claimant

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council (2002) ALJR 436 • Royal Life Insurance v Phillips [1990] 43 E.G. 70 • Rush & Tompkins Ltd. v. Greater London Council [1988] 2 W.L.R. 533 • Sheels v Davies (1814); 4 Camp. 119 • SL Sethia Liners Ltd. v. Naviagro Maritime Corporation (the Kostas Melas) [1981] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 18 • Sonmez Denizcilik Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v MV Blooming Orchard(1990) 99 ALR 138 • Steel v State Line SS Co (1877) 3 App Cas 72 • Suisse Atalantique Societe d'Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1965] 1 Lloyd's Rep 533 • Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdansche Kolen Centrale [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 529 • The Shackleford Surrey Shipping Co Ltd v Compagnie Continentale (France) SA [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 154 • Threlkeld & Co Inc v Metallgesellschaft Ltd 923 F.2d 245 • Tomlin v Standard Telephones & Cables Ltd [1969] 1 WLR 1378 • Total Transport Corporation v Amoco Trading Co (The Altus) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 423 • Walker v Wilsher (1889)L.R. 23 QBD 335 • Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 Articles • Richard Hyland, ‘Pacta sunt servanda: a mediation’ Virginia Journal of International Law, Winter 1994, 405 • Mark Pawlowski, ‘Without prejudice – opening shots and negotiating documents’ L & T Review 11(4), 108 Textbooks • Edgar Gold, Aldo Chircop and Hugh M. Kindred, Maritme Law (2004) • Julian Cooke, Timothy Young and Andrew Taylor, Voyage Charters – Lloyd’s Shipping Law Library (3 rd ed, 2006) • Martin Davies and Anthony Dickey, Shipping Law (3rd ed, 2004) • Stewart Boyd, et al, Scrutton on Charterparties (21st ed, 2008) Legislation IV
• Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991 (Cth) • Marine Insurance Act 1909 (Cth) • Sea Carriage Documents Act 1997 (NSW) V
Page 1 and 2: IN THE MATTER OF: NEW ENGLAND CHART
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page 5: • Dakin v Oxley (1864) C.B. (N.S.
Page 9 and 10: 7. The Respondent has repeatedly de
Page 11 and 12: JURISDICTION OF THE ARBITRAL TRIBUN
Page 13 and 14: instead of a claused bill of lading
Page 15 and 16: 12. The factual scenario in the ins
Page 17 and 18: 18. The Claimant would not have any
Page 19 and 20: ‘is clearly intended to have a le
Page 21 and 22: 31. Furthermore, if the Arbitral Tr
Page 23 and 24: 36. General damages in addition to
Page 25 and 26: weather working day of 24 consecuti
Page 27 and 28: detention in addition to or in lieu
Page 29 and 30: THE CLAIMANT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR
Page 31 and 32: Charterparty. To prove unseaworthin
Page 33: DECLARE that the Arbitral Tribunal

claimant

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?