Category: English Maritime Cases

Shipping industry court rulings and arbitration awards under English law.

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 4/25

TIME CHARTER – NYPE FORM – SPEED PERFORMANCE CLAIM – DEDUCTIONS FROM HIRE – GRAB PERFORMANCE – PARTY REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE The Owners entered into an agreement under an updated NYPE 1981 form, and commenced arbitration when a dispute arose around deductions for hire. The Owners were granted a defense submission order by the tribunal, which issued a warning: non-compliance would result in the issuance of a final order within 7 days. The Charterers did not comply; the Owners were granted a final order by the tribunal.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases

Lord Marine Co SA v Vimeksim Srb DOO (The “Lord Hassan”) [2024] EWHC 3305 (Comm) – King’s Bench Division, Commercial Court (Bryan J) – 14 October 2024

SALE OF CARGO – EFFECT OF LIEN – ARBITRATION ACT OF 1996 – PARADIGM CASE – CHARTERER OWNED CARGO – RECEIVER AS OWNERS’ AGENT – FAILURE TO RECEIVE BILL OF LADING Lord Marine (the Owners) and their vessel, Lord Hassan, entered into a voyage charterparty with Vimeksim (the Charterers) on or before April 12, 2024. By May 18, 11,000 mt of cargo had been loaded at Chornomorsk. Lord Marine issued the bill of lading on a standard Congenform 1994 form, which went on to name AAK, the consignee, as the “Receivers”, despite neither them, nor the Charterers ever receiving it. In error, the freight was categorized as “Prepaid”, despite not being paid at that time, or at all.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

English Maritime Cases

Sea Consortium Pte Ltd and Others v Bengal Tiger Line Pte Ltd and Others [2024] EWHC 3174 (Admlty) – Admiralty Division (Andrew Baker J) – 12 December 2024

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – DEFINITION OF CHARTERER – DEFINITION OF SHIPOWNER – SLOT CHARTERER – CONTAINERIZED CARGO – VESSEL AND CARGO CASUALTY/LOSS

Killiney Shipping and Sea Consortium (the Charterers) entered into a Bareboat and a Time Charter, respectively with EOS RO (the Owners). Multiple contract agreements existed between the Parties. When a vessel laden with cargo under these multiple contracts caught fire, a limitation ruling was publicized, resulting in subsequent claims. In question was who was considered the charterer and who the shipowner with regard to the losses and liability.

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 11/24

DEMURRAGE - ADVERSE WEATHER DELAY – BILLS OF LADING DELAY – CARGO LOAD DISCREPANCY – ANVOY FORM – SYNACOMEX 90 FORM – PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATE – DESPATCH – WEEKENDS EXCLUDED FROM LAYTIME – TIME EXCLUDED CLAUSE – DOCUMENTS ALLOWANCE – CUSTOMS CLEARANCE DELAY – DELAYS DURING WEEKENDS The vessel was chartered for a single voyage transporting wheat between Russia and Brazil. Owners claimed demurrage of US$48,093.75 for time spent awaiting customs clearance over the weekend. Charterers denied liability, claiming this time was exempt from laytime, and filed a counterclaim of US$40,208.33.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 12/24

TIME CHARTER – AMENDED NYPE FORM – UNDERPERFORMANCE – LSMGO DISCREPANCY – ROB FUEL DISCREPANCY - OFF-HIRE VS UNPAID HIRE – CRANE FAILURE – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION METHODOLOGY – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY REPORTS A vessel was time chartered under an amended NYPE 1993 form for the transport of paddy rice from Rio Grande to Veracruz. A dispute arose regarding the final hire accounts. Owners claimed US$11,854.31 for unpaid hire. Charterers denied liability, arguing deductions made to the claim were valid, citing underperformance, off-hire for crane failure, and a discrepancy in the LSMGO figures.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 15/24

VOYAGE CANCELLATION – TERMINATION OF CHARTER – BREACH OF CONTRACT– IMPLIED OBLIGATION OF GOOD FAITH – DAMAGES AND MITIGATION – OBTAINING SUBSTITUTE FIXTURE AFTER CANCELLATION - AMENDED GENCON FORM – MISSED CANCELLING DATE – SHIPPER’S CANCELLATION OF VOYAGE – WHETHER CARGO WAS SPECIFIC TO SHIPPERS OR AN AGREED OBLIGATION A vessel chartered under an amended GENCON form was to transport scrap metal from Venezuela to Turkey. No loading occurred, and the charter was canceled. The dispute centered on Owners’ claim for damages due to the fixture’s cancellation and Charterers’ counter that Owners did not act in good faith to secure substitute employment.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 1/24

NORGRAIN FORM – CHANGE OF PORTS – CHANGE IN FREIGHT DUE TO CHANGE OF PORTS – DESPATCH TERMS – DO LOCAL PUBLIC HOLIDAYS COUNT FOR LAYTIME PURPOSES

A vessel chartered under an amended Norgrain agreement was to transport dense grains from Paranagua, Brazil, to China. The discharge points were initially Zhoushan and Taixing but were later changed to Tianjin. Disputes arose over outstanding freight charges and despatch claims.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 2/24

TIME CHARTER – NYPE FORM – BUNKERS UPON REDELIVERY – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION CLAIM – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY – ALLEGED ADDITIONAL / UNAUTHORIZED PORT CALL

In a time charter dispute based on an amended NYPE 1946 form, Owners claimed a balance of hire for $79,103.27, while Charterers denied responsibility and counterclaimed for $100,000, alleging the vessel had traveled an extra 250 miles and did not meet speed and consumption warranties.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 3/24

FORCE MAJEURE – “LAWSUIT” DEFINITION – TIME-BARRED CLAIMS – TIME-CLAUSE – AGREEMENTS ON CHARTER – ARBITRATION

In March 2022, a vessel sustained propeller damage on the way to its first load port, leading to the charter party cancellation through force majeure.  Charterers did not initiate arbitration proceedings until over a year later in April 2023. The dispute focused on whether arbitration proceedings were time-barred. Charterers contended that the one-year time bar did not apply due to circumstances surrounding the voyage’s cancellation.  

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 6/24

TIME CHARTER – NYPE 93 FORM – FAILURE TO TENDER NOR FOR FIVE DAYS – DELAY TO TENDER NOR – LIABILITY OF OWNERS FOR DEMURRAGE NOT EARNED UNDER SUB-CHARTER – CLAUSE 8 – NEGLIGENCE OF AGENTS – DEMURRAGE

On a voyage chartered under an amended NYPE 93 form, a dispute arose due to the master’s delayed submission of the Notice of Readiness (NOR), leading sub-charterers to contest the commencement of demurrage. Owners contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor negligent, attributing any loss to negligence on the part of the Charterers’ agents. Charterers argued that the master’s failure constituted a breach of contract and negligence.