Commonwealth Moot Competition Commonwealth Moot Court. Vino Classique Ltd. (Applicant) OceanusPvt. Ltd. (Respondent) The Compromis

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Commonwealth Moot Competition Commonwealth Moot Court. Vino Classique Ltd. (Applicant) OceanusPvt. Ltd. (Respondent) The Compromis"

Arnold Williams
7 years ago
Views:

1 Commonwealth Moot Competition 2015 Commonwealth Moot Court Vino Classique Ltd (Applicant) V OceanusPvt. Ltd (Respondent) The Compromis 1. Jason owns a vineyard in Kent, United Kingdom. On the 20 th of January 2014 he sold 200,000 bottles of Medway Wine on CIF terms to Sabrina who is the Managing Director of a wine wholesale business called Vino Classique Ltd.. The goods were to be shipped from Southampton, UK, to Singapore. 2. Jason entered into a contract with Oceanus Pvt Ltd for the carriage of the wine. The contract was to be governed by English law and any disputes arising thereof were to be referred to the Commonwealth Moot Court. 1

2 3. Oceanus Pvt Ltd time chartered the vessel from Atlantis and was operating the vessel as a liner vessel on a UK to Singapore route. 4. The bottles of wine were put into containers and were shipped from Southampton by Oceanus Pvt Ltd, who issued a clean bill of lading for them, naming Jason as the shipper and Vino Classique Ltd as the consignee. 5. Jason presented the documents which included the bill of lading to Vino Classique Ltd who accepted and paid against them. The box titled the Carrier on the front of the Bill of lading was signed by Oceanus. However, there was a clause which was printed in bold letters on the front of bill of lading stating that the bill of lading could only take effect as a contract with the owners of the vessel and further detail was on the back of the bill of lading. However, the print on the back of bill was almost illegible. In addition another clause on the front of the bill stated that all the claims in respect of goods shipped in or out of Singapore were subject to the Hague Rules. 6. Two of the containers were stowed on deck on appropriate stacking shoes for the carriage of containers. However, this was not mentioned on the bill of lading. 7. During the voyage, due to severe weather conditions, the containers which were stored on deck were lost overboard. 8. On the day the vessel arrived in Singapore, a new duty was introduced whereby any wine being brought into Singapore had to be paid $25 per bottle before being discharged. As this was a new requirement the Master of the vessel paid the Duty and gave instructions that upon discharge the goods were to be put into 2

3 storage and only released upon reimbursement of the duty by VinoClassique Ltd. 9. Vino Classique Ltd now wishes to claim from Oceanus Pvt Ltd; (a) the consignment without reimbursing the duty already paid by the master of the ship. (b) damages under the bill of lading for the loss of the two containers, as the insurance has refused their claim. for the loss 10. Oceanus Pvt Ltd claim that they are not liable as per the clause which was printed in bold letters on the front of bill of lading stating that the bill of lading could only take effect as a contract with the owners of the vessel and further detail was on the back of the bill of lading. Further, the goods could be released on reimbursement of the duty paid. 11. As negotiations between Vino Classique Ltdand Oceanus ended in failure both parties agreed to refer their respective claims to the Commonwealth Moot Court by a Special Agreement (Compromis) dated 1 December The Compromis asked the Court to resolve the issues set out in paragraph 9 and 10 above. The Teams are to prepare arguments as applicant and respondent 3

4 LIST OF AUTHORITIES Morviken [1983] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1 Leduc& Co v Ward (1888) 20 QBD 475 Sunrise Maritime Inc v. Uvisco Ltd [1998] 2 LLR 287 Universal Steam Navigation v McKelvie (1923) (AC) 429 MB Pyramid SoundMV v BrieseSchiffaurts GmbH (The Ines) [1995] Lloyd's Rep 144 Fetim BV v Oceanspeed Shipping Ltd [1999] 1 LLR 612 The Starsin[1999] 2 Lloyd s Rep. 85 Svenska Tractor v Maritime Agencies SvenskaTraktor v Maritime Agencies (Southampton) Ltd [1953] 2 QB 295 Royal Exchange Shipping Co Ltd v Dixon (1887) LR 12 App Cas 11 Suisse Atlantique [1967] 1 AC 361 Mitchell Cotts v Steel1916] 2 KB 610 TheGiannis NK (1998) 1 Lloyd s Rep, The AthanasiaKomninos(1990) 1 Lloyd s Rep 23 4

5 Treaties/International Conventions/Statutes International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, Hague Rules International Convention For The Unification Of Certain Rules Of Law Relating To Bills of Lading, Hague-Visby-Rules, 1968 Convention for the Carriage of Goods by Sea: Rotterdam Rules, 2008 ICC Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 600) Carriage of Goods by sea Act 1971 (UK) 5

COMPARISON OF HAGUE-VISBY AND HAMBURG RULES

COMPARISON OF HAGUE-VISBY AND HAMBURG RULES Ms Anomi Wanigasekera, Attorney-at-Law, Partner, Messrs Julius & Creasy INTRODUCTION A contract of carriage of goods by sea is between the shipper and the ship