Category: English Maritime Cases

Shipping industry court rulings and arbitration awards under English law.

Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd v Noble Chartering Inc (The “Tai Prize”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (HHJ Pelling QC) [2020] EWHC 127 (Comm) – 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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

K-Line Pte Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd (The “Eternal Bliss”) – Court of Appeal (Sir Geoffrey Vos, MR, Newey and Males LJJ) [2021] EWCA Civ 1712 – 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
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

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.

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.

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.

London Arbitration 9/22

AMENDED NYPE – OFF HIRE – FAILURE TO PRESENT CLEAN HOLDS – DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO PRESENT CLEAN HOLDS – RATE OF OFF-HIRE – BREACH OF CHARTERPARTY
The vessel was chartered on an amended NYPE form for a charter trip. Off-hire was claimed for failure to provide clean holds, and the rate of off-hire contested. Charterer also sought damages for breach of the charterparty due to rejection of the holds.

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

NORGRAIN – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES – LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
When vessel was required to wait at anchorage for 31 days due to berth congestion and lack of space for the cargo, the cargo was found to be significantly damaged in the form of mold and caking.  The receiver successfully claimed damages from the owner who in turn claimed it from the charterer.  The charterer claimed owner’s sole recourse was that of demurrage.

FIMBank plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd (The “Giant Ace”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Cockerill J) [2020] EWHC 1765 (Comm) – 3 July 2020

ARBITRATION TIME BAR – MISDELIVERY OF CARGO – ARBITRATION ACT 1996 – DEMISE CHARTERER

When the bank alleged misdelivery of cargo basis a lack of bills of lading, the lawyers requested an extension of time for arbitration against the owner rather than the demise charterer. The court was then tasked with determining whether the claimant is entitled to an extension of the arbitration time bar.

EURONAV NV V REPSOL TRADING SA (THE “MARIA”) – QBD (COMM CT) (HENSHAW J) [2021] EWHC 2565 (COMM) – 24 SEPTEMBER 2021

SHELLVOY 6 – DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – COMPLETION DATE – WHETHER CLAIM TIME-BARRED

On October 23, 2019, The Maria vessel was chartered on a Shellvoy 6 form to carry crude oil from Brazil to different US west coast ports, including Long Beach, California. The issue was if the owners’ claim for US$487K plus interest was time-barred.