Category: English Maritime Cases

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Avonwick Holdings Ltd v Webinvest Ltd and Another [2014] EWCA Civ 1436

LOAN AGREEMENT – WITHOUT PREJUDICE RULE – CORRESPONDENCE – DOES RULE APPLY – Claimant award

When a Claimant requested correspondences to be admissible in evidence, Defendant objected given they were headed “Without Prejudice and Subject to Contract” and thus privileged.

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Glencore Energy UK v Cirrus Oil Services – EWHC 87 – 24 Jan 2014

SALES CONTRACT – CRUDE OIL – EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE – FULL TRADING NAME NOT LISTED IN CORRESPONDENCE – IS CONTRACT BINDING – Claimant Award

When buyer’s buyer rejected 630K bbls of crude oil as it was blended rather than being from a sole well, buyer maintained no binding contract existed between seller and buyer. Seller subsequently pressed for damages under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Sections 50(2) and (3) basis buyer’s unlawful repudiation. In addition to maintaining no binding contract existed, buyer in turn rejected the claim for damages under the auspices of Clause 32.1 of BP 2007 GT&Cs for CFR Sales.

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Marco Polo Shipping Co. Pte Ltd v. Fairmacs Shipping and Transport Services Pte Ltd – Court of Appeal, 21 Aug 2015

ESTABLISHING MARKET VALUE – TORT OF CONVERSION – DAMAGES – SUPPLY CHAIN – Buyer Award

While the Vessel was en route to the discharge port, the Vessel was withdrawn from the Contract Carriers’ service when they defaulted on hire and the cargo of river sand onboard was sold to mitigate the Owners’ losses. However, the Buyer argued that this constituted a tort of conversion and filed for damages against the Contract Carriers and the Owners basis an alleged market price of the sand.

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 8/15

VESSEL DAMAGED BY STEVEDORES – WHETHER 24 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED BY OWNER – COMPETING CLAUSES WITHIN FIXTURE – Owner Award

The vessel sustained damage during the loading and discharging of a cargo of logs Owner requested that the charterer pay for the repairs per 2 clauses included in the charter party. However, relying upon a 3rd clause Charterers believed owner was required to provide notice within 24 hours of the damage and thus refused to pay.

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 6/15

GENCON – LENGTHY LOAD PORT DELAYS – DEMURRAGE — VALIDITY OF BILLS OF LADING – CARGO LIEN – Owner Award

In this dispute significant load port delays led to the Owner and Charterer negotiating an addendum including supplemental compensation. Charterer did not establish a line of credit on time with Owner subsequently deeming the Charterer’s agents’ bills of lading invalid and exercised a lien on the cargo for the outstanding demurrage.

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

CDE SA v. Sure Wind Marine Ltd (The “Odyssée” and The “SB Seaguard”) – QBD, 14 April 2015

COLLISION — TWO-YEAR LIMITATION TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS — EXTENSION REQUESTED — Defendant award

A dispute arose after two vessels collided. In the course of negotiations, the Claimant issued an application for an extension to commence proceedings, but only after the expiration of a two-year limitation for claims filing passed. At issue was whether the Claimant’s extension request was reasonable.

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 7/15

TRIP CHARTER – BERTHING DELAY – VESSEL GROUNDING – SAFE BERTH — BUNKER CONSUMPTION – CHARTERER’S RIGHT TO ACCESS SHIP’S GENERATORS — Partial Owner Award

In this dispute, Owner claimed damages for survey costs and delay in discharge due to an insufficient draft at the berth causing the vessel to touch bottom. Charterers counterclaimed for overpaid bunkers and wanted compensation for denied access to the vessel’s generators to power shore grabs.

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Mabanaft International Ltd v Erg Petroli SpA (The “Yellow Star”) – Central London County Court Business List, 11 Apr 2000

DEMURRAGE — MISSING DOCUMENTS – OWNER’S CLAIM NOT PROVIDED – TIME BAR — Buyer Award

This dispute centers on determining the documents considered necessary to file a valid claim in order to avoid a time bar. In this case the seller was requesting demurrage payment while the buyer refused believing the claim had received a time bar.

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 5/15

NYPE — TIME CHARTER — VESSEL COLLISION WITH BERTH – DELAYED BERTHING AT NEXT PORT – WHEN IS VESSEL CONSIDERED OFF-HIRE – WHETHER COLLISION PREVENTED CHARTERERS FROM BRINGING CLAIMS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS — Owner Award

In this dispute the vessel had a collision with the berth at the first load port sustaining damage to one of its holds. At the following load port the points of contention were over the time period the vessel was considered off-hire, and what damages the charterers were owed due to the inability to bring claims against their sub-charterers.

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Kassiopi Maritime Co Ltd v. FAL Shipping Co Ltd (The “Adventure”) – QBD (Comm Ct.), 19 Feb 2015

BPVOY4 — DEMURRAGE — TIME BAR — FREE PRATIQUE — WHETHER ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PRESENTED WITH CLAIM — Charterer Award

This dispute concerns demurrage incurred due to delays at both ports of loading and discharge. Certain documents required by the charterparty, based on the BPVOY4 form, had not been submitted within the 90-day limit and Charterers were attempting a time bar defense.

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