Category: English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 15/19

SPEED AND PERFORMANCE – WHETHER LOST TIME AND EXPENSES TO BE FOR CHARTERER – HULL CLEANING – PROLONGED PORT STAY When the Vessel required hull cleaning after a prolonged port stay Charterer contended that they were not liable for time and expenses as the inspection and cleaning occurred after redelivery.  During a voyage chartered on an amended NYPE 1993 form the Vessel encountered a prolonged port stay, which necessitated hull cleaning. Charterer claimed the time and expenses of the cleaning would not be for their account due to the structuring of the clause providing for extended port stays. The relevant...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Alize 1954 and Another v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG and Others (The “CMA CGM Libra”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Teare J) [2019] EWHC 481 (Admlty) – 8 March 2019

GENERAL AVERAGE – WHETHER VESSEL WAS UNSEAWORTHY – OBLIGATION TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE – WHETHER PASSAGE PLAN WAS DEFECTIVE Cargo interests refused to contribute to general average after the Vessel was grounded. It claimed the grounding was the result of the Owner’s failure to exercise due diligence in providing a seaworthy vessel.  When the container vessel CMA CGM LIBRA (hereinafter, “Vessel”) was grounded whilst departing the port of Xiamen, China the cargo interests denied contribution to general average due to the cause of the grounding. The Owner stated that the grounding occurred as a result of an uncharted shoal. It...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Eleni Shipping Ltd v Transgrain Shipping BV (The “Eleni P”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Popplewell J) [2019] EWHC 910 (Comm) – 10 April 2019

PIRACY – HIRE – APPEAL – WHETHER CAPTURE AND ARREST CLAUSE APPLIED – WHETHER PIRACY CLAUSE APPLIED Owner claimed for lost hire from Charterer totaling about $5.6 million, the majority of which was lost due to the Vessel being captured by pirates. To support their claim, the Owner stated the capture and arrest clause did not apply since the Vessel was not captured by an “authority” as provided in the clause. Further, it was stated the piracy clause did not apply due to the capture occurring outside the geographical location listed in the clause.  The Owner of the Eleni P...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Aprile SpA and Others v Elin Maritime Ltd (The “Elin”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Stephan Hofmeyer QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court) [2019] EWHC 1001 (Comm) – 18 April 2019

DAMAGES – LOSS OF CARGO – WHETHER SEAWORTHINESS IS AN ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION – EXCLUSION CLAUSE – BILL OF LADING  Cargo interests claimed damages against Owner for loss of deck cargo during the voyage. It was asserted that the Owner was liable due to negligence and its failure to ensure the vessel was seaworthy upon commencing the voyage. Owner contended that the exclusion clause provided in the bill of lading was applicable since it covered damages “howsoever caused”.  The cargo interests (Aprile SpA and Others) claimed damages against Elin Maritime Ltd (hereinafter, “Owner”) for the loss of deck cargo resultant from...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Sonact Group Ltd v Premuda SpA (The “Four Island”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Males J) [2018] EWHC 3820 (Comm) – 12 December 2018

DEMURRAGE – ASBATANKVOY – ARBITRATION CLAUSE – WHETHER ARBITRATORS HAD JURISDICTION – SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT  Charterer contended Owner’s demurrage and heating cost claim after it was brought to arbitration. It asserted that the claim was not in the arbitrator’s jurisdiction as it arose from the settlement agreement, which did not contain an arbitration clause.  Under an amended Asbatankvoy form the vessel Four Island was chartered for carriage of fuel oil from Kavkaz to the discharge port of Novhodka in Russia. Owner claimed for demurrage and heating costs against Charterers totaling $909,148.08, which was settled in emails where the Charterer agreed to...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 6/19

SPEED AND CONSUMPTION WARRANTIES – PERFORMANCE CLAIMS – GOOD WEATHER CONDITIONS – DOUGLAS SEA STATE – SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT  The Charterer claimed for damages for breach in the speed and performance warranty against Owner. Owner contended that there were no periods of time that satisfied “good weather” conditions.  Charterer issued a performance claim against Owner amounting to a total of $128,388.86 for lost time and overconsumption of bunkers during a time charter trip from South Africa to China. Owner contended that they were not in breach of the speed and consumption warranty as there were no days that satisfied the...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 22/18

TIME CHARTER – OFF-HIRE – HULL CLEANING – PERFORMANCE CLAIMS – OVERCONSUMPTION OF BUNKERS – GOOD WEATHER DAY – EXERCISE OF LIEN – DELAY Several disputes arose between Owner and Charterer under a time charter voyage with respect to off-hire, vessel performance, delays after discharging, and exercising liens. his arbitration covered several disputes arising from a voyage under a time charter on an amended NYPE form from Australia to India with a cargo of coal. The vessel made call in Singapore whilst on the way to the discharge port where the Charterer intended to bunker the vessel and the Owner...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 21/18

PERFORMANCE CLAIMS – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION – “ABOUT” TOLERANCES – CURRANT FACTORS – WEATHER ROUTING SERVICES – AIS – OFF-HIRE Charterer claimed against Owner for issues regarding vessel performance and off-hire. harterer claimed the vessel underperformed and overconsumed on a voyage, which was chartered under an amended NYPE form for a time charter. The Charterer supported their performance claim by supplying reports of the vessel’s performance from three weather routing companies. These three companies were referred to as X, Y, and Z throughout the arbitration. In the weather routing clause of the charter party the Charterer was warranted not to...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 19/18

DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – WHETHER BROKER IS AGENT OF OWNER OR CHARTERER – INTERMEDIATE BROKER – CONSEQUENTIAL DELAYS When Owner claimed demurrage with respect to eight voyages Charterer contended that seven of those were time-barred. The claim documents were sent to broker “D” who did not send them to the Charterer until after the time bar period. Owner contends that D was an agent of the Charterer, while Charterer contends D was an agent of the Owner.  Further, when engine troubles at the load port led to consequential delays at the disport which Charterer claimed...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 5/19

PARTIAL FINAL AWARD – LA 4/19 – HIRE DEDUCTIONS – WHETHER CHARTERER HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS TO DEDUCT FROM HIRE Owner claimed for hire amount deducted by Charterer stating the Charterer offered no reasonable grounds to make that deduction. his arbitration follows the award made in London Arbitration 4/19. The result of that arbitration was that the Owner would not be held liable to the cargo claim involving the Charterer, and therefore the Charterer’s deduction from hire would be dismissed. Owner pursued the issue further and claimed that the Charterer could not show reasonable grounds for the deduction from hire and...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.