Author: Miriam Bailey

Current / English Maritime Cases

Leeds Shipping Co Ltd v. Societe Francaise Bunge (The “EASTERN CITY”) – COURT OF APPEAL (Hodson, Romer, and Sellers LJJ) – 30 July 1958

UNSAFE PORT - MOROCCO - UNPREDICTABLE WEATHER CONDITIONS -GROUNDING OF VESSEL - ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF MASTER Editor's Note: This 1958 case set the industry standard for determining a safe berth and is referenced in two new recaps: London Arbitration 2/23 and SMA No. 4457 “PRESINGE.” Leeds Shipping and Societe Francaise were parties to a voyage charterparty with the vessel discharging in “…One or two safe ports in Morocco…” This appeal challenged a previous decision in favor of Leeds Shipping, which claimed Charterers ordered the vessel to an unsafe port, Mogador, where she ran aground and sustained damage. Societe Francaise denied that Mogador was an unsafe port and asserted by accepting the voyage, Owners had consented to the vessel going to Mogador. Charterers also claimed the negligence of· the Master caused the vessel's grounding.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / Featured / U.S. Maritime Cases

SwissMarine Pte Asia v. Mosaic Fertilizer (MN “PRESINGE”) – SMA No. 4457, 10 March 2023

BREACH OF COA – FAILURE TO PROVIDE SAFE BERTH – FAILURE TO NOMINATE SAFE VESSEL - DEMURRAGE – FORCE MAJEURE – WEATHER – HURRICANE – LOST TIME SwissMarine and Mosaic Fertilizer had a COA for the carriage of phosphate rock from Peru to the US Gulf for discharge at either New Orleans Triport and/or Tampa – Port Manatee. On the way to discharge at Tampa, concerns were raised by the Port that the Vessel could not safely berth, so the vessel was diverted to New Orleans. Shortly after arrival at anchorage on the Mississippi River, the US Coast Guard limited marine traffic due to the impending arrival of Hurricane Ida. Mosaic declared force majeure, and the PRESINGE did not complete cargo operations until 38 days later. Owners alleged demurrage was due and that Charterers were in breach of COA for failing to provide a safe berth. Charterers countered that no demurrage was due because of the force majeure event, and Owners were in breach of COA for failing to nominate a safe vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / U.S. Maritime Cases

Phillips 66 Company v. Yamuna Spirit, LLC, Teekay Chartering and Teekay Marine (The “YAMUNA SPIRIT”) – SMA No. 4454, 12 January 2023

OIL SHEEN – OIL LEAK – OIL SPILL – MARINE TERMINAL LEAK – VESSEL LEAK On September 19, 2016, the YAMUNA SPIRIT began discharging her Arabian Extra Light crude cargo at the Phillips 66 Marine Terminal, Rodeo Refinery, California. Shortly after operations commenced, a series of odors and oil sheens were observed nearby in San Pablo Bay, San Francisco. The parties, in cooperation with the USCG and state agencies, conducted extensive investigations and testing to determine whether the source of the leak was the Terminal or Vessel. Both parties contended that the other was the source of the oil. Arbitration was sought to establish responsibility for the leak and recover the expenses associated with the oil spill responses, investigations, and legal fees.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases

DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v. Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Ltd (The “Newcastle Express”) – Court of Appeal – (Males, Birss and Snowden LJJ) [2022] EWCA Civ 1555 – 24 November 2022

JURISDICTION of ARBITRATION - SECTION 67 OF ARBITRATION ACT 1996 – LIFTING of SUBJECTS - FIXTURE – ARBITRATION AGREEMENT – ARBITRATION CLAUSE – FORMATION OF CONTRACT – APPEAL DHL Project & Chartering and Gemini Ocean Shipping negotiated a proposed voyage charter for the carriage of 130,000 metric tons of coal from Newcastle, Australia, to Zhoushan, China. When the vessel, the NEWCASTLE EXPRESS, did not obtain RightShip approval, DHL informed Gemini that they were releasing the vessel. DHL did not confirm to Gemini that either the shipper or receiver had approved the vessel. Owners asserted that the charterparty had been concluded, and thus the arbitration clause was binding. Furthermore, by releasing the vessel this way, the Charterer was in breach of the charterparty. The arbitration was in favor of the Owners and later overturned in court. Charterers appealed, and the claim was then heard by the Court of Appeals.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

English Maritime Cases / Maritime Articles

London Arbitration 23/21

NYPE FORM 1946 – BREACH OF CHARTER – PERFORMANCE WARRANTY – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION CLAIM – WEATHER DISCREPANCY – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY
A single-deck geared bulk carrier was chartered on an NYPE 1946 form for a one-time charter trip to transport soya bean meal (SBM) from Argentina to Cuba. The voyage was estimated to take roughly 55 days. The charterer employed a weather routing company (WRC) to monitor the vessel for the contract period. Based on the WRC data, a performance dispute arose with the charterer claiming $ 78,489.47 off-hire and excessive bunker consumption. The owner asserted the WRC data was not collected nor calculated per charter party provisions.

English Maritime Cases

BP Oil International Ltd v Glencore Energy UK Ltd – Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2022] EWHC 499 (Comm) – Moulder J – 9 March 2022

CONTRACT OF SALE – FAILED NEGOTIATIONS – CONCLUSION OF CONTRACT – POOR QUALITY OF CRUDE OIL – DAMAGES – DEMURRAGE – SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979, SECTION 53
In an April 2019 contract of sale for Russian crude oil, Glencore agreed to sell 100,000 mt +/- ten percent to BPOI. Email correspondence between the two companies indicated the contract was confirmed; however, the parties disagreed on whether the governing terms included the Glencore Sales Contract, which specifically required the loading terminal certificate of quality to be conclusive. The cargo was sold and resold multiple times between BPOI and its affiliated companies, and upon final discharge, BPOI sample tests indicated organic chlorides contaminated the cargo. BPOI claimed damages for the loss of cargo value, storage and transportation costs of the contaminated oil, cargo volume losses, and demurrage paid on other vessels due to the delay.

English Maritime Cases / Maritime Articles

Tricon Energy Ltd v MTM Trading LLC (The “MTM Hong Kong”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Robin Knowles J) [2020] EWHC 700 (Comm) – 23 March 2020

DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – FAILURE TO PROVIDE ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WITHIN 90 DAYS OF DISCHARGE – AMENDED ASBATANKVOY

Tricon Energy contracted the “MTM HONG KONG” under an amended ASBATANKVOY charter to deliver cargo from Antwerp, Belgium, to Houston, Texas. As a result of delays at the load and discharge ports, the owners, MTM Trading, filed a $56K claim for demurrage. Charterer claimed the owner had failed to provide all documentation within the 90-day period, specifically the bills of lading, so the claim was time-barred. The owner took the case to arbitration, and the claim was upheld. Charterer appealed to the High Court.

English Maritime Cases / Maritime Articles

Palmali Shipping SA v Litasco SA– QBD (Comm Ct) (Foxton J) [2020] EWHC 2581 (Comm) – 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 / Maritime Articles

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.