Category: English Maritime Cases

TIME CHARTER — RELIANCE DAMAGES — EXPECTED DAMAGES — LOSS OF PROFITS — Charterer Award

In reversing the tribunal’s reliance damages award, the Court disallowed the Owner to be compensated for expenses incurred by Charterer-mandated Vessel modifications when, in fact, the Owner did not suffer an economic loss from Charterer’s repudiatory breach. In fact, due to a rising market, the Owner benefited by significantly higher earnings than if the contract had been performed. Reliance damages are not to put the claimant in a better position than if the contract had been performed.

NYPE — TIME CHARTER — UNPAID HIRE — WHETHER WITHDRAWAL OF VESSEL WRONGFUL — INTENTION — Charterer Award

Charterer’s failure to pay timely hire per the terms of the contract led Owner to withdraw the Vessel from Charterer’s service. The tribunal majority held that the late payments were a matter of poor management rather than acting in bad faith and, as such, warranted an anti-technicality notice rather than withdrawal of the ship.

CONTRACT OF SALE — IMPLIED TERM REGARDING QUALITY AFTER DELIVERY — CONDITION OF CARGO — Seller Award

Reversing the Commercial Court’s ruling, this appeal succeeded in stating that express contract terms could supersede statutory and common law’s implication that the condition of goods sold in an FOB contract must be a satisfactory quality at delivery and for a reasonable time thereafter.

TIME CHARTER — HOLDS REJECTED — “NET LOSS OF TIME” CLAUSE OR “PERIOD OFF-HIRE” CLAUSE — EXPEDITE RE-INSPECTION — Charterer Award

Upon having its holds rejected the Vessel cleaned them within three hours and presented for re-inspection that evening. The surveyor had already departed and only returned mid-morning of the next day with approval following in the late afternoon. Charterer argued that the applicable clause was a “period off-hire” clause and that all time up until re-inspection and approval to be deemed off-hire. The Panel agreed for the most part except felt that after re-boarding there was an excessive delay in approval and as such, the off-hire period ended shortly after the surveyor re-boarded which is when the Panel felt the surveyor should have approved the Vessel.

VEGOILVOY — PREMATURE NOTICE OF READINESS — RIVER PORT — ARRIVED SHIP — Charterer Award

Upon arrival at the Pilot Station the Vessel tendered Notice of Readiness (NOR) to Charterer’s berth 60 miles upriver and then shifted to an inner anchorage. The Panel determined the NOR tendered at the Pilot Station was premature and subsequently invalid and as no other NOR had been tendered, deemed laytime to only commence upon the Vessel being all fast in berth.

ASBATANKVOY — GENERAL EXCEPTIONS CLAUSE — RESTRAINT OF PRINCES — DETENTION — IMPLIED INDEMNITY — Partial Owner and Charterer Award

The Vessel was detained for over 30 days by the Indonesian Navy for an apparently erroneous reason and upon release directed to deviate to Singapore for an additional 24 days whilst commercial considerations, themselves resulting from the aforementioned delay, were handled. The Panel ruled the arrest constituted Restraint of Princes with Charterer subsequently not being responsible for the lost time. However, the Panel ruled that the detention in Singapore was to count as demurrage with the deviation costs likewise for Charterer’s account.

NYPE — SEAWORTHINESS — CAUSATION — OFF-HIRE — Owner Award

Due to defects in the hatch covers, 0.1% of a cargo of grain was water damaged en-route to the discharge port leading to a 24-day delay when the authorities refused to allow any of the grain to be discharged even though the wet grain could have been segregated. The Panel ruled that although the Vessel was unseaworthy, the root cause of the delay lay not with the Shipowner but rather with the conduct and actions of the authorities with the authorities’ actions and resultant delay being deemed unforeseeable.