWHC 194
(Comm) ..................................................................................................................................3
xi
Shashoua & Ors v Sharma [2009] EWHC 957 (Comm) ....................................................... 3
The Silver Cypress [1944] AMC 895 .................................................................................... 8
The Span Terza [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 119 ............................................................................ 7
Spear, Leeds & Kellong v Central Life Co. [1995] 85 F3d 21 ..............................................5
The Spiliada [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep at p.13 ............................................................................ 4
Stag Line Ltd v Foscolo Mango & Co Ltd [1932] AC 328 HL ............................................16
State Trading Corp. of India v. Pilgrim Shipping [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 356 ....................... 11
................................................................................................................................................
The Sussex Oak [1950] 83 Ll. L. Rep .................................................................................... 22
Tivat Shipping & Investment BV v Associated Transport Line Inc (The ‘Trinity Square’) -
Michael K Hope, Arbitrator, (1999) 517 LMLN 3(3) ........................................................... 12
Tote Bookmakers Ltd v Development and Property Holding Co Ltd [1985] 2 All ER 555 .. 4
Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 132 ER 490 (CP) ....................................................................... 12
Vogemann v. Zanzibar Steamship Company Limited (The Zanzibar) [1902] 7 Com. Cas. 254
................................................................................................................................................ 10
Wales v Wadham [1977] 1 WLR 199 .................................................................................... 13
Web & Juck v Worfield (M1616) J Bridg 110 ...................................................................... 14
Weir v Union Steamship [1900] AC 525 .............................................................................. 22
Wertheim (Sally) v Chicoutimi Pulp Co. [1911] A.C. 301 .................................................... 16
Whitecross Wire Co. v Savill [1882] 8 Q.B.D. 653, 663. ...................................................... 8
Wisenthal v World Auxiliary Insurance Corp. Ltd. (1930) 38 Ll. Rep ................................. 14
Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1 .................................................................................... 13
BOOKS
xii
A. Redfern & M. Hunter, Law and Practice in International Commercial Arbitration,

(London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1999) ....................................................................................... 3, 5
Andrew Tweeddale, Arbitration of Commercial Disputes: International and English Law and
Practice (London: OUP, 2007) .............................................................................................. 3
Arthur Taylor Von Mehren, Academie de Droit International de la Haye (Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers, 2003).................................................................................................................... 5
Captain Florencio J.T. Ventosa, Knowledge Re-Ship Business for Maritime Schools,
(Florention St. Quezon City: Rex Printing Company, 1994)................................................. 9
Center Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, 23 June 2014 .........................................11
Charles, Lord Tenterden, A Treatise of the Law Relatives to Merchant Ships and Seamen,
(London: Shaw and Sons, 1856) ............................................................................................ 19
Dicey, Morris and Collins, The Conflict of Laws, 11th Ed (London: Sweet and Maxwell,
1987) ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Falkanger, Introduction to Maritime Law (Oslo: Tano Aschehoug, 1998) ...........................11
Felix Parka, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses in Maritime Transport Documents, (Berlin:
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010) ........................................................................................ 5
Felix W.H. Chan, Jimmy J.M. Ng, Bobby K.Y. Wong, Shipping and Logistics Law:
Principles and Practice in Hong Kong, (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2002) 6
Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman, International Commercial Arbitration (The Hague: Kluwer

Law International, 1999) ........................................................................................................ 6
Geoffrey Gibson, The Arbitrator's Companion (Sydney: The Federation Press, 2001) ....... 4
Georgios I Zekos, International and Commercial Maritime Law, (Oxford: Routledge-

Cavendish, 2008) ...................................................................................................................6
Horacio A. Grigera Naón, Choice-of-law Problems in International Commercial Arbitration,

(Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992).............................................................................................. 5
John A. C. Cartner, et.al., The International Law of the Shipmaster, (London: Informa, 2009)
................................................................................................................................................ 16
xiii
John Collier & Vaughan Lowe, The Settlement of Dispute in International Law, (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999) ............................................................................................. 6
John Parris, Arbitration Principles and Practice, (London: Granada, 1983) ........................3
John Wilson, Carriage of Goods by Sea, 7th ed (London: Pearson, 2010) ........................... 5,
17, 19, 22
Julian Cooke et al., Voyage Charters, 4th Ed, (Oxford: Informa Law from Routledge, 2014)
................................................................................................................................................ 18,
19
Klaus Peter Berger, Private Dispute Resolution in International Business: Negotiation,

Mediation, Arbitration, Vol 2 (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2006) ..................... 4
Keith Michel, War, Terror, and Carriage by Sea, (London: Informa Law from Routledge,
2004) ...................................................................................................................................... 16,
21
Lachmi Singh, The Law of Goods of Carriage by Sea, (Sussex: Bloomsbury Professional Ltd,
2011) ...................................................................................................................................... 17,
18
M. Wolff, Private International Law, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950) ............................. 5
Margaret L Moses, The Principles and Practices of International Commercial Arbitration

(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008) .................................................................. 3
Martin Dockray, Cases & Materials on the Carriage of the Goods by Sea, (London:
Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2004) ...................................................................................7,
8, 12, 13,
17, 21, 22
Mauro Rubino, International Arbitration: Law and Practice, 2nd Ed (The Hague: Kluwer
Law International, 2001) ....................................................................................................... 3
Michael R. T. Macnair, The Law of Proof in Early Modern Equity, (Berlin: Duncker und
Humblot, 1999) ...................................................................................................................... 14
xiv
Mueller, Christopher B.; Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Evidence, 4th ed, (New York: Thomson/West,
2005) ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, (New York: Simon & Brown, 2011) ........... 19
Paul Todd, Maritime Fraud and Piracy, (London: Informa, 2010) ...................................... 17
Paul Volken & Andrea Bonomi, Yearbook of Private International Law, (Munich: Selliers,
2009) ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Peter Brodie, Commercial Shipping Handbook: Second Edition, (London: Informa, 2006) 8,
9, 14........................................................................................................................................
Peter Brodie, Dictionary of Shipping Terms,( London: Lloyd’s of London Press, 1985) ..... 9
Peter Gillies, Concise Contract Law, (Annandale: The Federation Press, 1988) ................. 13
Peter MacDonald Eggers, Deceit: The Lie of the Law, (London: Informa Law from
Routledge, 2009) .................................................................................................................... 13
Raoul Colinvaux, Carver’s Carriage By Sea Volume 2, (London: Stevens & Sons, 1982).. 8
Redfern and Hunter et al., International Arbitration, 5th Ed (London: OUP, 2009) ............ 3
Richard Stone, The Modern Law of Contract, (Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish, 2009) .... 13,
14
Robert Force, A. N. Yiannopoulos, Martin Davies, Admiralty and Maritime Law (Beard
Books, 2006) .......................................................................................................................... 11
Simon Baughen, Shipping Law, (London: Cavendish Publishing, 2001).............................. 11,

16, 20
Stephen Girvin, Carriage of Goods by Sea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) ......... 10
Terence Coghlin, et.al., Time Charters, (New York: Informa, Seventh Edition, 2014)........ 10,
11
Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, The Arrest of Ships in Private International Law (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2011) .............................................................................................5
William Tetley, Marine Cargo Claims, (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2008) ...................... 17
xv
Yeo Tiong Min, Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore – Conflict of Laws, vol 6(2) (Singapore:
LexisNexis, 2009) .................................................................................................................. 5
STATUTES
Angola Law on Internal waters, Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone, No. 21/92,
Luanda, 1992.......................................................................................................................... 12
ICC Arbitration Rules, 2011 .................................................................................................. 4
Misrepresentation Act, 1967 .................................................................................................. 14
Uncitral Model Law, 2006 ..................................................................................................... 3
UK Arbitration Act, 1996 ...................................................................................................... 14
German Arbitration Act , 1998 .............................................................................................. 4
JOURNALS AND OTHER ARTICLES
Andrew Palmer, The New Pirates: Modern Global Piracy from Somalia to the South China
Sea, I.B.Tauris, Aug 15, 2014................................................................................................ 16
BIMCO, Best Management Practices 4, Suggested Planning and Operational Practices for
Ship Operators and Masters of Ships Transiting the High Risk Area .................................. 17
Caslav Pejovic, The Identity of Carrier Problem Under Time Charters ............................... 8
FONASBA, The Role, Responsibilities, and Obligations of Ship Agent in the International
Transport Chain .................................................................................................................... 9
L. I. De Winter (1968) Excessive Jurisdiction in Private International Law. International and

Comparative Law Quarterly .................................................................................................. 5
Manriruzzaman, Abul F.M., The Lex Mercatoria and International Contracts: A Challenge
for International Commercial Arbitration?, (American University International Law Review
14, no. 3, 1999) ..................................................................................................................... 4
xvi
UK Defence Club, P&I Club, Bunkers: a guide to quality and quantity claims ...................8,
13
MISCELLANEOUS
Alternative discharge place coordinate

<https://www.google.co.id/maps/place/6%C2%B000'00.0%22S+8%C2%B010'00.0%22E/@-
4.6323935,7.7171954,6z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en> ..............................................12
Transnet, Durban: Services,

<http://www.transnetnationalportsauthority.net/OurPorts/Durban/Pages/Services.aspx> .... 12
Turner Shipping, Off-Port Limits,

<http://www.turnershipping.com/port-agency/off-port-limits/> ..........................................12
xvii
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On 26 May 2014, Less Dependable Traders Pte. (“the Respondent”) as charterers agree
on a time charter party, using a modified Shelltime 4 (“the Charterparty”) as a basis,
with Western Tankers Inc. (“the Claimant”) as shipowners to charter the vessel Western
Dawn (“the Vessel”) to carry a cargo of approximately 30,000mt of jet A1 and 70,000mt
of gasoil (“the Cargo”) from Singapore to OPL (“Off-Port Limit”) Luanda for Ship to
Ship (“STS”) transfer with Angola Energy Imports Ltd. as the consignee, for a period of
3 months. The Vessel is then bound by the Charter Party to travel to Bonny, Nigeria, to
pick up Bonny Light and carry them to Augusta, Italy.
2. On 27 May, Captain Stelios (“the Master”) informs the Respondent that the required
bunker for the itinerary is on 1500mt. Acknowledging the danger of West Africa, the
destination area, the Claimant arranges safety upgrades and equipment for the Vessel.
3. On 3 June, the Master protests the 950mt bunker provided by the Respondent, stating that
it is insufficient. As a response, the Respondent states that an alternative bunker supplies
will be available in Durban or Cape Town. On the same date, the Claimant acknowledges
its inability to provide the necessary safety upgrades and equipment for the Vessel and
arranges to provide them in Durban. The Vessel set sail 5 days later, on 8 June.
4. On 20 June, the Master demands the Respondent for confirmation regarding their
intention to provide bunker in Durban. Due to the lack of bunker and response, the Master
on 25 June warns the Respondent that he will reduce the Vessel’s speed to 12 knots and
neither he nor the Claimant will be responsible for the reduction.
5. On 28 June, the Respondent sets the rebunkering position as “STS Area 1”, in which the
Vessel will also undergo cargo transfer. The Master then asks for confirmation on the
coordinates.
1
6. William Anya from Atlantic STS Agency Ltd (hereon known as “ASA2”) informs the
Master that the Respondent has passed control of the Vessel to them and gives the Master
a new coordinate. ASA2 also states that the Vessel will meet with the vessel Antelope to
perform STS transfer of cargo and receive 300mt bunker. The Master complies with the
instruction.
7. On 3 July, the Master informs the Respondent that the Vessel will arrive at the new
discharge place on 4 July.
8. On 4 July, the Respondent instructs the Master to continue to “liaise with your STS
coordinator”. The Master confirms their arrival at the new coordinate and states that they
have yet to see the Vessel Antelope, also stating that radar shows what look like 2 small
fishing boats 5 miles to the West. On the same date, the Respondent sends an off-hire
notice due to the Vessel’s failure in rendezvousing with the Antelope.
9. Sometime between 4 and 17 July, the Vessel is hijacked by pirates. The Master on 17
July sends an incident report to report crew injury, damaged Vessel, and the theft of about
28,190mt of the Cargo. On the same day, the Master informs the Claimant and the
Respondent that the Vessel will be directed to Cape Town due to no bunker supply and
lack of the Respondent’s instruction.
2
ARGUMENTS
I. LONDON ARBITRATION HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE
THIS MATTER
1. The Arbitration agreement, which was stated in the form of an arbitration clause in a
contract, 1 was formed by both parties’ consent to submit to arbitration in the event there
is any dispute arises between them. 2
2. The Claimant in the present dispute has brought the case to London Arbitration. 3
However, in accordance with the correspondence dated 23rd May 2014, the Respondent
believes that the dispute shall be heard in Singapore Arbitration, 4 because: (A) at the
formation of the Charterparty both parties have never agreed on London Arbitration;
(B) the proper seat and forum to determine the dispute is Singapore Arbitration; and (C)
Alternatively, even if the English law is applied and London is the seat of the
arbitration, the tort of fraud claim is inadmissible.
A. The Parties Have Never Reached an Agreement on London Arbitration
3. In the instant case, both parties have never reached an agreement on London
Arbitration. This was shown by the Respondent’s intention not to arbitrate in London
on the correspondence dated 23 May 2014 with IMWMB, 5 a shipbroker between the
1
Paal Wilson & Co A/S v Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal (The Hannah Blumenthal) [1983] 1 All ER 34;
Braes of Doune Wind Farm (Scotland) Ltd v Alfred McaLpine Business Services Ltd [2008] EWHC 426;
Shashoua & Ors v Sharma [2009] EWHC 957 (Comm); Shagang South -Asia (Hong Kong) Trading Co Ltd v
Daewoo Logistics [2015] EWHC 194 (Comm); Article 7 (1), Uncitral Model Law 2006; Redfern and Hunter et
al., International Arbitration, 5th Ed (London: OUP, 2009) p. 15; Mauro Rubino,International Arbitration:
Law and Practice, 2nd Ed (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001) p. 195.
2
Lord Hoffman in Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and Others v Privalov and Others [2008] 1 Lloyd Rep
254 at 256; Redfern and Hunter et al., International Arbitration, 5th Ed (London, OUP: 2009) p. 1; Andrew
Tweeddale, Arbitration of Commercial Disputes: International and English Law and Practice, (London: OUP,
2007) p. 97; Margaret L Moses, The Principles and Practices of International Commercial Arbitration (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2008) p. 17; John Parris, Arbitration Principles and Practice, (London:
Granada, 1983) p. 26, 31.
3
Statement of Claim, Moot Problem 2015, page 65.
4
Statement of Defense. Moot Problem 2015, Paragraph 3 (a), page 66.
5
Charterer’s Correspondence, Moot Problem 2015, page 2.
3
Claimant and the Respondent. 6 However, both IMWMB and the Claimant did not give
any comments nor consent to the Respondent’s refusal
4. It is known under the General Principle of Arbitration Law that parties are free to agree
how their disputes are to be resolved. 7 Moreover, a mutual intention under Contract
Law is a prominent basis for parties to agree on some conditions under their agreement 8
and for a valid arbitration agreement. 9 In AIG Europe (UK) Ltd & ors v The Ethniki,
Evans LJ stated that the parties’ intention that had been taken was to ascertain the
objection to an incorporation of arbitration clause in their contract. 10
5. Similarly, in this present case, the Respondent’s intention not to arbitrate in London
and the absence of the Claimant’s consent showed both parties’ deficiency on
agreement to arbitrate in London. Therefore, it can be concluded that both parties have
never reached an agreement on London Arbitration.
B. The Proper Forum to Determine this Dispute is Singapore Arbitration
6. The Respondent in the present dispute has requested in writing by correspondence that
it is not keen with London Arbitration. 11
7. Lord Hoff in The Spiliada enumerated the elements of the principle forum non
conveniens which grants the defendants’ request to stay proceedings on English
Court. 12 The court must consider a more appropriate forum for the parties 13 where all
6
Moot Problem 2015, page 1-5.
7
Art. 21, ICC Arbitration Rules 2011; Section 1, U.K Arbitration Act 1996; Section 1043 (1), German
Arbitration Act 1998; Geoffrey Gibson, The Arbitrator's Companion (Sydney: The Federation Press, 2001) at.
28; Klaus Peter Berger, Private Dispute Resolution in International Business: Negotiation, Mediation,
Arbitration, Vol 2 (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2006) at 301; Manriruzzaman, Abul F.M. "The Lex
Mercatoria and International Contracts: A Challenge for International Commercial Arbitration?" American
University International Law Review 14, no. 3 (1999) at 706.
8
Roche Products Ltd v Freeman Process System Ltd [1996] 80 BLR 102; Judge Fox-Andrews in Lexair Ltd v W
Taylor Ltd. (1993) 65BLR 87;Giffen v Drake and Scull [1991] 57 BLR 1; The Merak [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 527.
9
Tote Bookmakers Ltd v Development and Property Holding Co Ltd [1985] 2 All ER 555; Baron v Sunderland
Corp [1966] 2 QB 56, 1 All ER 349.
10
AIG Europe (UK) Ltd &ors v The Ethniki [2000] 2 All ER 566, CA.
11
Charterer’s Correspondence, Moot Problem 2015, page 2.
12
Lord Goff in The Spiliada [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep at p.13.
4
the relevant circumstances, inter alia the convenience of all parties, 14 the availability of
evidence and witnesses, 15 the applicable law and the places where the parties
respectively reside or carry on business, 16 the costs involved in litigating in a different
forum, and whether substantial justice would be done in the foreign forum, 17 must be
present.
8. Moreover, the general maxim of Actor Sequitor Forum Rei in International Private Law
promulgated that the Claimant’s interest cannot be protected when it does not align
with the Respondent’s interest to be claimed in its own domicile or place of business,
which is easily accessible to it. 18 Similarly in this present case, since the Respondent
resides their business in Singapore, 19 and has shown its inconvenience to arbitrate in
London, the proper seat and forum to determine the dispute is Singapore Arbitration.
C. In the Event that English Law is Applied and London is the Seat of
Arbitration, the Tort of Fraud Claim is Inadmissible
13
L P Thean JA in Eng Liat Kiang v Eng Bak Hern [1995] 3 SLR 97, at 103; Iragorri v United Techs Corp 274
F3d 65 (2d Cir 2001); New Hampshire Insurance Company v Sphere Drake Insurance Ltd and Ors, US Court of
Appeals (2d Cir 2003) 605 LMLN 4.
14
Dicey, Morris and Collins, The Conflict of Laws, 11th Ed (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1987) at para[s]
393–395; see also: Kerr LJ in Naviera Amazonica Peruana SA v Compania Internacionale De Seguros Del Peru
[1988] 1 Lloyds Rep 116, p. 120-121; V K Rajah J in Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian [2006] 2
SLR 381, at 19-21.
15
Yeo Tiong Min, Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore – Conflict of Laws, vol 6(2) (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2009) at
para 75.090; see: Fesa UK Ltd v M/V "Artis Sun" and Ors, US District Court (SDNY 2003)(Stein DJ) 589
LMLN 3(2).
16
CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2008] 4 SLR(R) 543; JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral
Enterprises Ltd [2010] SGCA 41, para. 38.
17
The Herceg Novi and Ming Galaxy [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 454; Lubbe v Cape plc [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep; Yeo
Tiong Min, Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore – Conflict of Laws, vol 6(2) (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2009) at para
75.096, 75.097-101.
18
M. Wolff, Private International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950) at 62-63; Arthur Taylor Von Mehren,
Academie de Droit International de la Haye (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2003) at 181; Paul Volken & Andrea
Bonomi, Yearbook of Private International Law, (Munich: Selliers, 2009) p. 345; Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm,
The Arrest of Ships in Private International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) p. 170; John Wilson,
Carriage of Goods by Sea, 7th ed (London: Pearson, 2010), p. 318; Felix Parka, Jurisdiction and Arbitration
Clauses in Maritime Transport Documents, at. 7; Horacio A. Grigera Naón, Choice-of-law Problems in
International Commercial Arbitration, (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992) p. 59; L. I. De Winter (1968) Excessive
Jurisdiction in Private International Law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 17, p. 718.
19
Statement of Claim, Moot Problem 2015, Paragraph 2, page 60.
5
9. Arbitrability determines whether or not a claim for provision under the contract is
inside the scope of the parties’ arbitration clause, 20 where a dispute outside the scope of
arbitration clause does not have arbitrability and thus should not be referred to
21 22
arbitration. Tort of fraud claims are outside the scope of arbitration since
competence to resolve such claims is only held by a court of law. 23 In this present
dispute, the Claimant seeks for liability to the Respondent for the alleged tort of
fraud. 24 Seeing that torts of fraud are outside the scope of arbitration clause, then the
tort of fraud claim is inadmissible.
i. The arbitration clause was not intended to extend to the tort of fraud even if it
was within the scope of arbitration
10. Morrison J in the Fiona Trust stated that a clause that is not incorporated into a
charterparty is not considered neither as a clause arisen out of the charterparty nor
under it. 25 A claim in regards to a clause outside of the contract cannot be governed
under the arbitration agreement of the charterparty. 26 In this present case, clause 46 (a)
of the Charterparty was not intended to extend the scope of arbitration to the tort of
27
fraud. The interpretation of “any dispute arising out of this contract...” 28 is
20
A. Redfern & M. Hunter, Law and Practice in International Commercial Arbitration (London: Sweet &
Maxwell, 1999) para. 3–21; Imports Ltd v Saporiti Italia SpA 117 F 3d 655, 666 (2d Cir 1997); Porter Hayden
Co. v Century Idem Co. 136 F3d 380; Spear, Leeds & Kellong v Central Life Co. 85 F3d 21.
21
Georgios I Zekos, International and Commercial Maritime Law (Oxford: Routledge-Cavendish, 2008) p. 205.
22
Bennett v. Skinner, 2012 WL 2161641 (Ala. June 15, 2012.); Kruse v. AFLAC International, 458 F. Supp. 2d
375 (E.D. Ky. 2006); Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 404 Ill. App. 3d 892, 935 N.E.2d 1174, 343 Ill. Dec. 946 (Ill.
App. 4 Dist. 2010); Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman, International Commercial Arbitration (The Hague: Kluwer
Law International, 1999) p. 337.
23
N. Radhakrishnan v Maestro Engineers and Others, 2009 (13) SCALE 403; Haryana Telecom Ltd v Sterlite
Industries (India) Ltd AIR 1999 SC 2354.
24
25
Fiona Trust and Holding Corp. and Others v Yuri Privalov and Others, [2007] EWCA Civ 20, at 468;See
also: Dahlen v. Gulf Crews, Inc. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, February 4, 2002.
26
Petrofina SA v AOT Limited (The Maersk Nimrod) [1991] 3 All ER 161; The Forum Craftsman [1984] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 102; The Rainbow Joy [2005] 1 S.L.R. 589; Felix W.H. Chan, Jimmy J.M. Ng, Bobby K.Y. Wong,
Shipping and Logistics Law: Principles and Practice in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press,
2002) at 18; John Collier & Vaughan Lowe, The Settlement of Dispute in International Law (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999) at 202.
27
Statement of Defence, Moot Problem 2015, Paragraph 4 (a), page 67.
28
Clause 46 (b) Shelltime 4 Charter-Party 2003.
6
constituted as a narrow clause which only includes disputes on contractual obligations 29
where the parties inside the arbitration clause can be inferred to have an intention not to
arbitrate on matters outside the contract. 30
11. Seeing the fact that neither the Shelltime 4 Charter Party nor the ST4 Rider Clause
expressedly governs tort of fraud matter, hence, even if it was inside the scope of
arbitration, the lack of clause governing tort of fraud in the Charter Party made the
claim inadmissible.
II. THE RESPONDENT DID NOT BREACH THE CHARTER PARTY
A. The Respondent has Fulfilled its Obligation to Provide Sufficient Bunker for
the Vessel and to Nominate Bunkering Ports
12. In their points of claim, the Claimant asserted that the Charterparty requires the
Respondent to stem sufficient bunker. 31 The Respondent admits that it is the obligation
of the charterer to provide bunkers of the Vessel under time charter 32 and it is known in
the practices that bunkers are commonly the property of charterers. 33 However, in this
present case, the Respondent argues that it has fulfilled its obligation by bunkering the
Vessel in Singapore. 34
13. The Claimant may argue that the bunker provided in Singapore was not sufficient for
the required itinerary. However, the Respondent has shown their intention to rebunker
29
Kinoshita & Co Ltd et al. v. American Oce-anic Corporation, 287 F.2d 951 (U.S.Court of Appeals, 2nd
Circuit 1961); Tracer Research Corporation v. National Environmental Services Company, 42 F.3d 1292 (U.S.
Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1994); AXA Versicherung AG v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 05 Civ. 10180 (JSR)
(S.D.N.Y. 2010).
30
Kruse v. AFLAC International, 458 F. Supp. 2d 375 (E.D. Ky. 2006) at 387; Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co. v.
Benjamin F. Shaw Co., 706 F.2d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1983).
31
32
Shelltime 4, Clause 7; NYPE 1993, Clause 2; GENTIME 1999, Clause 6 (d); INTERTANKO80, Clause 8;
Martin Dockray, Cases & Materials on the Carriage of the Goods by Sea (London: Cavendish Publishing
Limited, 2004) p. 293.
33
Justice Mansfield in OW Bunker & Trading Company Ltd A/S v The Ship MV "Mawashi Al Gasseem" (No 2)[
2007] FCA 1139, at 23; The Span Terza [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 119.
34
Voyage Correspondence, Moot Problem 2015, page 25.
7
the Vessel at STS Area 1 to ensure the sufficiency of the bunker. 35 The Respondent
does have the right to select the port at which the ship would take bunkers 36 and the
Master must comply with the nomination during the charter. 37 Lord Wilberforce
affirms such right in The Nanfri by stating that the nature and purpose of a time charter
“is to enable the charterers to use the vessels during the period of the charters for
trading in whatever manner they think fit.” 38 Thus, the Respondent has fulfilled its
obligation and the nomination of STS Area 1 as the port where the Vessel would take
bunkers was indeed lawful.
B. The Master’s Actions are not Attributable to the Respondent
14. Captain Stelios Smith is the master of Western Dawn, the Vessel chartered by the
Respondent from the Claimant. 39 A master of a ship is the servant of the shipowner and
every action he conducted is done as a servant 40 and representative 41 of the shipowner.
The master is entrusted with powers by the owner to be used at his discretion and if the
master exercises the power improperly, the owner will be liable for his culpable
omissions.42 In light of the facts stated, every action done by the Master is attributable
to the Claimant and his wrongdoings will not be the Respondent’s liability.
C. ASA2’s Instructions were not on the Respondent’s Behalf
35
36
Lord Hobhouse in The Hill Harmony [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 147, p. 157; Bunkers: a guide to quality and
quantity claims, UK Defence Club, P&I Club, p. 9; Martin Dockray, Cases & Materials on the Carriage of the
Goods by Sea (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2004) p. 293-294; Peter Brodie, Commercial Shipping
Handbook: Second Edition (London: Informa Law, 2006) p. 76.
37
Jones v Flying Clipper (1954) 116 Fed Supp 386; The Silver Cypress [1944] AMC 895.
38
Lord Wilberforce in The Nanfri [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep., p. 206; Cf. Time Charters, p. 327.
39
Voyage Correspondence, Moot Problem 2015, page. 21.
40
Raoul Colinvaux, Carver’s Carriage By Sea, Vol 2 (London: Stevens & Sons, 1982) at 1225; Caslav Pejovic,
The Identity of Carrier Problem Under Time Charters, 31.
41
Midwest Shipping Co. v D. I. Henry (The Anastasia),[1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 375 p. 379.
42
Per Willes J., Notara v. Henderson [1872] L.R.7. Q.B. 236; Per Brett L.J., Whitecross Wire Co. v Savill
[1882] 8 Q.B.D. 653, 663.
8
15. The Master at 28 June 2014 until 3 July 2014, followed instructions from an agency
called ASA2 from an email address Captain.William.Anya_GM@asa2.com.an, 43 a
party that was not a part of the contract.
16. In the voyage orders, Atlantic Service Agency (“ASA”) was appointed as the
Respondent’s agent with William as the person in charge, with William@asa.com.an
being the e-mail to which the Master should contact. 44 An agent is the charterer’s agent
when charterer nominates them. 45 ASA2, however, was never nominated by the
Respondent and thus cannot be inferred as the agent of the Respondent.
17. The Claimant repeatedly claimed that ASA2 was acting on behalf of the Respondent. 46
However, someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of his principal in a
particular matter in circumstances which gives rise to a relationship of trust and
confidence is, in fact, an agency. 47 By proving that ASA2 is not the agent of the
Respondent, the Respondent argues that ASA2’s actions are not under the
Respondent’s behalf.
D. ASA2’s Instruction to Proceed to the Alternative Discharge Place was not
under the Respondent’s behalf
18. The Claimant, based on the 28 June 2014 correspondence, 48 contended that the
Respondent through ASA2 is responsible for directing the Vessel to an alternative
discharge place in coordinate 06 degrees 00 minutes south: 08 degrees 10 minutes
43
44
45
Peter Brodie, Dictionary of Shipping Terms (London: Lloyd’s of London Press, 1985); Peter Brodie,
Commercial Shipping Handbook: Second Edition (London: Informa, 2006) p. 76; Captain Florencio J.T.
Ventosa, Knowledge Re-Ship Business for Maritime Schools (Florention St. Quezon City: Rex Printing
Company) p. 97; FONASBA, The Role, Responsibilities, and Obligations of Ship Agent in the International
Transport Chain.
46
Statement of Claim, Moot Problem 2015, Paragraph 17, 18, p. 63.
47
Lord Neuberger in FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC [2014] UKSC 45 at paras 5-
7.
48
9
east 49 within international waters off the Angolan coast. The Respondent has proven
that ASA2 is not its agent and thus argues that such instruction was not under the
Respondent’s behalf.
E. The Vessel was Considered Off-Hire due to the Master’s Breach of Orders
and Negligence
19. The Claimant has alleged that the Respondent did not pay hire due and owing to the
Claimant under the terms of the Charterparty. 50 However, during the second hire
period, the Respondent argues that the Vessel was considered off-hire. Clause 21 (a)
point (ii) stipulates that off-hire can be caused by, “…breach of orders or neglect of
duty on the part of the master…” 51 The off-hire event occurred because the Master’s
compliance with ASA2’s instruction on 28 June 2014 52 amounts to: (i) a breach of
order by following orders from third parties and by failing to immediately disregard it
and refer such order to the Respondent and (ii) negligence by following coordinates
given by ASA2.
i. The Master’s breach of orders by following orders other than from the
Respondent
20. The Master is obligated to comply with all the Respondent’s legitimate instructions53
and only when the Master does so the Vessel is in full working order and the hire is
payable. 54 The Master’s failure to do so will cause the Vessel not being able to render
49
50
Statement of Claim, Moot Problem 2015, Paragraph 15, p. 62.
51
Shelltime 4 Charter Party, Clause 21 (a) point (ii), line 349-350.
52
Voyage Correspondence, Moot Problem 2015, page. 35.
53
Mareva Navigation Co v Canaria Armadora SA ( The Mareva AS) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 368 per Kerr J at
p.381-382: The Berge Sund [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 453, per Staughton, LJ at pages 459-60; Stephen Girvin,
Carriage of Goods by Sea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) p. 630.
54
Per Collins MR at p. 257 in Vogemann v. Zanzibar Steamship Company Limited (The Zanzibar) [1902] 7
Com. Cas. 254; Lord Halsbury at p. 55 Hugh Hogarth & others v Alexander Miller, Brother, & Co.
(TheWestfalia) [1891] A.C. 48; Terence Coghlin, et.al., Time Charters, 7th ed (New York: Informa, 2014) p.
462.
10
the service required in full service order and a charterer can declare the time lost as off-
hire. 55
21. It has been stipulated in the voyage orders that, “Master shall disregard any voyage-
related instructions received from third parties and immediately refer such instructions
to charterer for handling.” 56 By seeing that the practice of shipping law itself has
shown that master is obliged to follow legitimate directions from charterer, 57 the Master
shall conduct what has been stipulated in the voyage orders. The Respondent argues
that all of its instructions are inside the scope of the Charter Party and thus were
legitimate. 58
22. After the Vessel has been delivered to the Respondent, the contract begins to apply and
the Respondent’s right to give orders to the Master sets in 59 and the Master’s failure to
follow legitimate orders from the Respondent amounts to the breach of the voyage
orders. 60 The nomination of ports, both discharging and loading, are included to the
orders that can be given by the Respondent and must be complied by the Master. 61
23. The Master, however, received and confirmed a different coordinate given by ASA2
and followed the instruction without giving any notification to the Respondent 62 and
this action breached the voyage orders mentioned above. It is for the Respondent as the
charterer to establish that this event does come within the terms of the off-hire clause to
55
Per Kerr J at Mareva Navigation Co v Canaria Armadora SA ( The Mareva AS) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 368 at
p.381-38.
56
Voyage Orders, Moot Problem 2015, page 13.
57
The London Explorer [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep., p. 526; The Madeleine [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep., p. 238; Torvald
Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corpn (The Gregos) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 per Lord Mustill at p.7; Simon
Baughen, Shipping Law, 4th Ed. (London: Cavendish Publishing, 2009) p. 203; Robert Force, A. N.
Yiannopoulos, Martin Davies, Admiralty and Maritime Law (Beard Books, 2006) p. 289.
58
Simon Baughen, Shipping Law, 4th Ed. (London: Cavendish Publishing, 2009) p. 203;
59
The Madeleine [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep., p. 238; Terence Coghlin, et.al., Time Charters, 7th Ed (New York:
Informa, 2014) p. 348; Falkanger, Introduction to Maritime Law (Oslo: Tano Aschehoug, 1998) p. 426.
60
The Hill Harmony [2001] 1 Lloyd’s rep 147, HL, The Nanfri, Benfri, and Lorfri [1979] 1 Lloyd’s rep 201
61
M/V Naiad [1978] AMC 2049 at p 2056; Roskill LJ in State Trading Corp. of India v. Pilgrim Shipping (The
Hadjitsakos) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 356.
62
11
be relieved from paying the hire, 63 and by pointing out the Master’s breach of order the
Respondent has done such establishment. Therefore, the Vessel must be considered
off-hire by the evidence of the Master’s breach of orders.
ii. The Master’s negligence by following coordinate given by ASA2
24. The Master’s compliance with ASA2’s instruction also amounts to negligence. The
contracted discharging port is located at OPL Luanda, 64 yet the Master with ASA2’s
order directed the Vessel to international waters off coast of Angola 65 without
immediately notifying the Respondent as one of the parties in the contract and as the
time charterer.
25. By sending carbon copies to William@asa.com.an, the Master has been proven to have
acknowledged the existence of ASA as the Respondent’s agent. 66 The Respondent thus
argues that the Master’s compliance to instructions other than from the aforementioned
email would not be done by a reasonable man and thus amounts to negligence. 67 In The
Trinity Square, 68 it was held that master’s neglect by deviating from agreed route
indeed made the vessel off-hire, as it was stipulated in the charter party clause.
26. Moreover, the Master on his reasonable judgment and knowledge should have observed
whether or not coordinate given by parties under the voyage is right 69 or safe. 70 In
63
Sea and Land Securities v Dickinson [1942] 2 K.B. 65; Bulk Ship Union SA v Clipper Bulk Shipping Ltd, (The
“Pearl C”) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 533.
64
Voyage Order, Moot Problem 2015, page 13.
65
See:https://www.google.co.id/maps/place/6%C2%B000'00.0%22S+8%C2%B010'00.0%22E/@4.6323935,7.7
171954,6z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0?hl=en.
66
Voyage Correspondence, Moot Problem 2015, page 29-34.
67
Per Alderson B in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Ex R781 at p.784; Vaughan v Menlove (1837)
132 ER 490 (CP).
68
Tivat Shipping & Investment BV v Associated Transport Line Inc (The ‘Trinity Square’) - Michael K Hope,
Arbitrator, (1999) 517 LMLN 3(3).
69
Donaldson J in Midwest Shipping Co v DI Henry (Jute) Ltd [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 375, p. 379; John Wilson,
Carriage of Goods by Sea, 7th ed (London: Pearson, 2010) p. 15; Martin Dockray, Martin Dockray, Cases &
Materials on the Carriage of the Goods by Sea, London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2004, p. 68
70
The Anastasia [1971] Lloyd’s Rep., p. 379; The Houda [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep., pp. 547, 554.
12
practice, OPLs are located about 2-7 NM from the port. 71 Angola has territorial waters
up to 12 NM, 72 which means, OPL Luanda, the contracted discharging place, would be
inside Angola’s territorial waters. The Master however, under ASA2’s instruction, has
negligently directed the Vessel to international waters without observing the
correctness of the instruction. Therefore, the off-hire was lawful and the arguments
elaborated aforesaid has proven that the Respondent did not breach the Charter Party.
III. THE RESPONDENT DID NOT COMMIT A TORT OF FRAUD
A. The Intention to Rebunker the Vessel in Durban is Not a Misrepresentation
27. The Claimant stated that the Respondent has committed a tort of fraud by stating that
the representation that was made by the Respondent was untrue. 73 It cannot, however,
be inferred as a misrepresentation.
28. A false statement is a misrepresentation when it is a false statement of fact. 74 An
intention can be a statement of fact when it is clear that the person making the
statement did not, at that time, have any intention of so acting. 75 The Respondent
argues that the intention was true at the time it was made and thus was neither a
statement of fact nor a misrepresentation. The burden of proof lies on the Claimant if it
aims to state that the Respondent never intended to provide bunker in Durban. 76
71
See: Transnet, Durban: Services,
<http://www.transnetnationalportsauthority.net/OurPorts/Durban/Pages/Services.aspx>; Turner Shipping, Off-
Port Limits, <http://www.turnershipping.com/port-agency/off-port-limits/>.
72
Art.2, Angola Law on Internal waters, Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone, No. 21/92, Luanda, 28
August 1992; Center Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, 23 June 2014.
73
74
Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177; Richard Stone, The Modern Law of Contract (Abingdon: Routledge-
Cavendish, 2009) p. 351; Peter Gillies, Concise Contract Law (Annandale: The Federation Press, 1988) p. 130;
75
Per Tudor Evans J in Wales v Wadham [1977] 1 WLR 199, p. 210-211; Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29
Ch D 459; Richard Stone, The Modern Law of Contract (Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish, 2009) p. 353; Peter
Gillies, Concise Contract Law (Annandale: The Federation Press, 1988) p. 130; Peter MacDonald Eggers,
Deceit: The Lie of the Law (London: Informa Law from Routledge, 2009) p. 74.
76
Per Lord Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] UKHL 1; Mueller, Christopher B., Laird C. Kirkpatrick,
Evidence, 4th ed, (New York: Thomson/West, 2005) p. 133–34.
13
29. Moreover, the Respondent did not cancel, but rather changed the port where the Vessel
would take bunker. 77 As what has been stated above, 78 a charterer has the right to use
the vessel in whatever manner they think fit. Thus, the Respondent as the charterer does
have options open where he would bunker the ship. 79 In summation, the Respondent
did not conduct any misrepresentation.
i. Alternatively, even if the intention is a misrepresentation, it is not a fraudulent
misrepresentation
30. Innocent misrepresentation occurs when the representor had reasonable grounds for
believing that his or her false statement was true. 80 Since the Respondent did intend to
provide bunker, thus it argues that, even if the representation is a misrepresentation, it
is not liable because no liability can arise from an innocent misrepresentation, no matter
in what way or under what form the attack is made. 81
31. Roche J in Wisenthal v World Auxiliary Insurance Corp. Ltd, stated that fraud is
“seeking to obtain an advantage, generally monetary, or to put some else at a
disadvantage by lies and deceit”. 82 Fraud cannot be presumed, it has to be alleged and
proved. 83 Lord Herschell in Derry v Peek stated that a misrepresentation can only be
proven as fraudulent when it is shown that a false representation has been made
knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly, 84 and the Claimant has failed to
prove that the Respondent’s representations fulfill all the elements required to
77
78
See para 14 of this memorandum.
79
Lord Hobhouse in The Hill Harmony [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 147, p. 157; Bunkers: a guide to quality and
quantity claims, UK Defence Club, P&I Club, p. 7; Martin Dockray, Martin Dockray, Cases & Materials on the
Carriage of the Goods by Sea, (London: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2004) p. 293-294; Peter Brodie,
Commercial Shipping Handbook: Second Edition (London: Informa, 2006) p. 76.
80
UK Misrepresentation Act 1967 s2(1).
81
Per Lord Moulton in Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton [1913] AC 30; Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton
[1913] AC 30 at p.51.
82
Roche J in Wisenthal v World Auxiliary Insurance Corp. Ltd. (1930) 38 Ll. Rep 54.
83
Joseph Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v Imperial Smelting Corp Ltd [1942] AC 154; Web & Juck v Worfield
(M1616) J Bridg 110 at 112; Crisp v Pratt (T1639) Cro Car 550, March NC 34, W Jon 437; Powell J in
Montague v Bath (M1692) 3 Ch Cas 55; Michael R. T. Macnair, The Law of Proof in Early Modern Equity
(Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1999) p. 274.
84
Lord Herschell in Derry v Peek (1889) 14 AC 337 at 374.
14
tantamount them as frauds. Therefore, the Respondent’s representation cannot be
inferred as a fraudulent misrepresentation.
B. The Respondent is not Liable for any Misrepresentation Made by ASA2
32. When the Claimant is seeking to claim damages for a misrepresentation, the false
statement must have been made by, or on behalf of, the other contracting party. 85 In the
present case, having proven that ASA2 does not have any correlation to the
Respondent, the Respondent is not liable for: i) the intention to rebunker the Vessel
stated in 28 June 2014 correspondence; and ii) the intention to discharge 72,000-mt
gasoil and the receiving of 300mt IFO bunkers.
i. The Respondent is not liable for the intention to rebunker the Vessel stated in
28 June 2014 correspondence
33. The Claimant has referred in the correspondence dated 28 June 2014 that ASA2
represented that a sufficient supply of bunker would be available on “STS Area 1”. 86
However, as has been proven above 87 , ASA2 was not acting on behalf of the
Respondent and their representations cannot be considered as the Respondent’s. Thus,
this representation cannot be linked to the Respondent.
ii. The Respondent is not liable for the intention to discharge 72,000-mt gasoil
and the receiving of 300mt IFO bunkers.
34. The 72,000-mt gasoil is to be discharged in the STS location in the Charterparty. 88 The
representation was made by ASA2 89, who, as what also has been proven above 90, was
not the agent of the Respondent. Thus, the Respondent cannot be held liable by the
non-performance of this representation.
85
Richard Stone, The Modern Law of Contract (Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish, 2009) p. 350.
86
87
See para 16-19 of this memorandum.
88
89
Voyage Correspondence, Moot Problem 2015, page 35; Statement of Claim, Moot Problem 2015, Paragraph
17 (c), page 63.
90
15
IV. THE CLAIMANT HAS BREACHED THE CHARTER PARTY AND IS
LIABLE TO ALL LOSS AND DAMAGE
35. Terms and subject details under a charterparty agreement are binding towards the
parties, 91 where the non-performance of it would amount to a breach of charterparty
and the party breaching the contract will be liable for damage. 92
A. The Claimant has Failed to Exercise Anti-Piracy Precautions
36. The Vessel’s 93 and Cargo’s safety is the Master’s responsibility, 94 and the Master needs
to be acutely prepared, alert, competent and skillful to be able to combat the threat of
piracy. 95
37. A piracy incident was reported on 17 July 2014 and it caused certain damages to the
Vessel, partial loss of the Cargo, and injury to the crew of the Vessel. 96 This incident is
a consequence to the Claimant’s failure to adhere to the latest BMP4. The Master has
failed to deploy, inter alia, razor wire and other protective measures required under the
Piracy Clause of ST4. 97 The voyage order has also obligated the Vessel to implement
appropriate anti-piracy measures which are discussed within BMP 4. 98
91
The Junior K [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 583; Granit SA v. Benship [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 526.
92
Decro-Wall International S.A. v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 361, per Buckley LJ. at p. 380;
Lord Lloyd in Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth [1996] AC 344, p 365; [1995] 3 All ER 268, p
282; Per Lord Atkinson in Wertheim (Sally) v Chicoutimi Pulp Co. [1911] A.C. 301 at page 307; Robinson v
Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850 per Parke B at p.855; The Modern Law of Contract (Abingdon: Routledge-
Cavendish, 2009) p. 594.
93
Leeds Shipping Co Ltd v Societe Francaise Bunge [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127 per Sellers LJ at p.138; Per Lord
Atkin Stag Line Ltd v Foscolo Mango & Co Ltd [1932] AC 328 HL; Per Lord Hobhouse in The Hill Harmony
[2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 147 p. 160.
94
Morse v Slue (1671) 1 Ventris Rep 190, 238; Per Holt CJ in Coggs v Barnard (1703) 2 Ld Raym 918; Per
Lord Porter in The Ramon de Larrinaga (1945) 78 L1 L Rep 167 at p. 176; Per Lord Atkin Stag Line Ltd v
Foscolo Mango & Co Ltd [1932] AC 328, HL; John A. C. Cartner, et.al., The International Law of the
Shipmaster (London: Informa, 2009) p. 526; Keith Michel, War, Terror, and Carriage by Sea (London: Informa
Law from Routledge, 2004) p. 824; Per Lord Hobhouse in The Hill Harmony [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 147 p. 160.
95
The Derby [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325, 331, 333; The Eurasian Dream [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 719, 736; See
also The Makedonia [1962] 1 Lloyd's Rep 316. 
96
97
Piracy Clause on Rider Clause of Shelltime 4, Sub-Clause (1), Facts, p. 27, 69.
98
16
38. As required in BMP4 and shipping practices, if the Vessel was going through a known
piracy area, the shipowner shall exercise anti-piracy precautions such as deploying
razor wire and other protective measures. 99 The safety and protection of the crew and
the Vessel is the Claimant’s obligation and it is for the Claimant to determine the level
of threat and the measures considered appropriate to combat such a threat. 100
39. Furthermore, if the Master receives information or have any indications that the Vessel
will be exposed to pirates in his course, 101 he must deviate from the course and take
any step which a reasonable man would take for the purpose of avoiding the danger. 102
The Master, however, has failed to conduct a preventive deviation when he saw two
peculiar fishing boats in the alternative discharge area. Hence, the Master has been
proven to have failed to exercise anti-piracy precautions measures required by the
Charterparty.
B. The Master’s Compliance with the Instructions Other than from the
Respondent is a Breach of Contract
40. The Master has directed the Vessel to an alternative discharge place under the
instructions of ASA2. 103 The contracted discharge place was 2/3 STS OPL Luanda 104
and by changing the discharge place the Claimant has conducted an intentional and
unreasonable change in the geographic route of the voyage as contracted, which
99
BIMCO, Best Management Practices 4, Suggested Planning and Operational Practices for Ship Operators
and Masters of Ships Transiting the High Risk Area, Section 8.5; Simon Baughen, Shipping Law, 4th Ed
(London: Cavendish Publishing, 2009) p. 260; Andrew Palmer, The New Pirates: Modern Global Piracy from
Somalia to the South China Sea, I.B.Tauris, Aug 15, 2014, p. 231.
100
ST4 Proforma Special Provisions, Piracy Clause, Sub-Clause (6).
101
Limited, 2004) p. 296; BMP4, section 4.1.
102
Mellis LJ in The Teutonia (1872) LR 4 PC 171, p. 179; Taylor v Curtis (1816) 6 Taunt 608; Paul Todd,
Maritime Fraud and Piracy, Taylor & Francis, Jul 4, 2013, p. 46; ST4 Proforma Piracy Clause, Facts, p. 8; The
Teutonia (1872) LR 4 PC 171; Lachmi Singh, The Law of Goods of Carriage by Sea (Sussex: Bloomsbury
Professional Ltd, 2011) p. 137.
103
104
17
tantamounts to a deviation. 105 A deviation can only be justified if it is done for the
safety of the ship, 106 to avoid perils of the sea, 107 and/or to save lives 108 or property. 109
The Master’s deviation was not caused by any of the three causes and thus is not
justifiable.
41. Roche J stated that the essence of deviation is that “the parties contracting have
voluntarily substituted another voyage for that which has been insured”. 110 The
Master’s change of route is clearly intentional and thus the definition of deviation
applies to his action.
42. In a time charter, the master of the vessel must obey charterer’s legitimate orders or he
will be in breach and liable for the loss suffered by the charterer, 111 where the
measurement of any charterer orders falls onto the promises given in the contract. 112
The Master’s compliance to ASA2’s instructions is a failure to comply to with
condition precedent and displacing the express contract that amounts to a deviation,113
which is a form of a breach of contract. 114 Hence, it is clearly proven that the Claimant
has breached the Charterparty.
C. The Claimant is Liable to All Damages Caused by the Breach of Contract
105
Leduc & Co v Ward (1888) 20 QBD 475 per Lord Esher M.R. at p.482; Per Lee CJ in Clayton v Simmonds
(1741) 1 Burr. 343; William Tetley, Marine Cargo Claims (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2008) p. 1812.
106
Per Lord Mansfield in Lavabre v Wilson (1779) 1 Dougl. 284 at p.288; Pole v Cetcovitch (1860) 9 CBNS
430; The San Roman (1873) LR 5 PC 301; Per Lord Mansfield in Lavabre v Wilson (1779) 1 Dougl. 284 at
p.288; Per Lopes LJ in Phelps, James & Co v Hill [1891] 1 QB 605, CA; Lachmi Singh, The Law of Goods of
Carriage by Sea, (Sussex: Bloomsbury Professional Ltd, 2011) p. 196.
107
J. & E. Kish v Charles Taylor, Sons & Co [1912] AC 604 per Lord Atkinson; London Arbitration 1/06
(2006) 682 LMLN 3.
108
The Kitsa, 3119 (Arb. in N. Y. 1994); J. & E. Kish v Charles Taylor, Sons & Co [1912] AC 604 per Lord
Atkinson; Cockburn CJ in Scaramanga v Stamp (1880) 5 CPD 295, CA; Julian Cooke et al., Voyage Charters,
4th Ed (Oxford: Informa Law from Routledge, 2014) p. 280; Lachmi Singh, The Law of Goods of Carriage by
Sea, (Sussex: Bloomsbury Professional Ltd, 2011) p. 194.
109
Shelltime 4 2003, Clause 27 (b).
110
Per Roche J in Rio Tinto v Seed Shipping (1926) 24 LlL Rep 316.
111
The Hill Harmony [2001] 1 Lloyd’s rep 147, HL; The Nanfri, Benfri, and Lorfri [1979] 1 Lloyd’s rep 201;
BP TIME 3 Charter Party, Clause 10 (1); INTERTANKO80 Charter Party, Clause 11; BALTIME 1939 Charter
Party (as revised 2001) Clause 9; LINERTIME Charter Party, Clause 10.
112
The Gregos [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 per Lord Mustill at p.7.
113
Joseph Thorley Ltd v Orchis Steamship Co. Ltd [1907] 1 KB 660 at p. 610-611.
114
Lord Atkin in Hain SS Co v Tate & Lyle (1936) 41 Com Cas 350 at p 354; per Fletcher Moulton LJ and per
Collins M.R. at pp.610-611 in Joseph Thorley Ltd v Orchis Steamship Co.Ltd [1907] 1 KB 660 at p.669.
18
i. The Claimant is liable in respect to the piracy incident that occurred during
the deviation
43. About 28,190mt of the Cargo was discharged by the pirates at the coordinate given by
ASA2. 115 Above, 116 it has been proven that the Vessel unjustifiably deviated from the
contracted course, in which the Claimant breached the contract. The Claimant is thus
liable for losses and damages arising out of the deviation. 117 The loss and damage was
caused by the pirate’s discharging whilst the Master’s deviation was in operation and in
force, and was thus attributable to the deviation. 118
44. The Claimant may claim that the Respondent has acknowledged the deviation and did
not give any protest by referring to the 4 July 2014 correspondence. 119 However, it
must be noted that the obligation not to deviate from the agreed route is categorized as
a condition, 120 and a breach of condition will give the innocent party the right to waive
a breach of contract done by the other party and treat the contract as subsisting while all
rights to claim damages are still reserved. 121
ii. The Claimant is liable for damages in respect to its failure to exercise anti-
piracy precautions.
115
116
117
E. L. Oldendorff & Co. G.M.B.H. Appellants v. Tradax Export S.A. Respondents (The Johanna Oldendorf),
[1974] AC 479.
118
Davis v Garrett (1830) 6 Bing 716; John Wilson, Carriage of Goods by Sea, 7th ed (London: Pearson, 2010)
p. 24; Charles, Lord Tenterden, A Treatise of the Law Relatives to Merchant Ships and Seamen (London: Shaw
and Sons, 1856) p. 271.
119
120
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki [1962] 2QB26 pp 16 ff; Per Lord Atkin in Hain Steamship
Company Ltd v Tate & Lyle Ltd [1936] 2 All ER 597; Per Collins M. R. in Joseph Thorley Ltd v Orchis
Steamship Co.Ltd [1907] 1 KB 660 p. 610-611; Julian Cooke et al., Voyage Charters, 4th Ed (Oxford: Informa
Law from Routledge, 2014) p. 285.
121
Hain Steamship Company Ltd v Tate & Lyle Ltd [1936] 2 All ER 597 per Lord Wright at p.608; John Wilson,
Carriage of Goods by Sea, 7th Ed (London: Pearson, 2010) p. 22; Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft
mbH (The Hansa Nord) [1975] 3 All ER 739 per Lord Denning MR at pp.746.
19
45. It is generally known that when a party enters into a contract, it is its duty to keep it,
which means a prediction that it must pay damages if the party does not keep it. 122 By
entering the Charterparty, the Claimant has the obligation to deliver the goods safely
and by not doing so has conducted a breach of contract and is liable for damages
accordingly. 123 In the case at hand, The Master has failed to take preventive measures
as what has been required by the Charterparty. 124 Consequently, the failure led to the
piracy incident and thus, the Claimant is liable for any loss caused by the breaches.
V. THE RESPONDENT IS UNDER NO LIABILITY TO INDEMNIFY THE
CLAIMANT FOR ANY DAMAGES
A. The Damages were Caused by the Master’s Deviation
46. In the prior argument, it has been proven that the Claimant has conducted a
deviation. 125 If the Claimant was to claim for the general average loss as falling within
the contract exception of "perils of the sea, stranding and other accidents of
navigation,” the Respondent would reply that the Claimant had lost the benefit of these
exceptions and must bear the loss as due to the fault of himself and his servants, 126 in
which he was unprotected by the contract. 127 Moreover, the Claimant can only claim
122
Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv.L Rev. 457, 462; Lord Ellenborough CJ in Davidson
v Gwynne (1810), 12 East 381 p. 389; Per Buckley LJ in Decro-Wall International S.A. v Practitioners in
Marketing Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 361 p. 380.
123
President of India v Metcalfe Shipping Co [1970] 1 QB 289, per Lord Denning M.R; Alderson B in Robinson
v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850; Hopkins v Grazebrook 6 B&C 31; Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850.
124
125
126 Per Dillon LJ in Lauritzen A.S. v Wijsmuller B.V. (The Super Servant Two), [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 at p. 11;
Lord Esher, M.R. in The Glendarroch, [1894] P. 226 at pp. 230- 231.
127
Hain Steamship Company Ltd v Tate & Lyle Ltd [1936] 2 All ER 597 Per Lord Wright at p. 606-607; Per
Lord Mansfield in Lavabre v Wilson (1779) 1 Dougl. 284 at p.291; Leduc & Co v Ward (1888) 20 QBD 475 per
Lord Esher M.R. at p.482; Fletcher Moulton LJ in Joseph Thorley Ltd v Orchis Steamship Co.Ltd [1907] 1 KB
660 at p.669; Per Tindal C. J. in Davis v Garrett (1830) 6 Bing 716.
20
damages arising out of the Respondent’s order, 128 and the deviation clearly proves that
the Vessel did not comply with the order.
47. The damages suffered by the Vessel was caused by the act of piracy, 129 which occured
causally by the Master’s breach of orders and negligence. Causation is generally based
on inference or induction from uniformity of sequence as between two events that there
is a causal connection between them, 130 however minimal the contribution is. 131 There
are no other causes that can be linked directly to the damages caused by the piracy and
thus it can be concluded that it was the Master’s action that led to the Vessel being
attacked and the Respondent shall not be liable for the damages.
B. The Off-Hire Clause has Relieved the Respondent from Paying Second Hire
Period
48. In this present case, the Claimant claimed damages for the Respondent’s failure to pay
hire as due and owing under the Charterparty. 132 However, the off-hire has been proven
to be applicable by including the Vessel and/or the Master’s situation into the off-hire
clause. 133 By proving the applicability of the off-hire, the Respondent has been relieved
from its obligation to pay hire continously. 134 Therefore, the Respondent is not obliged
to pay for second hire period.
C. The Claimant has Lost its Right to be Indemnified from the Respondent
Resulting from the Piracy Incident
128
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. v E.N.E. Kos 1 Limited [2012] UKSC 17 per Lord Mance at para 51.
129
Voyage Correspondence, Moot Problem 2015, p. 42.
130
Per Lord Wright in Monarch Steamship Company Ltd v A/B Karlshamns Oljefabriker [1949] 1 All ER 1 at
p.16; See also: R v White [1910] 2 KB 124.
131
McFadden v Blue Star Line, [1905] 1 K.B. 697 703; The Christel Vinnen [1924] P 208, CA; Simon Baughen,
Shipping Law, 4th Ed (London: Cavendish Publishing, 2009) p. 92.
132
Statement of Claim, Moot Problem 2015, Paragraph 22, page. 64.
133
134
Per Bucknill LJ, at p. 173 Royal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (The Ilissos) [1949] 1 All ER 17;
Mareva Navigation Co v Canaria Armadora SA ( The Mareva AS) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 368 per Kerr J at
p.381-382; Martin Dockray, Cases & Materials on the Carriage of the Goods by Sea (London: Cavendish
Publishing Limited, 2004) p. 318.
21
49. The Vessel has been chartered by the Respondent to be directed to areas within West
Africa. 135 However, it has been stipulated in the contract that “The Vessel is not obliged
to proceed or required to continue to or through any port, place, area or zone, which in
the reasonable judgement of the Master and/or the Owners, is dangerous to the Vessel,
Cargo, or crew.”136 Thus, if, in the Claimant’s reasonable judgement, the Respondent’s
nomination is dangerous, he has the right to refuse the nomination. 137 In the
correspondence dated 27 May 2014, the Claimant has indeed acknowledged the danger
of the area, 138 but did not refuse the nomination.
50. Lord Mance in Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd said that for
any indemnity, implied or expressed, to apply, there would need to be a direct causal
link between the charterers’ orders and the consequences. 139 Instead of refusing the
nomination, the Master willingly chose to comply with the nomination and thus his
conduct may well amount to a novus actus interveniens which prevents the Claimant
from recovering compensation for any damage subsequently suffered by the Vessel. 140
51. Moreover, Lord Justice Morris in The Stork held that “…. If, having the opportunity to
refrain from obeying the order, and having the knowledge that the ship had been
wrongly directed to run into danger, those responsible for the ship allowed her to be
damaged when they could have saved her, it would be contrary to reason if damages
could be recovered. They could not be recovered for the reason that they would not be
the result of the breach of contract, but of the deliberate and unnecessary act of those
135
Fixture Recap, Moot Problem 2015, page 5.
136
Moot Problem 2015, BIMCO Piracy Clause for Time Charter Parties, page 11.
137
Lord Hobhouse J in The Kanchenjunga [1987} 2 Lloyd’s rep 509 p. 514; The Terneuzen [1935] 52 LLR 141.
Keith Michel, War, Terror, and Carriage by Sea (London: Informa Law from Routledge, 2004) p. 617.
138
Voyage Correspondence, Moot Problem 2015, p. 22.
139
Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (The “Hill Harmony”) [2001] 1 AC 638.
140
Per Roche J in Portsmouth Steamship Co Ltd v Liverpool and Glasgow Salvage Association (1929) 34 LlL
Rep 459; The Sussex Oak [1950] 83 Ll. L. Rep., p. 308; John Wilson, Carriage of Goods by Sea, 7th ed
(London: Pearson, 2010) p. 29.
22
in control of the ship”.141 Accepting a lawful order means the Claimant has accepted
the risk and thus is not entitled to be indemnified against all losses and expenses that
arise whilst engaged in carrying out the Respondent’s orders. 142 To conclude, the
Claimant’s conducts have waived its right to be indemnified.
D. Alternatively, if the Respondent was at Fault on the Piracy Incident, the
Claimant Cannot Claim for the Whole Damage
52. It has been proven previously that the Claimant in the instant case was indeed at fault
for the occurrence of the piracy incident. However, the Claimant may assert that it was
the fault of the Respondent. Contributory Negligence affirms that the Claimant’s claim
for damages recoverable may be reduced if they partly had fault onto such damages, 143
and it could not claim damages that affect both sides. 144 Seeing the fact that the
Claimant in the instant case has clearly contributed to the occurence of the piracy
incident, consequently, in any event the Respondent was at fault on piracy incident, the
Claimant cannot claim for the whole damage.
141
Per Lord Justice Morris in Compania Naviera Maropan SA v Bowaters Lloyd Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd (The
Stork), [1955] 2 QB 68, CA. at pp.104 and 105.
142
Limited, 2004) p. 300; Lord Porter in Larrinaga Steamship Co Ltd v The King [1945] AC 246; Roche J in
Portsmouth Steamship Co Ltd v Liverpool and Glasgow Salvage Association (1929) 34 LlL Rep 459; Weir v
Unio..n Steamship [1900] AC 525.
143
Platform Home Loans Ltd v Oyston Shipways, [2000] 2 AC 190; Barclays Bank plc v Fairclough Building
Ltd [1995] QB 214; Forsikringsaktieselskapet Vesta v Butcher [1989] AC 852; Nettleship v Weston [1971] 3
WLR 370.
144
Pitts v Hunt [1990] 3 All ER 344.
23
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the reason submitted above, the Respondent respectfully requests this Arbitral Tribunal
to:
DECLARE that London Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the dispute;
Or alternatively,
ADJUDGE that even if London is the seat of arbitration and English Law applies, tort of
fraud claim is inadmissible and cannot be settled in this arbitration;
Further,
ADJUDGE that:
1. The Respondent’s obligation to provide bunker was fulfilled
2. The off-hire declaration was lawful
3. The Respondent is not liable for representations and instructions issued by ASA2
4. The Respondent did not commit any tort of fraud
5. The Respondent is not liable for any loss and damage
Further,
ADJUDGE that the Claimant is liable:
1. For its failure to exercise anti-piracy precautions required by the Charter Party
2. For the Master’s incompetence to follow order from an unknown party
3. For all loss and damage
24

Team 15 UPadjadjaran Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team 15 UPadjadjaran Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

16TH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT 2015

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

LDT Pte. Western Tankers Inc.

BAGAS TIARNIKO SUSETIO • DEBBY YERICA CHRISTINE • FAUZI MAULANA HAKIM •

M. N. MAHATMANTA • RICARDO YOHANES OLIVER

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

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... v

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................ vi

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

I. LONDON ARBITRATION HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE

THIS MATTER .............................................................................................. 3

A. The Parties have Never Reached an Agreement on London Arbitration.... 3

B. The Proper Forum to Determine this Dispute is Singapore Arbitration ..... 4

Arbitration, the Tort of Fraud Claim is Inadmissible ................................. 5

even if it was within the scope of arbitration .................................. 6

the Vessel and to Nominate Bunkering Ports ............................................. 7

B. The Master’s Actions are not Attributable to the Respondent .................... 8

C. ASA2’s Instructions were not on the Respondent’s Behalf........................ 8

D. ASA2’s Instruction to Proceed to the Alternative Discharge Place was not

under the Respondent’s behalf .................................................................... 9

ii. The Master’s negligence by following coordinate given by ASA2 . 11

III. THE RESPONDENT DID NOT COMMIT A TORT OF FRAUD ........... 13

A. The Intention to Rebunker the Vessel in Durban is not a Misrepresentation

i. Alternatively, even if the intention is a misrepresentation, it is not a

fraudulent misrepresentation .......................................................... 14

stated in 28 June 2014 correspondence .......................................... 15

gasoil and the receiving of 300mt IFO bunkers.............................. 15

IV. THE CLAIMANT HAS BREACHED THE CHARTER PARTY AND IS

LIABLE TO ALL LOSS AND DAMAGE ................................................... 16

A. The Claimant has Failed to Exercise Anti-Piracy Precautions ................... 16

Respondent is a Breach of Contract ............................................................ 17

C. The Claimant is Liable to All Damages Caused by the Breach of Contract

i. The Claimant is liable in respect to the piracy incident that occurred

during the deviation ........................................................................ 19

anti-piracy precautions ................................................................... 19

V. THE RESPONDENT IS UNDER NO LIABILITY TO INDEMNIFY THE

CLAIMANT FOR ANY DAMAGES ............................................................ 20

A. The Damages were Caused by the Master’s Deviation .............................. 20

Resulting from the Piracy Incident ............................................................. 21

D. Alternatively, if the Respondent was at Fault on the Piracy Incident, the

Claimant Cannot Claim for the Whole Damage ......................................... 23

PRAYER FOR RELIEF................................................................................................... 24

Arbitration Act United Kingdom Arbitration Act 1996

ASA Atlantic Service Agency

ASA2 Atlantic STS Agency

BIMCO Baltic and International Maritime Council

BMP 4 Best Management Practices 4

FONASBA The Federation of National Associations of

Ship Brokers & Agents

IFO Intermediate Fuel Oil

Lloyd’s Rep Lloyd’s Law Report

LMLN Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter

OPL Off-Port Limit

PDPR Per Day Pro Rata

Master Captain Stelios Smith of Western Dawn

Respondent Less Dependable Traders Pte.

The Charterparty Shelltime 4 Charterparty with special provisions

The Vessel Western Dawn

USD United States Dollar

CASES REFERRED TO IN:

Barclays Bank plc v Fairclough Building Ltd [1995] QB 214 .............................................. 23

Baron v Sunderland Corp [1966] 2 QB 56, 1 All ER 349..................................................... 4

Bennett v. Skinner [2012] WL 2161641 ...............................................................................6

The Berge Sund [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 453 .......................................................................... 10