Category: English Maritime Cases

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Sylvia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd. (The “Sylvia”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 18 Mar 2010

NYPE — FAILED PORT STATE INSPECTION — MISSED LAYDAY WINDOW — FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGES — REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES — Charterer Award

Because the Vessel failed a Port State Inspection due to structural deficiencies and was detained until Owner could affect repairs, Charterer missed a layday window with a sub-charterer. Charterer sought to recover lost profits in arbitration and won. Owner appealed and the Judge considered whether the Charterer’s damages were unforeseeable, too remote, or erroneously derived.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Novologistics SARL v. Five Ocean Corporation (The “Merida”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 27 Nov 2009

BERTH OR PORT CHARTER — WAITING TIME — CHARTERPARTY CONSTRUCTION — ONE SAFE BERTH — Charterer Award

With no incorporation of a proforma charter party form, at issue was whether the fixture constituted a berth charter or port charter. The key terms considered include “one good and safe Charterer’s berth” in conjunction with other clauses addressing a safe port warranty and shifting time. In overturning the arbitration award, the Court examined the fixture terms and explained contract construction.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

AET Inc. Ltd. v. Arcadia Petroleum Ltd. (The “Eagle Valencia”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 8 Oct 2009

SHELLVOY 5 — NOTICE OF READINESS — FAILURE TO OBTAIN FREE PRATIQUE WITHIN 6 HOURS — Owner Award

With the charter party fixed on an amended Shellvoy 5 form inclusive of “Shell Additional Clauses – February 1999”, this dispute hinged on whether the Vessel’s NOR was valid in light of the fact that Free Pratique was not granted within six hours as specified within Shell Additional Clause 22.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v. Swissmarine Service SA (The “Lowlands Orchid”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.) 13 Nov 2009

CHARTERPARTY LANGUAGE “SHINC” — SUPER HOLIDAYS — ADDITIONAL CLAUSE SUPERCEDING PRO-FORMA – DESPATCH – DEMURRAGE — Charterer Award

This laytime dispute hinged on the interpretation of a fixture recap term, SHINC (Sundays and Holidays included), in conjunction with the terms of the underlying charter party form. The underlying charter party Clause 63 stipulated “Sundays and Holidays included”, followed by the phrase, “…excluding Super Holidays”. At issue is how the contract should be interpreted specifically relating to the terminal shutdown during the Christmas holiday period.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 1/09

GENCON — WHARFAGE AND WATCHMEN FEES FOR EXTENDED DISCHARGE TIME — DEMURRAGE AS JUST COMPENSATION — DELAYS BEYOND CHARTERER’S CONTROL — Partial Charterer, Partial Owner Award

This award follows up an earlier decision under London Arbitration 23/07 for the same voyage, and addresses two new points: 1) who is responsible for dues paid by Owner resulting from the delayed discharge; and, 2) whether time is interrupted for discharging delays that are beyond Charterer’s control e.g. awaiting shoreside equipment and personnel.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

KG Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft Für Mineralöle mbh & Co KG v Petroplus Marketing AG (The “Mercini Lady”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 22 May 2009

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

This ruling hinged on whether there is an implied term warranting condition of cargo after delivery; and, if so, whether the Seller was relieved of such obligation under an express exclusion clause (which, in this instance, did not reference “conditions”) or, alternatively a certificate final clause (which, in this instance, did not exclude implied terms).

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Lansat Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Glencore Grain BV (The “Paragon”) – Court of Appeal, 22 July 2009

NYPE — LATE REDELIVERY — ILLEGITIMATE LAST VOYAGE — MEASURE OF DAMAGES — PENALTY CLAUSE — Charterer Award

In an appeal over the late redelivery of a time-chartered vessel, the Court was called on to determine if a clause stipulating that in the event of late redelivery the daily hire rate for the 30 days prior to the commencement of the overrun period is to be calculated at the higher prevailing market rate, is a penalty clause and unenforceable in English law.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

ENE Kos v. Petroleo Brasileiro SA (“The Kos”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 23 Jul 2009

SHELLTIME 3 — TIME CHARTER — UNPAID HIRE — WITHDRAWAL OF VESSEL FOR UNPAID HIRE — DETENTION OF VESSEL — CONSUMPTION OF BUNKERS — SECURITY — Partial Owner Award

The Court was called to determine if, following the Charterer’s failure to pay hire, Owner’s withdrawal of the Vessel during load operations was legal. If so, was the Owner entitled to damages or solely compensation for expenses (bunkers and time consumed discharging the cargo) incurred fulfilling their duties as bailee, plus the cost of securing the bank guarantee as required by the Charterer.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Farenco Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Daebo Shipping Co. Ltd. (The “Bremen Max”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 11 Nov 2008

NYPE — DISCHARGE OF CARGO WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILLS OF LADING — MISDELIVERY OF CARGO — RESPONSIBIILITY FOR PROVISION OF SECURITY TO PREVENT ARREST — PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF LETTER OF INDEMNITY — Preliminary Owner Award

In a chain of back-to-back charters with sub-Charterers (with identical terms and LOI clause), the Judge decides who is responsible for putting up security to prevent the Vessel’s arrest by the bill of lading holder for alleged non-delivery of the cargo.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

TS Lines Ltd v. Delphis NV (The “TS Singapore”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 25 Feb 2009

NYPE — OFF-HIRE — CHARTERER’S RIGHT TO CANCEL — WHETHER “COMMON ROUTE” QUALIFIES AS ON-HIRE WHEN VESSEL UNDER OWNER’S ORDERS — Charterer Award

Under a time charter contract, the Vessel incurred damage necessitating transit to a repair port along the same voyage route as the Charterer’s next intended port call. The Judge decides whether that constitutes off-hire, or if the vessel was operating under the Charterer’s instructions.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.