Case briefs of international maritime and commercial law disputes

Succinct and summarized outline of a court verdict is referred to as a case brief. It aims to enhance easy personal digestion, as it is more convenient compared to gaining knowledge of the details of a case via its full document. Also, the case brief helps others understand the case and saves them the stress of going through the full case document. Thus, we can say a case brief is a document that brings together the crucial features of a case and also talks about the court\'s position on it. The major function of a case brief is to summarize the enormous information on a case using a predetermined layout and these summaries are most times very useful during lectures or for personal studies. Specifically, a case brief concerns itself with the complaint the court had to solve (the issue); the appropriate laws applied on the complaint (the rule); the method by which the court utilized the laws in solving the complaint (the application/\"analysis\") and lastly, the resulting verdict (the conclusion). Apart from just understanding, case briefs are also effective in comparing cases which have alike details. For this paper, we will brief the cases identified in the provided literature. Specifically, a total number of five case briefs will be done; CASE 3-4 Shell V. R.W. Sturge Ltd., CASE 7-2 Japan -- Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, CASE 2-5 The M/V Saiga Case (Merits), CASE 9-3 Monsanto Co. v. Coramandal Indag Products (P) Ltd. and CASE 6-7 Libyan Arab Foreign Bank vs. Bankers Trust Company.

CASE 2-5 The M/V Saiga Case (Merits)

1. Facts

In the Exclusive Economic Zone of Guinea, The Saiga was confiscated by the law enforcement agents due to smuggling allegations.

It was being used for bunkering activities and was operating by filling fishing boats and other smaller crafts which worked close to the shore.

At the moment it was discovered and confiscated, The Saiga was out of the Guinea economic zone boundaries and it was located in the Exclusive Economic Zone of Sierra Leone. Also during the taking over, two sailors sustained injuries. The Saiga was later returned to Guinea.

2. Procedures

Notification of Special Agreement: A decree was made by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to let the ship and its sailors go free. This occurred after the payment of U.S. $400,000 by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) and it was confirmed via a credit letter.

Provisional Measures: The captain of the Saiga was imprisoned by a Guinean court with the Guinean Court of Appeal giving a similar verdict. It sentenced the captain to six months imprisonment and also slammed a fine of 15,354,040,000 Guinean francs. It ordered that the fine must come from his personal finances. The Guinean Court of Appeal equally seized all the goods on the ship, which amounted to 4941 metric tons of petroleum and kept the vehicle under custody irrespective of the fine.

Document released by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines: SVG informed the Guinean authorities of its hearing at the ITLOS which follows the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea. Later, ITLOS give a decree which restricted the Guinean authorities from making decisions of their own on the owner, crew, clients or the captain of The Saiga.

Counter-Release from the Guinean authorities

Response released by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

Rejoinder released by the Guinean authorities.

ITLOS finally ruled for Saint Vincent and ordered the liberation of the ship and its sailors.

3. Issues

Was there an infringement of the border laws when The Saiga was discharging petroleum to boats in the waters of the Exclusive economic zone of Guinea?

Has Guinea contravened the UN Convention, Article 292 by their refusal to immediately release The Saiga and its sailors especially after payment of fine?

4. Holdings

UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) stipulates that a verified connection must exist between the ship and its operating country. It further states that other countries are not permitted to contest the authority of the operating country\'s control.

A country need not use all its available solutions in filing a court case which doesn\'t benefit it. A country of operation has total control over everybody, be it foreigners or natives, who operate on its ships. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea often refers to the ship as a group which the captain and crew members are included in.

5. Reasoning/ dissenting

International law allows a country which was harmed in anyway as a result of misdeeds from another country to demand compensation from the other country for the destruction caused. \"Reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.\"

Differing views were brought forward based on the Merchant Shipping Act of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in line with the laws of the Convention. It was made clear that, on the day of the incident (28th October 19997), The Saiga wasn\'t free to bear the flag of SVG as its license has become invalid and it hasn\'t made appropriate arrangements towards securing another licence from the law enforcement agencies of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

CASE 3-4 Shell V. R.W. Sturge Ltd.

1. Facts

The stakeholders of the London\'s Lloyd\'s had formally approved a number of selective setting conditions which allowed only the English courts to preside over and settle all forms of legal cases between themselves and the company. When a suit was filed by the stakeholders against the company asking the court to cancel their association because the company has sold securities without obtaining appropriate approvals from its home city of Ohio (this happened immediately after the company was almost bankrupt and ordered the stakeholders to donate towards bringing it out of the red), the court promptly threw out the case based on the aforementioned selective setting conditions. The investors re-filed their case for an appeal.

2. Procedures

The suing party claimed that the defending party infringed on Ohio\'s securities regulations via its sale of unconfirmed and unobligated securities. They wanted the court to cancel their contracts and remove the added clauses, returning them to their initial statements and they even pledged to donate whatever income acquired to the government.

The defending party stated that the setting/location was inappropriate to preside over the case.

The court went the way of the defence.

The suing party re-filed their case for an appeal.

3. Issues

Choice of Forum Clause (The Forum Selection Clause): The suing party, Shell, enjoined the court to cancel its contracts in accordance with the Ohio securities regulations. The defending party filed a counter-motion aimed at dismissing the case due to the disallowed venue clause under Rule 12(b)3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as the selective setting conditions the plaintiff signed transferred all rights of hearing to the British courts.

Choice of Law Clauses: The suing party contested by pointing out that the selected setting conditions doesn\'t allow them enjoy the benefits of the Ohio securities regulation and that the Ohio public laws are of a far greater importance than the selective setting conditions.

1. Facts

A freezing order was placed on the funds available to the Bankers Trust Company by the US President, Ronald Reagan. An attempt was made to withdraw money by the Libyan Arab Foreign Bank.

The relevant law covering the account happened to be the English law which was accepted between 1973 and December 1980. However, the law was totally overhauled as at the time when the account in question was created.

The occurrence in which the law guarding a contract could be modified is seen in James Mill & Partners, Ltd. v. Whitworth Street Estates, Ltd.

2. Procedures

The Queen\'s Bench Division Commercial Court supported the stance of the Libyan Arab Foreign Bank as the Bankers Trust Company has to remit a sum of $292 million to them.

3. Issues

How will the Bankers Trust Company settle the Libyan Arab Foreign Bank as their money was still under the 1986 freeze by President Reagan?

Is it allowed for a country to freeze monies kept by a bank\'s division located in another nation?

What effect does the account resolution have on the conventional contract laws existing between the suing and the defending party?

4. Holdings

The account resolution shows that two laws are involved and relevant, the New York law and the English law.

The conventional law guarding a bank contract refers to the law of the country which houses the account.

5. Reasoning/ dissenting

Conventionally, banks and their clients expect that the law of the land should guard their accounts. A clear argument should be made to prove why this shouldn\'t be the case and such an argument seems to be absent in this situation.

The Libyan Arab Foreign Bank owned the funds and the money need to be returned. The English courts decided that the funds were owned by the Libyan Arab Foreign bank and the conditions which facilitated the transfer of the money made them eligible for a refund. They equally stated that a non-refund of the money could lead to sanctions of the Bankers Trust Company. This case is quite complicated because of the US and English court decisions. The Bankers Trust Company is free to work towards obtaining US authorization for unfreezing of the funds or they could contest the case further via an appeal addressed by the English courts.

CASE 7-2 Japan -- Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages

1. Facts

The Japanese Liquor Tax Law created a scheme of taxes which affects all beers produced at variable tax rates subject to the kind of beer. This Tax Law accorded lower tax rates to shochu compared to the other beers.

The products affected are vodka, gin, genever, whisky, brandy, liqueur, domestic shochu and rum

2. Procedures

The basic criteria for a combined panel were determined on the 27th September 1995 during the DSB congress. A month later, specifically on the 30th October 1995, this panel was fully built. After proper studies, the panel\'s feedback was distributed to the Members on the 11th July 1996. The report showed that this new Japanese tax scheme goes against GATT Article III:2.

The Japanese authorities appealed on 8th August 1996. On the 4th October 1996, the decision taken by the Appellate Body was also distributed to the Members. It backed the earlier findings of the Panel which states that the new Japanese Liquor Tax Law infringes on GATT Article III:2, although it indicated a number of flaws in the Panel\'s legal approach. Both the amended Panel report and The Appellate Report were signed into law on 1st November 1996.

3. Issues

There were calls for deliberation on this by the EC by 21st June 1995, and later Canada and US made separate calls on 7th July 1995. The challengers stated that the beers which were transported to Japan were subject to bias via the Japanese Liquor Tax System as it only charges negligible tax on shochu while it heavily taxes the other popular spirits like cognac, white spirits and whisky.

4. Holdings

GATT Article III:2: Commodities that are produced in one of the trading regions which are transported to the other region should not be subjected, wholly or partly, to higher-than-usual tax laws or any similar levies which are wholly or partly applied to the country\'s own goods. Furthermore, both regions are not allowed to use the already stipulated levies and taxes in a manner different from that seen in the paragraph above.

GATT Article III:1: The trading regions must acknowledge the fact that domestic taxes and all similar forms of levies, regulations, guidelines and criteria guarding the domestic sales, special sales, consumption, distribution and transportation of commodities as well as the domestic quantitative laws which govern the application, processing or mixing of products in varying sizes, are not permitted to have any effect on domestic or imported goods in order for domestic produce to remain relevant.

5. Reasoning/ dissenting

GATT Art. III:1 (national treatment -- general principles): The Panel and the Appellate Body shared similar views concerning Art. III:1 which contains laws that guides the other parts of Art. III. They further pointed out that due to the disparities in the wordings of the two sentences, there were differing interpretations of the first two sentences of Art III:2 when explained with Art. III:1

CASE 9-3 Monsanto Co. v. Coramandal Indag Products (P) Ltd.

1. Facts

In 1969, The International Rice Institute released its yearly paper and this showed that the popular herbicide CP 53619 has adopted the name Butachlor.

The major working component of Butachlor was known as it wasn\'t protected by a patent.

The process of emulsification was popularly used in the application of herbicides.

The essential components, the major component, the emulsifier and the solvent were well known, how they were processed was common knowledge, the final outcome and its application was also known.

2. Procedures

Coramandal Indag was sued by Monsanto Company because they owned the patent to the week killer chemical component Butachlor and Coramandal used this chemical component in their products namely \"Grass Selection herbicide Compositions\" and \"Phytotoxic Compositions\". The India Supreme Court arbitrated this case and gave a verdict in support of the defendant because the chemical component, Butachlor, wasn\'t developed by Monsanto and therefore they have no rights to complain about patent infringements.

3. Issues

Did Coramandal really infringe on the patent? Monsanto Company has dragged the Coramandal Indag Products Company to court over accusations of patent infringements related to the patents which Monsanto claimed to have acquired in 1979. The acquired patent was on the product \"Butachlor\", however, there was really no patent infringement

Did Coramandal use Butachlor in their products? Monsanto got a sample of the Coramandal Indag Products Company products in question and performed an in-depth analysis and assessment of the product. From this assessment and analysis, they discovered from the outcome that the Coramandal product contained the exact same components as that of their own products. Due to this, Monsanto enjoined the court to punish the Coramandal Indag Products Company due to patent infringement but Coramandal has already nullified the patents acquired by Monsanto.

Was there really a patent acquired by the plaintiff on the concerned chemical component?

Does the plaintiff have ownership of the product based on them being its inventor?

4. Holdings

The bone of contention in this case is patent violation. The function of the court was simply to decide the level of confidentiality attached to the acquiring of a patent for the essential chemical component Butachlor, its solvent as well as the emulsifier.

5. Reasoning/ dissenting

The Herbicide CP -- 53619 (Butachlor) was a common chemical prior to its patent (Patent No: 125381). Its application and chemical formula was broadcasted publicly in the 1968 International Rice Institute report. There was no knowledge of any patent or similar guards for Butachlor. In order to meet the basic criteria for acknowledgement seen in clauses (e) as well as (f) of the Section 64(1), there doesn\'t need to be a public announcement, rather, it is enough for people who actively seek out new discoveries on the patented good or procedure, notwithstanding if it is for scientific or commercial purposes, to be aware of its legal protection. The part of the community which were either commercially or scholastically inclined that developed interest in selective herbicides such as those which would kill weeds and not rice, probably knew about Butachlor. Butachlor was a popular chemical component, the suing party said, because at the time, it didn\'t have the legal protection of a patent.

Several herbicides are applied via the method of emulsification, one which was quite popular. Both Butachlor and the emulsification process could not be declared as the sole property of the suing party as these two were common knowledge and they had always been in the market. Right from the start, it was open to all and was not a discovery by Monsanto.

The society had basic and widespread knowledge of the active components, the other components, the emulsifier and the solvent, even the process, the outcome and its application was known. Monsanto were simply attempting to take a substance which was globally known and coerce it into their own fabrication by their patent (Patent number 125381)