Category: English Maritime Cases

English Maritime Cases / Featured

UniCredit Bank AG v Euronav NV – Court of Appeal, 4 May 2023

SHIPPER AS CHARTERER – CARGO DISCHARGE WITHOUT BILL OF LADING – NOVATION OF CHARTERPARTY – CAUSATION – CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT OF 1992 – BILL OF LADING AS CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE – MISDELIVERY – BANK AS CLAIMANT
The case was brought to the Court of Appeal to review a lower court’s decision on whether a bill of lading formed a contract of carriage after a novation of charterparty. BP chartered the vessel SIENNA from Euronav to transport low-sulphur fuel oil for sale to Gulf. UniCredit Bank AG provided financing to Gulf, secured by a bill of lading, and a novation was completed shifting the charterers from BP to Gulf. Euronav delivered the cargo without requiring the bill of lading and the Bank brought a claim against Euronav for breach of contract. The Court of Appeal reviewed whether the bill of lading constituted a contract and examined the impact of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 3/23

NYPE 1946 FORM – EXCESS BUNKERS ON REDELIVERY – CLAIM MASTER OVERESTIMATED BUNKER QUANTITIES – BREACH OF CHARTERPARTY – DAMAGES – PRICE FOR CALCULATING EXCESS BUNKERS – BUNKER SAFETY MARGIN
A vessel was chartered to travel from Thailand to the Nacala-Cape Town range using the NYPE 1946 form. A disagreement arose between Charterers and Owners regarding the final hire statement. Charterers claimed that the master had overestimated the bunker requirements, while Owners contended that the Charterers’ breach had caused the excess bunkers on redelivery and counterclaimed for damages.

English Maritime Cases / Featured

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.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 2/23

DEMURRAGE – GROUNDING – SAFE PORT – SEAWORTHY – NEGLIGENCE – NYPE 1981
The subject vessel was chartered for a one-time charter trip with one leg via Indonesia to China. The vessel grounded while under pilotage in the port of Chaozhou. She suffered damage to her port side hull structure. The owner claimed that the port was unsafe and in breach of the charterparty. The charterer claimed the damage was due to negligence in navigation and unseaworthiness.

English Maritime Cases / Featured

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.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 32/22 

AMENDED NYPE – TIME CHARTER – DEDUCTIONS FROM HIRE- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION- GOOD WEATHER AND SMOOTH SEA- WEATHER CONDITIONS – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY REPORT
The subject vessel was chartered on an amended NYPE to transport steel from Brazil to Baltimore. After the voyage, the owners claimed a balance of hire which the charterers subsequently denied. Under dispute were speed and consumption, vessel weather reporting, and the weather routing company report.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 21/19

DEMURRAGE – TROPICAL STORM- FORCE MAJEURE – DUE DILIGENCE – BAD WEATHER CLAUSE – TERMINAL CLOSING – PORT CLOSING – HURRICANE
A vessel chartered under a contract of affreightment was scheduled to load 60,000 mt of coal from a terminal on the Mississippi when the terminal ordered her to vacate the berth due to an impending hurricane. The owner claimed demurrage of US$330,495 for the time spent awaiting the vessel’s return to the berth, however, the charterer denied any liability for the demurrage incurred claiming bad weather, events outside of their control, and force majeure.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 31/32

DEMURRAGE – DETENTION – GENCON 94 – AWAITING ORDERS
The subject vessel was chartered to carry wheat from the Russian Federation to Turkey. The owners claimed damages for detention at the discharge port, calculated at the demurrage rate. However, the charterer denied the provisions of the charterparty entitled the owner to these damages, and asserted the owner was only entitled to demurrage.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 12/22

BERTHING CHARGES – LAYTIME – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES – AMENDED GENCON 94
Owner refused to let its vessel proceed to berth at the discharge port due to lack of space in its storage yard. Arbitration continued to decide whether the owner was entitled to refuse the orders of the charterer.

English Maritime Cases

SK Shipping Europe PLC v. Capital VLCC 3 Corporation and Others (The “C Challenger”) – Court of Appeal (Males, Phillips and Carr LJJ) [2022] EWCA Civ 231– 25 February 2022

OVER CONSUMPTION – REPUDIATORY BREACH – TIME CHARTER – SHELLTIME 4 FORM – FALSE REPRESENTATION
Capital Maritime and Trade Corporation negotiated a two-year time charter with SK Shipping on November 25, 2016. The speed and consumption data of the vessels’ last 3 voyages were set out in the charterparty and were guaranteed for future voyages by SK Shipping. Capital Maritime noticed far greater consumption than was guaranteed and ceased paying hire, eventually terminating the charter. Capital Maritime appealed the first court’s decision claiming the representation of consumption in the charter implied a guaranteed representation of future performance.