Category: English Maritime Cases

English Maritime Cases

Palmali Shipping SA v. Litasco SA– QBD (Comm Ct), 1 October 2020

CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – FAILURE TO HONOR MINIMUM QUANTITY OF CARGO CONTRACT – LOSS OF PROFITS – TRANSFERRED LOSS PRINCIPLE
Palmali sought US$1.9 billion in damages from Litasco under a long-term contract of affreightment (COA). Palmali contended the COA gave it exclusive rights to carry oil products for Litasco between multiple ports in the Caspian Sea, Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Further, Palmali asserted the COA guaranteed Litasco would ship a minimum quantity of 400,000 MT (the Minimum Quantity Obligation), with a total monthly volume of 700,000 MT/month.

English Maritime Cases

Laysun Service Co Ltd v Del Monte International GmbH [2022] EWHC 699 (Comm) (Calver J) – 28 March 2022

CHARTERPARTY – CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – COA – FORCE MAJEURE – APPEAL AGAINST ARBITRATION AWARD – ARBITRATION ACT 1996, SECTION 69
In December 2017, Del Monte entered into a contract of affreightment (COA) with Laysun to transport refrigerated bananas from the Philippines to Iran. The agreement was for 36 voyages from January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2018. After 17 shipments, Del Monte stopped providing cargos. Layson sought arbitration for Del Monte’s failure to supply the remaining shipment. Del Monte claimed force majeure due to US Sanctions against Iran and the resulting import restrictions. Laysun appealed the arbitration citing error of law under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

English Maritime Cases

Nautica Marine Ltd v Trafigura Trading LLC (The “Leonidas”) – English Commercial Court: Foxton J: [2020] EWHC 1986 (Comm): 28 July 2020

VOYAGE CHARTER – APPROVAL OF A VESSEL – DAMAGES FROM BREACH OF CHARTER – PRE-CONDITION OF CHARTER – PERFORMANCE CONDITION OF CONTRACT – IMPLIED OBLIGATIONS OF CHARTERER – PUTATIVE LOSS OF PROFITS – BREACH OF CHARTER

Nautica (Owner) negotiated a prospective voyage charter of the tanker “Leonidas” with Trafigura (Charterer) for a laden voyage carrying oil cargoes. The charter was subject to obtaining suppliers’ approval of the vessel within a four-day deadline. When the deadline passed without Trafigura obtaining suppliers’ approval, the charter was abandoned. Nautica claimed damages for the charterer’s alleged breach of charter of the difference between the profit it would have gained on the prospective charter and the (lesser) profit made on the fixture entered.

English Maritime Cases

Shagang Shipping Co Ltd v HNA Group Co Ltd (The “Dong-A Astrea”) – Supreme Court (Lord Hodge DP, Lord Briggs, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt and Lord Burrows JJSC) UKSC 34 –  5 August 2020

BRIBERY – ENFORCE CHARTERPARTY AGAINST GUARANTOR – TORTURE – CONFESSION EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY TORTURE – LIABILITY OF GUARANTOR

The appeal was based on whether a charterparty’s guarantor (HNA) could avoid liability under the guarantee because the charterparty was allegedly obtained through bribery and so was unenforceable. The bribery charge was based on confessions made in Chinese criminal procedures by individuals who reportedly paid and received the bribe.

English Maritime Cases

Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd v. Noble Chartering Inc (The “Tai Prize”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 31 January 2020

BILL OF LADING – DAMAGED CARGO – LIABILITY FOR DAMAGED CARGO – INDEMNITY – DISPONENT OWNERS – TIME CHARTER – HAGUE RULES
When a vessel commenced unloading in China, receivers discovered the soybean cargo had heat and mold damage. The Chinese courts upheld a claim by the receivers against the shipowner for US$ 1,086,564.70. The shipowner sought arbitration in London against Noble Chartering, the head charterer/disponent owner, for fifty percent of the amount paid to the receivers. Noble then requested London arbitration against its charterer, Priminds Shipping, claiming indemnity and legal fees. Priminds appealed the arbitration ruling to the High Court.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 21/21

ASBATANKVOY – FRUSTRATION – VOLGA-DON SHIPPING CANAL (VDSC) – WINTER CLOSURE – ADDITIONAL FREIGHT – DEVIATION – INTERIM PORT CLAUSE – ALTERNATIVE DISCHARGE CLAUSE – DEADFREIGHT – DEMURRAGE – DELAY
A sea-river vessel was chartered on an amended Asbatankvoy to transport fuel oil. The vessel was to sail from Turkmenbashi, Turkmenistan, to OPL Kavkaz, Russia, via the Volga-Don Shipping Canal (the VDSC). The VDSC accelerated its official closing for the season, and the vessel was refused “commercial” entrance. The charter was frustrated, and the vessel was forced to retrace its route back to the Caspian Sea. Owners claimed additional freight, deadfreight, deviation, quantum meruit demurrage, and damages for detention.

English Maritime Cases

K-Line Pte Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd (The “Eternal Bliss”) – Court of Appeal, 18 November 2021

NORGRAIN – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES – LIQUIDATED DAMAGES- APPEAL – IMPLIED INDEMNITY – LAYTIME
The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s decision in K-Line Pte Limited v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Limited (the “ETERNAL BLISS”) [2021] EWCA Civ 1712, which acknowledged the long-standing question of whether a shipowner can recover damages in addition to demurrage when a charterer’s only breach is failure to load/discharge the ship within the contractually agreed time.
Please note this is a successful appeal of an award already recapped. Search in TANKVOYager via “Eternal Bliss” for the original award. K-Line Pte Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd (The “Eternal Bliss”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Andrew Baker J)[2020] EWHC 2373 (Comm) – 7 September 2020

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 15/21

DEMURRAGE – BERTH OPERATOR RULES (UBT) – COMMENCE OF LAYTIME – DESPATCH
Owner claimed demurrage was due to delays at the Davant, Mississippi, loading port and cited the charterparty. Charterer countered Owner owed despatch and that UBT Rules as incorporated into the fixture superseded the charterparty.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 3/21

SYNACOMEX 2000 – DEMURRAGE – LOW WATER – DELAYED BARGES – FORCE MAJEURE – LACK OF WAREHOUSE SPACE – STEVEDORE DELAYS – TIME BAR – DEVIATION COSTS – REJECTED CARGO – BUNKERS CONSUMED BETWEEN PORTS
A vessel chartered to carry a cargo of corn was fixed on an amended Synacomex 2000 form dated 18 September 2016 and hired to deliver to a single port, to be nominated. Lack of water delayed barges, lack of warehouse space delayed discharge as did alleged issues with stevedores and cargo rejection. The latter 3 issues led to the vessel sailing to three discharge ports. The owner claimed demurrage and deviation costs.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 20/21

NORGRAIN – CHANGE IN DISCHARGE PORT NOMINATION – OWNERS CLAIM FREIGHT FOR TRANSPORT TO FIRST PORT NOMINATED– ESTOPPEL – UNJUST ENRICHMENT
The vessel was chartered on an amended Norgrain form to transport a cargo of soybeans from Brazil to China. Discharge port(s) were nominated during the voyage and subsequently changed. The owner asserted the first ports nominated were binding and freight payable basis same although the vessel did not complete passage to these ports and instead discharged cargo at another port.