Live updates - 10th NLUO IMAM 2023
LIVE Blog, Day-1,| 10th NLUO – Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2023
Updated: Mar 25
The National Law University Odisha is pleased to welcome you to the live blogging of the Oral Rounds of 10th Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot (IMAM) 2023. This event is organized in collaboration with Bose & Mitra & Co. as Title Sponsors of the Moot, International Institute of Shipping and Trade Law, Swansea University as Strategic Partner; Asian Institute of Alternative Dispute Resolution as Resource Partner, Lloyd’s List Intelligence as Knowledge Partner and SCC Online-EBC as Media Partner.
Bose & Mitra & Co. is one of the oldest and largest steadfast law firms in the field of Maritime Law in India, with a client base worldwide. They have been ranked as a band 1 law firm by Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners in the field of shipping. Recently, they received an award for excellence in “Maritime Jurisprudence” from the Indian Corporate Counsel Association.
Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law (IISTL), Swansea University, dedicates specialist research and professional training centre within Swansea University’s School of Law. IISTL has gained a worldwide reputation for its contribution to research, policymaking, professional training and teaching in various areas of maritime law.
Informa Law (www.informa.com), via its online platform www.i-law.com delivers expert case reporting, commentary, and analysis across eight specialist areas of commercial practice. Informa’s industry expertise means it does not just provide the information: its analysis tells what it means for you, your clients, and your business. And connected content and powerful search functionality, give the broad perspective you need when conducting legal research.
Asian Institute of Alternative Dispute Resolution (AIADR) is the first not-for-profit member-based Asian Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) forum. AIADR is endorsed by the Asian African Legal Consultative Organisation (AALCO) and was launched in April 2018 by His Excellency Prof. Dr. Kennedy Gastorn, the then Secretary-General of AALCO. AIADR is currently helmed by its president, Datuk Prof. Sundra Rajoo and is headquartered in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, with over 800 members and 40 jurisdictions.
The case study of this edition of IMAM has been drafted by Prof. Andrew Tettenborn, Chair in Law, LLM Shipping & Trade; Prof. Simon Baughen, Professor (Maritime Law), LLM Shipping & Trade; & Prof. Dr. George Leloudas, Professor, LLM Shipping & Trade; at IISTL, Swansea University, The United Kingdom.
We will make it a point that you feel as involved as ever during this journey where talented mooters will go through the emotions of ecstasy, heartbreak, delight, shock, surprise all within 3 days.
For keeping tabs on regular updates regarding IMAM, we encourage you to follow us on our Social Media Handles Instagram and LinkedIn for more regular insights. We wish the participating teams the very best of luck! May the odds be ever in your favor! For all the latest updates on the 10th NLUO Bose & Mitra Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot, 2023 follow us on the SCC Online Blog:
DAY 1 | 24TH MARCH 2023
COURTROOM-1: Dreadnought vs Valentina
12:15 PM- It's a sunny day in Cuttack. The Judges have entered the courtroom and are interacting with the volunteers.
12:18 PM- They have now seated themselves and are going through the documents. They can’t wait for the session to start!
12:27 PM- The wait is finally over as the participants arrive in the courtroom. Both the teams are slowly taking their places.
12:33 PM- The round has finally begun. The first counsel from the claimants has started with the statement of facts. He then moves on to the issues at hand.
12:41 PM- The Bench is slowly coming into its element now and is dropping numerous questions on the speaker. The speaker is a little flustered with their sudden intervention so early in the game but he carries on. The Judges have asked him to proceed to the next issue. This court is moving fast!
12:46 PM- The CRM team signals with a placard that the time is running out. The Speaker must manage time wisely in order to finish his arguments in time. The Judges are questioning the nitty-gritties of the matter at hand and look half-convinced with the justification given by the first counsel.
12:51 PM- The speaker looks in a fix as a judge puts up a trick question. He proceeds to answer it but stops in between for a water break. There are infinite questions in the Bench’s bag as the speaker battles through them to utilize the remaining minutes well.
12:54 PM- The Judges stop the speaker after he refers to an old judgment. They look for it in the memo and ask the speaker to continue. The Bench is listening attentively as the speaker cites cases to support his argument.
12:56 PM- The Bench signals the second counsel to take the platform and present his arguments for the remaining issues at hand. The second counsel begins.
1:01 PM- The Judges are quick to correct the speaker as he presents a twisted explanation of a procedure. The respondents are gearing up for their turn and discussing amongst themselves. Time’s up! The second counsel requests for an extension. He is granted one.
1:04 PM- Time’s up again! But the second counsel is allowed to complete his arguments. The time management of the claimants is not looking very good right now. The Judges have many queries which are now being put up in front of the second counsel.
1:09 PM- The grilling continues. The respondents are listening intently and are noting down points for future reference.
1:13 PM- The first counsel of the respondents takes her place and the judges signal her to proceed. She begins confidently and proceeds directly to the issues at hand. The Judges listen intently.
1:18 PM- The Bench again starts in full swing and poses different questions in front of Speaker 1 of the respondents. She listens to them carefully and starts answering them. The judges counter-question. The exchange continues.
1:22 PM- Series of disagreements between the Judges and the Speaker 1 follow. While the judges look for more clarity in the justification, the first counsel strives hard to satisfy them.
1:26 PM- Oops! Another contradiction within the arguments of the first counsel caught by the bench. The first counsel looks weary with the continuous interrogation but carries on.
1:28 PM- Time’s up! The first counsel looks for an extension and the bench allows. The judges look unconvinced with the reasoning given by Speaker one for the third issue and direct her to certain provisions. She gives a reference to the memo and slowly makes way for the second counsel.
1:30 PM- The second counsel for the respondents starts with a bold voice and fills the courtroom with energy. She proceeds with her arguments. The Judge nods twice and presents her with a question. She answers it well.
1:35 PM- Speaker 2 of the respondents continues confidently, but is stopped as the judges inquire about a specific paragraph in a memo. The judges smile as the second counsel gives a vivid description of the clause in question including aspects like font and colour.
1:43 PM- With just a minute left, the judges direct the second counsel to proceed to the fifth issue. The judges while listening to the reasoning ask for a specific clause. Time’s running up! It's high time for the respondents to gear up.
1:50 PM- The judges do not look happy with the answer given by speaker 2 and explain the reasoning gap in the arguments. The voice of the second counsel lowers down as the courtroom becomes colder. She requests to proceed with the prayer but is politely denied.
1:51 PM- REBUTTAL TIME! The judges instruct the teams to stick to their time limits in the upcoming sessions. The claimants start strong and the respondents, even though dazed, listen carefully. The judges lean forward to listen better.
1:54 PM- The claimants make amends by finishing their rebuttal in due time. The respondents bring in the sur-rebuttals.
1:57 PM- The respondents also finish their sur-rebuttals in the given time period. The oral rounds have been concluded. The bench addresses both the teams and applauds them for their performance. They are then asked to leave as the judges start an internal discussion and note down their scores.
COURTROOM-2: Eastland vs Holland
12:15 PM- Good Afternoon and welcome to the Preliminary Rounds of The 10th Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot (IMAM) 2023. The judges are comfortably seated and conversing among themselves as we wait for the participants to take their places.
12:25 PM- The atmosphere of the courtroom is quite jovial as the judges go through the bench memorial awaiting the arrival of the participants.
12:27 PM- The participants have arrived in the courtroom and are slowly taking their places. The room is suddenly charged with anticipation.
12:30 PM- Hurried and last moment discussions are taking place among the teams as both teams await the final nod from the judges to begin.
12:34 PM- The Claimants submit their compendium to the bench and we are a go! Speaker 1 has taken their position
12:35 PM- Speaker 1 is explaining the facts and their structure of the arguments. They seem well versed with the facts. This seems to be appreciated by the Bench.
12:36 PM- Two minutes in and the questions have started. Speaker 1 seemed taken aback but seems to have answered satisfactorily.
12:40 PM- Speaker 1 has asked for permission for time to answer a volley of questions that they have just been subjected to.
12:43 PM- Speaker 1 is in the middle of answering questions to an issue which the bench seems quite critical of. The “1 minute” left placard goes up. But extra time has not been asked for.
12:45 PM- From a prompt from the Of-Counsel, Speaker 1 asks for extra time but the same is denied. Speed of Speaker 1 has increased palpably.
12:48 PM- Due to shortage of time, the bench has picked up what they feel is the most critical issue and is asking questions on that. They seem to be trying to get an understanding whether the Speaker has clarity in the basics of their claim.
12:51 PM- Speaker 2 is speaking much slower than their predecessor. The bench is finding it easier to understand the arguments presented and is not asking many questions.
12:53 PM- The flow of arguments of Speaker 2 is much more structured with proper enunciation and pauses. But alas- the first question has been asked! Will they be able to answer with the same composure and persuasiveness?
12: 55 PM- Speaker 2 answers confidently but the bench does not seem too satisfied. However, permission is given to proceed. Speaker 2 continues with their arguments in the same engaging momentum.
12:58 PM- The Respondent team is quietly taking notes for their own arguments. Will they use the opposing points from the bench in their arguments? Only time will tell.
1:00 PM- Speaker 2 is done with their submissions with sufficient time in hand. All eyes on the Respondents while they take their place and start their arguments.
1:02 PM- Speaker 1 of the Respondents starts with quite an energetic gusto. The bench is startled but pleased at the same time.
1:03 PM- The bench asks the Respondents to come to the crux of their submissions and Speaker 1 starts with their second argument.
1:08 PM- Speaker 1 seems to be losing the attention of the bench. The bench seems to have lost clarity on which issue the speaker is submitting on.
1:10 PM- Speaker 1 seems to be losing confidence due to the barrage of questions that they are being subjected to. But they will not be going down without a fight. They are trying to satisfy the bench in all ways possible.
1:12 PM- The bench is deliberating among themselves on whether they have been satisfied with the submissions of Speaker 1 or not. Finally, they have given permission to Speaker 2 to come forward.
1:15 PM- Speaker 2 is continuing with the same pace as their predecessor. But the bench does not seem satisfied with the submissions and is asking questions to get clarity.
1:23 PM- Is the Respondent side contradicting themselves? That is what the bench thinks. Will the Respondents be able to maneuver themselves out of this?
1:24 PM- “2 MINUTES LEFT”- Speaker 2 has been given permission to proceed due to paucity of time.
1:26 PM- “TIME’S UP”. Speaker 2 asks for 5 extra minutes but the bench is keen on summaries instead of full submissions. Does Speaker 2 have the skill to present their arguments in such a short time?
1:28 PM- “TIME’S UP”- the bench allows for one last argument in brief. The speed of Speaker 2 has increased substantially and the bench’s attention is focused. They might pull this off!
1:30 PM- The bench asks a question that the Speaker 2 cannot answer. The bench seems adamant on getting an answer so permission is given for the Of-counsel to research on the same.
1:34 PM- Arguments are over! Speaker 2 of the Claimants comes forward for the rebuttals with confidence and points out the fallacies of the arguments of the Respondents. Tension in the room is at its peak.
1:35 PM- The rebuttal is filled with pointed attacks and the Respondents seems to be taken aback. It's now their turn to pull out the guns.
1:36 PM- The Respondents have not backed down. They emphasise their points based on the case study in the sur-rebuttals.
COURTROOM-3: Bounty vs Skate
Prelim round - 1 stands postponed to Day - 3.
COURTROOM-4: Hunley vs Argonaut
12:14 PM- The Judges have seated themselves comfortably. The general tone of the conversations seem to be light and engaging. A good start to the competition’s 1st day.
12:28 PM- The teams have entered the room. There is a slight nervousness coupled with a positive attitude. Spectators have taken their seats to witness the well prepared arguments of the parties. The Court Room Managers have taken all the necessary information.
12:35 PM- The Claimant side’s Speaker 1 has started with a warm introduction. Slight temperature adjustments have been requested by the Judges. The Speaker proceeds with the structure of their arguments and is engaging well with the bench.
12:36 PM- Claimant has begun with their first submission. The judges seem to be cordial so far. The Claimant side’s speaker 1 is complimenting their arguments with expressive hand movements.
12:37 PM- And there comes the first clarification from the Judge. Oh! Another one follows merely a few seconds later. This one seems to be a challenging one.
12:38 PM- The Claimant side’s Speaker 1 has briefly shifted the burden of the answer to their co-counsel. Another question by the judges, the Claimant Speaker 1 has answered this question and backed it with a case law.
12:44 PM- Time stamp for 5 minutes left on the clock has been signalled by the Courtroom Manager. The Speaker seems to have taken note of the same. There is some visible tension however, they remain composed. The submissions go on.
12:45 PM- The Judge asks pertinent questions based on practicalities of a submission and the co-judges nod in favor of the question. Claimant side’s Speaker 1 has tackled this.
12:48 PM- TIME’S UP! The speaker has humbly requested for a 2 minute extension and this has been granted.
12:50 PM- TIME’S UP! The Speaker has rested their submissions. The Judges have also rested their questioning for Speaker 1.
12:51 PM- Speaker 2 from the Claimant’s side has taken the podium. Speaker 2 is a calmer speaker as opposed to their co-counsel.
12:57 PM- With 10 minutes left on the clock, the questioning has begun in relation to the assignment of liability. Speaker 2 has given what they think to be the right answer, the Judges have given the green light to proceed.
1:00 PM- The Respondents seem to be taking note of the general tenor of the judges. The judge seems to place the submissions of the Speaker in a succinct and clarificatory manner.
1:08 PM- Speaker 1 from the Claimant’s side has made a few attempts to prompt their co-counsel with some relevant information to tackle the heat of the judges’ questions. The Judges note the same and immediately request to stop prompting.
1:09 PM- TIME’S UP! Speaker 2 is now summarizing their arguments. Seems to be the end of a heated questioning for the Claimants.
1:10 PM- Respondent Speaker 1 has taken the stage and begins with their Statement of Jurisdiction. Oh! The judges seem to be in a questioning mood, the first question rolls in within the Speaker’s first statement!
1:13 PM- The Respondent begins their submissions with regards to the number of arbitrators to be appointed as per the respective laws. There comes a question from the Judge! The Respondent seems to have been slightly shaken because of the constant questioning but they remain confident in their responses, ending it with a poised smile.
1:22 PM- The Judge questions the weight of the Respondent‘s argument and the Counsel smartly answers this using a case law. Ah good try indeed but the Judges question the facts of the cited case on procedural aspects.
1:25 PM- TIME’S UP. With a 2 minute extension granted for the purposes of summarization, the Counsel for respondents continues to make submissions. There is a slight stammer in their voice, a challenging round indeed.
1:26 PM- Respondent Side Speaker 2 has taken the podium. The second speaker is a calm and composed speaker. The judge asks a question and the Speaker, confident in their knowledge, answers swiftly.
1:31 PM- The judge asks for a more recent case law to substantiate the Counsel’s argument as opposed to the old case that the Counsel has cited. The Respondent Side’s speaker 2 answers in the negative.
1:35 PM- A very challenging question is posed by the Judge on the grounds of the Respondent Side’s speaker 2. There is visible tension in the Speaker as they take a few seconds to reply.
1:38 PM- The judges point to the Speaker to take note of the time stamp. An extension is requested. 1 minute left on the clock.
1:42 PM- The Respondent completes their submission with their humble prayer. The judges thank the speaker with a smile. This draws close to the submissions on both sides.
1:43 PM- REBUTTALS have begun. From the Claimant’s side, Speaker 2 has come to rebut the arguments of the Respondents. They defend their case using relevant case laws however, the speaker is very fast and flustered. The minute has ended.
1:45 PM- Speaker 2 from the Respondent’s side has come for rebuttals. The speaker has rebutted the case well and the judges seemed satisfied with the responses.
COURTROOM-5: Titanic vs Clermont
12:23 PM- The judges have arrived and are engaging in pleasant conversation among themselves and others present in the room. They have requested the participants to be sent it.
12:30 PM- The teams have entered the room and seem confident yet a little anxious as the anticipation of the next few hours lingers. We hope that the months of effort they put in will surely be fruitful.
12:37 PM- The first counsel has made his way to the dias and is setting the stage off in a confident manner. The judges are listening intently and have raised a question about the applicability of the Hague convention.
12:44 PM- The counsel so far is doing an excellent job in tackling the clarifications being sent his way. The Bench seems satisfied. Kudos to him and his preparation!
12:48 PM-The counsel has summarized his issues in a wonderful manner and has now passed the baton to his co counsel.
12:54 PM- The Bench is listening and is giving a lot of thought to all their questions. The counsels are putting just as much thought and knowledge to their responses. They really have given their all to this competition!
12:56 PM- Oh what do we see here? The Bench is requesting for more clarity and the counsel is remaining calm and trying his best to sail his team's ship through this turbulent sea!
1:00 PM- With five minutes remaining, the co counsel is summarizing his arguments and it can be said that their ship has moved past the high waves.
1:05 PM- The counsel from the respondent is equally as confident and is directing the Bench towards the moot proposition to substantiate his arguments.
1:11 PM- The Bench has asked the counsel what the judgements being cited by him have ruled and how they apply to the Bench. The counsel seems to be trying to satisfy them. His team looks at him in assurance.
1:16 PM-15 minutes left and the counsel requests for an extension of 2 minutes. The counsel seems to be summarising his arguments and talking in great detail about how the facts of the case play out in their favour.
1:20 PM- The co-counsel has now started presenting her arguments and is correlating her arguments to the facts of the proposition and is guiding the Bench with her.
1:32 PM- Here begin the rebuttals. “You would be given two sentences” The Bench makes the round even more interesting with this. The counsel plays along.
1:35 PM- The round has been concluded and the Bench is now scoring the participants after engaging in thoughtful discourse.
COURTROOM-6: Beagle vs Carpathia
12:10 PM- Warm Regards to everyone. With only a few minutes left before we start with the first preliminary rounds for the day, the judges look cheerful. Let us see if the participants can lead the session with the same mood, we surely do hope so!
12:14 PM- With the pleasantries out of the way, the judges seem to now have engaged themselves with the documents relevant for the upcoming rounds.
12:31 PM- Finally! Tensed faces but confident smiles, the claimants have walked in. As they wait to be seated the respondents join the session. Both the parties seem to have a wonderful composure.
12:34 PM- The counsel seeks permission to approach the bench! And here it begins.
12:37 PM- There seems to be some discussion between the judges and the counsel regarding missing page numbers in the submission, but the judges did not seem to focus much on the error.
12:42 PM- The counsel is done with her submissions, the judges have begun to now critically question various sections of the written submission. The judges seem to have some specific doubts in certain submissions for which the counsel is now giving her answers.
12:47 PM- The respondents seem relaxed and deeply engrossed in the submissions of the claimants. Now that the session has sufficient fluency, the counsel has picked up the speed of her submission and has actively maintained a polite and humble composure.
12:49 PM- The judges offer an extension to the counsel and ask a quick question, though it seems that the answer didn't quite catch the judges’ attention. We now have the next counsel at the podium and she has begun with her submissions. The judges seem to have engrossed themselves with the problem once again while also attentively listening to the ongoing submission, since they do not seem to be losing out on any opportunity to question the counsel.
12:56 PM- The judges seem to have caught some major confusion in the written submissions, in the furtherance of which they actively question the counsel. While the counsel appeared confused for a split second, she timely caught her composure and has been actively involved in a question-answer based discussion with the judges.
1:00 PM- Growing tired with the interrogation, the judges seem to have taken up a calmer composure where they seem to be actively listening to the submissions by the counsel, and simultaneously informing her of the core problem.
1:02 PM- The request for a short extension by the counsel has been approved after which she has been bombarded with more questions. The conversation has taken quite an engaging turn and the judges have returned to actively listening and have paused the questions for now.
1:06 PM- The claimants end their submissions on a warm and cheery note with a presentation of their final prayer, the judges seem very hard to read at this point.
1:08 PM- The respondents have begun with their submission after seeking requisite permissions from the judges. The speaker seems confident enough with his submissions and seems to have caught the attention of everyone in the room.
1:13 PM- The speaker seems to have a moment of stutter. Though he managed to regain his composure just as soon as he lost it. The judges, once again, are on an active questioning spree.
1:14 PM- The judges point to the fact that the respondents have been using the definitions provided according to their convenience, and skipping out on them when not per their use. The judges appear dissatisfied with the present submission but the speaker accepts his error, and the session proceeds!
1:20 PM- With the end of submission by the first counsel, the second counsel has drawn the attention of the judges with his warm and calm composure and the smooth presentation of his arguments. The counsel states a brief structure of how he shall be proceeding with his arguments throughout his submission.
1:26 PM- The counsel seems to be confused with his arguments, since the judges are having a hard time comprehending them. The counsel has been instructed to clarify on what his proper arguments are.
1:28 PM- The counsel proceeds with the second issue. The counsel seems quite adamant about his reasoning and is putting active effort in convincing the judges of his reasoning. The calm demeanour of the second counsel is appreciable since he has been persistently questioned by the judges throughout his submissions and yet, manages to find a prompt reply to every question.
1:34 PM- The counsel has begun with the summarisation of his issue points. He is now being questioned on certain citations presented in his submissions and the relevancy of the said citations. The speaker seems to have satisfied the judges since they ask him to proceed ahead with his argument summarisations.
1:36 PM- The respondents have ended their submission. The claimant counsel briefly joins us at the podium and points out a few couple disparities that they could find in the written submissions. The points made focus more over technical errors in the submission and less over any factual disparity.
1:41 PM- The first rounds of the day have come to an end! The teams have been instructed to leave the room, which they seem more than happy to comply with!
COURTROOM-7: Nautilus vs Lenin
12:07 PM- Welcome all to the first session of IMAM 2023. We are in Court Room 7. The judges have arrived and have started looking into the documents. The counsels are awaited!
12:14 PM- While the counsels are yet to join us, the judges are engaging in a cheerful conversation. This Bench sure looks excited for the upcoming rounds and is ready for some grilling!
12:24 PM- Here comes the teams. They seem to be a bit nervous, and are busy sorting their documents. Ladies and Gentlemen, get ready to witness some amazing deliberation in the next few hours. Looks like we are good to go!
12:30 PM- The counsel has started with great zeal, and mentioned their structure of arguments. The judges have seeked initial clarification on the structure of the ensuing arguments. So far, so good!
12:32 PM- With commencement of the arguments, the counsel has swiftly guided the judges to the pages of their memorial, and has started with his first issue.
12:35 PM- The counsel has asserted that the arbitration shall be conducted based on the LMAA Rules. He mentions “an ICC case”, to which the judge has promptly asked the name of the case. The counsel seems to have lost his track, and is fumbling. There, he finds it!
12:37 PM- “Is that the LMAA Rules you are reading from?” asks the judge. The counsel clarifies on the same.
12:39 PM- The judge points out and asks the counsel to state his reasoning behind the contention that the LMAA Rule would prevail over the English Arbitration Act. The judge doesn’t seem convinced with the answer and has posed a counter-question. He seems hard to convince!
12:41 PM- The counsel seeks permission to move to the second issue. However, the bench seems to have a few more clarifications on the first issue itself. The respondents seem to be listening attentively to the arguments of the claimants.
12:45 PM- Looking at the paucity of time, the judges have allowed the counsel to move to the subsequent issue. The counsel is continuously referring to his written documents and compendiums, the judges are following his lead.
12:51 PM- The judges have graciously allowed 30 more seconds to the counsel to wrap up his arguments.
12:52 PM- The second counsel has taken the mantle. She has informed the judges of her being unwell and that she may take breaks to sip water. Quite a humble request!
12:57 PM- Oh wait! “Do not read, you are reading too much on the references.” One of the judges seems to be disappointed at the continuous reading of the memorial by the counsel. Not a good sign!
12:58 PM- The Bench today is on a roll! They are posing very pin-pointed and sharp questions at the counsel. This seems to have made the counsel a bit edgy, leading to a lot of stumbling on her part.
1:03 PM- The judges are shooting queries left, right and centre. Quite a hot bench I would say. The respondents are seen chatting among themselves, a not-so-attentive approach!
1:05 PM- With just 1 Min left, the counsel still has a long way to go to fully satisfy the judges who are seeking more clarifications.
1:08 PM- The claimants have collectively stood up to present their prayer. The bumpy ride for the claimants comes to an end! It is now the turn of the respondents to put forth their contentions. Good luck to them!
1:10 PM- The counsel looks very confident and has started off with a great note. He has rapidly moved to his submissions for the case at hand.
1:13 PM- The judges have asked the counsel to establish the things that the claimants have failed to do. The counsel seems to have quick and clean answers to the questions of the bench.
1:21 PM- The counsel has begun with Issue 3 which pertains to the bill of lading being of bad tender. He moves to establish his reasoning as to why it is bad tender.
1:27 PM- TIMES UP, the courtroom manager has indicated! However, the claimant still continues without asking for an extension. The judges are paying full attention.
1:29 PM- A request for extension was denied, the counsel has now handed over the baton to his co-counsel.
1:33 PM- One of the judge started reading out the RETLA clause, and asks about the counsel’s stance on breach of duty on the part of the claimants.
1:36 PM- The judge sitting in the middle seems to have laid a trail of counter-questions for the counsel. Seems like the counsel is not able to give a proper answer to his questions. The atmosphere has turned a bit tense at the moment.
1:39 PM- The counsel stands firm on her ground and is trying her best to substantiate her position on the issue at hand. The counsel seems to be intimidated at the sizable questions being posed at her.
1:47 PM- The counsel for the claimants has started off her rebuttals by swiftly pointing out the lacunas in the respondent’s submissions. She has been stopped in the middle since her time’s up. It’s now the respondents turn to give a befitting reply to the contentions raised against them.
1:49 PM- The respondents have adopted a very calm and light tone while answering to the questions posed by their opponents, she seems to be exuding confidence while presenting her stance.
1:52 PM- With this, this intense battle of deliberations, and cross questioning has come to a conclusion.
COURTROOM-8: Fulton vs Lusitania
12:20 PM- Hello and Welcome to each and all. The participants walk in with troubled faces and confused looks. They are ready for round one of IMAM.
12:27 PM- The round is yet to start. However, the room is filled with a blend of different emotions. The participants are now seated ready to put their opponent’s skill to the test.
12:30 PM- The round has begun. The Claimant begins to put her case forward. She seems confident and well prepared. Their opponents glare at her waiting for the first slip-up.
12:46 PM- The bench is going through the relevant documents. They have agreed to extend the speaker’s time by two minutes.
12:54 PM- The second speaker faced a barrage of questions from the judges. The tedious questions have managed to faze her. She asked for a minute to collect her thoughts and now, she is back with her answers.
12:58 PM- The line of questioning has ended. The judges do not seem satisfied. When asked if the claimant could proceed to the second issue, the judges said, “Sure” with a simple nod.
1:00 PM- The speaker stops in between her submissions. She says that she sensed a concern and whether the judge wished to ask anything. The judges refuse and ask her to simply continue.
1:01 PM- The speaker seems to have succumbed to the pressure. She fumbles yet pulls herself back.
1:03 PM- The speaker rested her case. The Respondents have now taken the podium.
1:08 PM- The Speaker has made a minor mistake with respect to the definition of an important term. The judge rectifies the slight error and asks the speaker to proceed further.
1:13 PM- The judges ask three questions at once. The speaker seems lost. The judges seem annoyed. The Speaker has not satisfactorily answered the questions asked by them.
1:15 PM- Much to their misfortune, the judge remarks, “Counsel, we are going in circles. Please, just answer my question.” The Speaker fails to convince the judges with her answers.
1:20 PM-The second speaker takes the podium. She speaks confidently but will she be able to survive the line of questioning.
1:25 PM- The second speaker speaks dramatically and emphasises on multiple terms. However, the judges seem unfazed and unaffected.
1:30 PM- The speaker ended their submissions. The Claimants now punched upon the opportunity of rebutting. The Claimants choose to utilise their 48 seconds in order to dismantle the submissions made by their opponents.
1:33 PM- The judges were considerate and awarded a minute to the Claimants. The Claimants took the podium to point out an error in the case laws mentioned. The judges do not seem satisfied with the question asked.
1:36 PM- The rounds have come to an end. The participants vacate the hall with confused faces. The adrenaline rush has come to an end.
DAY 1 | 24TH MARCH 2023
PRELIMINARY ROUNDS - SESSION 1 CONCLUDES!
We have come to the end of an engaging first session. Stay tuned the SCC Online Blog for constant updates!
NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot(IMAM) (@NLUO_IMAM) March 24, 2023
DAY 1 | 24TH MARCH 2023
COURTROOM-1: Scharnhorst vs Eastland
3:10 PM- After a break, the judges are all ready to begin with Session 2! The teams have started arriving in the courtroom and are slowly taking their seats. The judges are waiting for them to settle down while engaging in a friendly banter with each other.
3:19 PM- The judges, with their chins resting on their clasping hands, listen to the arguments intently. The first counsel confidently proceeds with his arguments.
3:21 PM- The judges start dropping-in questions which are answered by the first counsel one-by-one. The judges continue with follow-up questions whilst discussing something amongst themselves.
3:23 PM- The rounds are getting interesting as the second issue at hand is taken up by Speaker 1 of the claimants. The judges are nodding from time to time to reflect their understanding of the arguments. Good going!
3:28 PM- The respondents can be seen noting points diligently from time to time. Looks like they are gearing up for their turn. The judges ask the first counsel to summarise his arguments. Only a few minutes are left as the second counsel replaces Speaker 1.
3:33 PM- The second counsel for the claimant now moves on to the next issue. The judges inquired about a particular matter for which Speaker 2 answered that the facts are silent on that matter. The judges directed the counsel to continue.
3:40 PM- “You can’t have it both ways, counsel”. Oops! There seems to be some disagreement between the judges and the second counsel as he tries to answer a question by one of the judges. But it is quickly resolved as speaker 2 continues with his arguments.
3:43 PM- AND, TIME’S UP! But the second counsel is granted an extension as the judges continue to listen to the argument with great interest. The speaker is then directed to end the arguments due to paucity of time.
3:46 PM- The first counsel of the respondents comes to the podium and greets the judges. Speaker 1 smartly indicates the time limit of arguments beforehand, reflecting the team’s efficient time management. He starts with the arguments issue-by issue, right away.
3:55 PM- One of the judges puts in a query which leaves the first counsel in a fix. They ponder upon it for sometime. The whole courtroom falls silent. The question is then answered and it is answered well. The judge gives a quick smile and asks the first counsel to carry on. Phew!
4:00 PM- The second counsel of the respondents now replaced the first counsel at the podium. The session continued with the third issue.
4:05 PM- The judges put forward a tricky question and the second counsel gets stuck on it. The judges address the dilemma of Speaker 2 after which the arguments are continued.
4:14 PM- In between the queries, the judges take a second to point out the fundamentals related to the issue at hand and then ask the second counsel to move to the final issue.
4:17 PM- The judges instruct both the teams to stick to the time limit before the starting of the rebuttals.
4:18 PM- Rebuttal time! The counsel for the claimants start the rebuttal in full swing and leave the other team awestruck as they frantically take pointers.
4:20 PM- Rebuttals are finished in due time. The sur-rebuttals begin with a good thrust. The claimants are absorbed in the arguments and listen attentively. The sur-rebuttals are also finished within the stipulated time period.
4:23 PM- “Good Job and Best of Luck!” And with these words, the bench bids adieu to both the teams before moving on to the marking of the rounds. The orals rounds for session 2 have been concluded successfully.
COURTROOM-2: Savannah v. Bounty
3:11 PM- The Claimants are off to a good start. With a commanding and clear voice, Speaker 1 is explaining the structure of their submissions.
3:12 PM- Speaker 1 has chosen to present facts through the timeline of events and the bench is appreciative of the same.
3:15 PM- The bench seems engrossed with the submissions of Speaker 1. Well done!
3:19 PM- Is Speaker 1 speaking too fast for the bench to get an opening to ask questions or are they just that good? 10 minutes in and no questions yet.
3: 21 PM- The first question comes in. A long winded answer to a crisp question on the Bill of Lading.
3:32 PM- Speaker 1 is not wavering in their argument nor is their confidence. Citing a case from their compendium, they are finally able to satisfy the bench.
3:36 PM- “5 MINUTES LEFT” and Speaker 1 starts on with their second issue. The time crunch can be felt from the palpable increase in the speed of the Speaker.
3:43 PM- Speaker 1 is being bombarded with questions and time is running out-TIME’S UP-Speaker 1 leaves with a tinge of frustration. Phew!
3:44 PM- Speaker 2 comes up and the questions have started already on the structuring of issues in the memorial. The bench asks the Speaker 2 whether they would be willing to reframe their issue.
3:48 PM- Speaker 2 seems to be at a loss. Silence ensues as they contemplate on whether they are willing to reframe.
3:49 PM- Speaker 2 finally concedes to the newly reframed issue and the arguments continue.
3:55 PM- The bench has pointed out that Speaker 2 gave a long answer to what could have been answered in a crisp manner. Oops!
4:00 PM- “TIME’S UP”- Speaker 2 is unable to satisfy the applicability of the arbitration rules but rushes to the Prayer with a request for extension.
4:02 PM- The floor is now open to the Respondents. Speaker 1 speaks with an assuring certainty as they explain their structure and have taken over the room.
4:10 PM- Speaker 1 is not giving a clear answer to a Yes/No question. The Bench points it out but asks the Speaker to proceed in the interest of time.
4:15 PM- The Bench states that if they are unwilling to accept the Respondent’s primary argument, what is the exceptional circumstance which separates the Respondents from the rest. Time is almost up and this is quite a loaded question.
4:18 PM- Speaker 1 takes a bold move and on their own attempts to answer the question from the bench their opposing side was unable to answer. The bench is smiling- they are pleased with the initiative and the answer!
4:23 PM- The bench is conversing among themselves- they seem to be concerned about the paucity of time. Speaker 1 asks for extension but the same is denied in the interest of letting Speaker 2 speak.
4:28 PM- Speaker 1 is pushing their time limit and the bench is dissatisfied. Speaker 2 finally enters the playing ground. Will they be able to finish with a bang?
4:33 PM- Discussion on certificates and policies continue. Speaker 2 is aiming to satisfy the bench.
4:35 PM- The bench seems adamant on admitting arguments based on cases in the compendium and memorials. The Speakers are playing quite a risky game!
4:39 PM- What is a bad tender? Time is running out as the arguments come to a close and the Respondents try to prove their point.
4:41 PM- Did the bench just use the Respondent’s arguments against them? Speaker 2 has to come out of this in the most efficient way possible.
4:44 PM- Accept your mistake and move on or stick to your arguments? That is quite a thin line to walk on!
4:45 PM- “TIME’S UP”- but it is up when the bench says so! Speaker 2 grapples to answer a crucial question raised by the bench.
4:47 PM- Everything stands still as the bench decides whether they are satisfied or not. The silence is quite terrifying.
4:53 PM- Arguments have come to an end. Time for the rebuttals. Will the Claimants be able to make a lasting impact? The bench has asked for two best points. Can they deliver?
4:55 PM- The Bench is impatient and unwilling to listen to anything other than responses to the said arguments. Respondents seek some time to arrange their sur-rebuttal and the same is granted.
4:57 PM- “Make it count”, the wise words to the Respondents on their sur-rebuttals. The Respondents give their very best, albeit at very high speed. And we have come to a close. A thrilling round in a highly charged atmosphere! Now the scoring begins.
COURTROOM-3: Mayflower vs Hunley
3:08 PM- The three judges are well seated in the courtroom. They can be seen engaging in a pleasant conversation. The atmosphere feels welcoming at the moment. It would be interesting to see how the mood changes as the round commences.
3:11 PM- The teams have entered the room and exchanged glances with one another. The tension is visible.
3:15 PM- The judge lays down the procedure as there seems to be a potential conflict of interest. The teams have the option of deciding whether they wish to proceed with a panel of three judges or merely two, considering one of the judges is acquainted with one of the team members.
3:17 PM- The courtroom has taken a slightly dramatic turn. The teams are asked to submit their decision a yellow chit. The court master has been asked to collect the same.
3:18 PM- The teams have decided to proceed with a two-judge bench. The counsel for the claimants has approached the podium. They reflect confidence as they lay down the time allocation and issue distribution for their team.
3:19 PM- The judge seeks clarifications from the counsel regarding one of the authorities cited. The counsel slightly flusters but resumes with clarity.
3:21 PM- “Who were the documents tendered to, counsel?”, the judge asks. The counsel mentions that the facts are silent about the matter.
3:22 PM- The counsel is thrown with another question regarding the facts and they can be seen scanning the materials.
3:25 PM- The counsel repeatedly refers to their transcript. The judge engages with their submissions and bombards them with questions one after another. The panel asks them what their claim is and seems unsatisfied with the answer as they try to tie them in a loop. It would be interesting to see how they navigate the ship.
3:26 PM- The counsel answers well and reverts back to their submissions with ease.
3:27 PM- The judge asks them a question regarding the application of certain rules as cited by the counsel. The counsel can be seen trying their best, as is evident from their frequent hand gestures, to convince the panel with her justification.
3:28 PM- The counsel directs the panel’s attention to the case study to establish how the present matter falls within the rules thus cited. The judge bombards them with another follow-up question. The counsel suffers a slip of tongue and accidentally refers to the arbitrators as ‘counsel’.
3:33 PM- “TIME’S UP!“, holds the court manager but the judges are unhinged in asking questions. The counsel fails to ask for an extension.
3:34 PM- The counsel seeks permission to proceed with their further arguments but is again made to take a halt by the judges as they vehemently say “no!”, being unsatisfied with their answer.
3:35 PM- The counsel hands over a document to the panel, for reference. The panel reminds them of the time constraints.
3:39 PM- Counsel 2 for the claimants walks over and introduces themselves. They appear to be a little tense and speak in a low voice. They approach their team for assistance with their memorial, as the panel asks to be directed to a relevant footnote number.
3:43 PM- The judge asks how the claimants can assume that a particular clause is applicable to their case, “Is it written anywhere in the moot proposition or did you seek any clarification?”. The judge raises his voice and asks for a relevant judgement. The counsel cites a case but the panel sits unconvinced.
3:50 PM- “2 Minutes left”, the court manager announces as the panel engages on facts of the case.
3:53 PM- The counsel successfully summarises their submissions within the stipulated time. The Respondents walk over confidently.
3:55 PM- Counsel 1 of the Respondents says that they disagree with one of the facts stated by the claimants.
3:57 PM- The counsel seems too keen on answering questions as the judge interjects “I have not finished my question!”.
4:04 PM- “Your argument is very circular”, the panel is visibly confused as the counsel fails to establish whether or not arbitrators have the discretion to adopt their own procedure.
4:11 PM- “TIME’S UP” but the panel expresses their reservations as they feel that the counsel is misleading the tribunal, due to her failure to present valid rules under which the present matter falls.
4:15 PM- The panel seeks clarifications regarding definitions presented by the counsel. The counsel cites an authority from their memorial to justify their understanding. The judge highlights a contradiction between their oral submissions and their memorials.
4:20 PM- The counsel summarises their submissions. Counsel 2 moves towards the dias.
4:24 PM- With the incessant questions, the counsel directs the panel to the moot proposition but they struggle to resolve the queries. The panel sees “no way forward” in this argument and thus, urges the counsel to proceed with the next issue.
4:30 PM- “Do you have any judgement to show that the RETLA clause is ambiguously worded?”. The counsel delivers an answer but the judge vocalises his discontentment.
4:35 PM- “I don’t see any merit in this argument”, the judge grants an extension of one minute, anticipating an assuring answer. The counsel answers and concludes his submissions.
4:42 PM- The round comes to an end. The teams collect all the material and move out of the courtroom. The judges are seen interacting with the court managers as they hand over the score-sheets.
COURTROOM-4: Valentina vs Titanic
3:13 PM- The lunch break provided much needed energy as everyone has positively made their way back. The Claimants have begun with their first Speaker giving a very well structured introduction to their speech. They maintain a straight face without a hint of expressions. All clear, no questions so far.
3:16 PM- The claimant side’s speaker 1 has smartly predicted the argument of the other side. Here comes the first question of the round!
3:20 PM- The Judge has posed a question and while the Speaker couldn’t answer it, they highlight the possible irrelevance of the question, to the issue at hand. Expressions are still neutral and composed, even as questions follow.
3:22 PM- The Judge, showcasing their experience, points to the Speaker the potential mistake in citing a very specific case. The Speaker justifies its usage on procedural aspects regardless.
3:28 PM- The Respondents listening to each point intently and seems to be scribbling away important notes to use it to their advantage when their turn arrives.
3:28 PM- The Respondents listening to each point intently and seems to be scribbling away important notes to use it to their advantage when their turn arrives.
3:30 PM- The judge once again posed a similar question as in the last round. The question has left the counsel confused. An interesting question indeed. Speaker 1 has now passed the baton to Speaker 2 from the Claimant’s side.
3:36 PM- Speaker 2 is a steady one. They are taking time with every answer. The judges seem relatively calm, the questioning has decreased.
3:41 PM- 2 MINUTES LEFT ON THE CLOCK! With hands on their chin and deep in thought, the judges pose a question yet again on the existence of any recent cases. It seems that the judges are not too intent on age old cases.
3:43 PM- TIME’S UP! Extension granted to summarise the arguments. The tenor of Speaker 2 was consistent throughout the round. 30 SECONDS LEFT on the extended time.
3:46 PM- Speaker 1 from the respondent’s side has taken the stage. They proceed directly to their arguments. Their speech is complimented with expressive hand gestures which signal their preparedness.
3:51 PM- The speaker seems to be well-versed with the problem. Most of the arguments seem to be based on pure logic and a clear understanding of the problem.
3:53 PM- Despite repeated questions, the Speaker remains calm and composed. The Judges question the persuasive value of cases from other jurisdictions and their probable binding nature.
3:56 PM- The judges seem to have found a loophole in the Speaker’s arguments on the admissibility of cases from other jurisdictions.
4:07 PM- 8 MINUTES ON THE CLOCK! The Speaker on the respondent’s side seems to have lost track and has taken a significant amount of time. The Judge, clearly taking note of this, asks the speaker to call upon their co-counsel for a fair chance to submit their arguments.
4:09 PM- Speaker 2 from the Respondents taking note of the lack of time left to make arguments, speaks at a much faster rate. Clearly they are in a hurry. The Judges continue to prioritise questioning them irrespective of the lack of time.
4:10 PM- However, the Speaker tackles every question. Notably quick on their feet!
4:12 PM- While the Speaker tries to justify their case, they seem to be arguing in a friendly manner. Everyone is smiling at the answers given by the Speaker, even as they continue to try and justify themselves.
4:15 PM- 2 MINUTES HAVE BEEN GRANTED. Two issues left to be discus