Q1 2022. Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
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
Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd v Noble Chartering Inc (The “Tai Prize”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (HHJ Pelling QC)  EWHC 127 (Comm) – 31 January 2020
Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, SA. de C.V. v Alia Global Logistics, S.A. de C.V. (M/T “King Gregory”) – SMA 4429, 1 November 2021
K-Line Pte Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd (The “Eternal Bliss”) – Court of Appeal (Sir Geoffrey Vos, MR, Newey and Males LJJ)  EWCA Civ 1712 – 18 November 2021
PURCHASE CONTRACTS – FORCE MAJEURE – TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE CLAUSE – LOSS OF PROFITS – CALCULATION OF DAMAGES
When Respondent failed to ship purchased cargoes in a timely manner, Claimant charged the Respondent failed to perform its obligations under two separate purchase contracts and sought damages, interest, legal, and arbitration fees. Respondent claimed force majeure for changes in Saudi Arabian export laws and delays due to the holy month of Ramadan and Eid holiday.
FORCE MAJEURE – DEMURRAGE – DISPONENT OWNER – LOSS OF EARNINGS
After 46 days at load port awaiting cargo, the Claimant terminated the contract claiming breach of charterparty. The Respondent claimed force majeure due to supplier issues. Claimant sought damages plus fees, costs and interest.
MEDITERRANEAN IRON ORE VOYAGE CHARTER – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO – DAMAGES – CALCULATION OF DAMAGES – DEMURRAGE – FORCE MAJEURE – GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE
Seacape Shipping and Trading (Claimant) alleged Metalex 2000 (Respondent) breached the voyage charter for failing to provide cargo and subsequently claimed for damages and demurrage. The Respondent claimed government interference and force majeure but participated only minimally in the arbitration.
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 Charterer countered Owner owed despatch and that UBT Rules as incorporated into the fixture superseded the charterparty.