Category: English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 4/18

TIME CHARTER PARTY – SLOW CRANE MOVEMENT DURING LOADING – UNDERPERFORMANCE OF VESSEL – WHETHER OWNER IN BREACH OF CHARTER PARTY Charterer claimed for time lost due to perceived slow movements of vessel’s cranes during loading operations and underperformance of vessel. It asserted that for both disputes the Owner breached warranties in the charter party. harterer filed claims against Owner over two disputes arising during a single time charter voyage. The first dispute brought by the Charterer was that the cranes utilized in the vessel’s loading operations were moving slowly and subsequently lost them time to the amount of 1.89...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Glencore Energy UK Ltd v OMV Supply and Trading Ltd – QBD (Comm Ct) (Sir Ross Cranston) [2018] EWHC 895 (Comm) – 23 April 2018

DEMURRAGE – DETENTION – TIME BAR – NOTICE OF READINESS Vessel was requested to wait in gulf outside discharge port due to a lack of berthing prospects. Owner invoiced detention inclusive of extra bunkers consumed from CFR seller whom in turn claimed it from the CFR buyer.  The CFR time-barred the claim via the demurrage time bar clause. lencore Energy UK Ltd (hereinafter, “Glencore”) sold 80,000 mt of light crude oil CFR to OMV Supply and Trading Ltd (hereinafter, “OMV”) to be loaded at Novorossiysk, Russia and carried by a vessel that was to be nominated to the discharge port...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

CSSA Chartering and Shipping Services SA v Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd (The “Pacific Voyager”) – Court of Appeal (Longmore and King LJJ and Sir Rupert Jackson) [2018] EWCA Civ 2413– 6 November 2018

VOYAGE CHARTER PARTY – SHELLVOY 5 – OBLIGATION TO COMMENCE VOYAGE – LAYCAN EQUIVALENT TO EXPECTED TIME OF ARRIVAL / EXPECTED READINESS TO LOAD – EXPECTED TIME OF ARRIVAL – EXPECTED READINESS TO LOAD – MONROE OBLIGATION Charterer claimed damages against Owner when Vessel was unable to proceed to loading port by the charter party cancellation date. It argued the Owner had absolute obligation to proceed to the loading port where the cancellation date constituted the time in which the approach voyage was to be commenced. he vessel “Pacific Voyager” (hereinafter, “Vessel’) was chartered by CSSA Chartering and Shipping Services...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Toptip Holding Pte Ltd v Mercuria Energy Trading Pte Ltd and Another (The “Pan Gold”) – Court of Appeal (Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong and Judith Prakash JJA) SGCA 64 – 23 November 2017

REPUDIATORY BREACH – CHARTER PARTY – EXISTENCE OF A COMPLETED CONTRACT – PRO FORMA CHARTER PARTY – COURT OF APPEAL The claimant charterer filed damages against defendant disponent owner for repudiatory breach of a charter party. The defendant argued that the presence of a Subject Review clause implied no formal contract existed. optip Holding Pte Ltd (hereinafter, “Toptip”) as charterer claimed damages against Mercuria Energy Trading Pte Ltd (hereinafter, “Mercuria”) as disponent owner for repudiatory breach of a charter party. Toptip claimed for the difference in freight rate between the charter party with Mercuria and the substitute charter party. The...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 2/18

SALE OF GOODS (CFR) - DEMURRAGE - TIMELY PAYMENT OF FREIGHT - OBLIGATIONS UNDER SALES CONTRACT VS UNDER CHARTERPARTY - OWNERS REFUSING TO RELEASE BILLS OF LADING UNTIL FREIGHT PAYMENT The CFR Sellers brought arbitration against their Buyers in order to indemnify themselves for demurrage caused by the Buyers delaying payment of the Owner’s freight.  Sellers argued that it was the Buyer’s responsibility to pay freight promptly under the contract. The Buyers countered that the obligation to pay freight accrued under the Seller’s charterparty, and therefore it was the Seller’s responsibility.  
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 3/18

VOYAGE CHARTER - DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – VALID NOTICE OF READINESS – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO Charterer cancelled a voyage charter party after failing to provide cargo. Owner claimed demurrage and damages from the alleged repudiatory breach.  Charterer countered that the claim was time barred, the Vessel’s NOR was invalid, and the damages if awarded, should be basis the C/P’s lowest freight option.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 25/17

TIME CHARTER - VESSEL’S CONDITION UPON REDELIVERY - BREACH OF CHARTER When Charterer sat the Vessel at an equatorial port for 35 days, the Owner claimed underperformance damages incurred under a subsequent fixture and the cost to clean the hull.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 23/17

DEMURRAGE - OIL SPILL - FORCE MAJEURE - PROCEED THERETO - REACHABLE ON ARRIVAL - ARREST OR RESTRAINT OF PRINCES - BPVOY3 Before the vessel’s arrival at port, a vessel at the vessel’s intended berth had an oil spill which delayed the vessel once she arrived at the port.  Charterer argued to split the delay 50/50 wherein owner stated that BPVOY3’s “proceed thereto” was to be read as “reachable on arrival”, the spill was not an exception, and the prior vessel’s arrest was not an “arrest or restraint of princes, rulers or people”.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

MT “Cape Bonny” Tankschiffahrts GmbH & Co KG v Ping An Property and Casualty Insurance Co of China Ltd – QBD (Comm Ct) (Teare J) [2017] EWHC 3036, 4 December 2017

ENGINE BREAKDOWN - TYPHOON - SEAWORTHINESS - GENERAL AVERAGE - REASONABLE EXPENDITURES After suffering an engine breakdown, the shipowner employed a tug to avoid a typhoon and to bring the vessel to port.   The owner then brought claim against the insurance company for general average contribution. The defendant argued that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage and that the casualty was caused by actionable fault of the Owner and thus no contribution was due. Further, the defendant argued that owner’s expenditure as claimed under general average was unreasonable.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.