Category: English Maritime Cases

Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd. v. Tube City IMS LLC (The “Cenk Kaptanoglu”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 17 Feb 2012

GENCON -- ECONOMIC DURESS -- REPUDIATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT -- VESSEL SUBSTITUTION -- Charterer Award Although Owner’s action of substituting the contracted vessel without notifying the Charterer created a repudiatory breach, the Charterer did not cancel the charter. Owner proposed a new vessel and promised to reimburse the Charterer for damages, however they later used economic leverage to gain a better deal during renegotiation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 10/11

WORLDSCALE -- PORT EXPENSES -- AMOCO CLAIMS CLAUSE -- TIME BAR -- Charterer Award When Charterer directed the Vessel to a port which did not have an established Worldscale (WS) rate, Charterer advised Owner that port expenses would be for Charterer's account. When Owner's claim for port expenses arrived 155 days after discharge, Charterer rejected the claim stating it was barred under the Amoco Claims Clause.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 12/11

BALTIME 1939 -- NON-PAYMENT OF HIRE AND BUNKERS -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- QUANTUM MERUIT FOR COMPLETION OF VOYAGE -- Owner Award When Charterer failed to pay three installments of hire, other expenses and arrange and pay for bunkers under a time charter contract, Owner first informed Charterer that they were suspending performance of the charter until outstanding hire was paid and then three days later, informed Charterer that they accepted Charterer's repudiatory breach. At the time of the repudiatory breach the Vessel was at sea en-route to the disport and in fact Vessel continued on to the disport and discharged Charterer's cargo.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd

BALTIME 1939 -- VESSEL BREAKDOWN -- WRONGFUL TERMINATION -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award When Charterer emailed Owner that Owner had committed breaches of two time charter parties amounting to repudiations and that the two charter parties were terminated, Owner responded by stating Charterer's email was itself a repudiatory breach and that the charter parties were thusly terminated. Owner claimed damages in the form of lost profits due to early redelivery, unpaid hire and fees, detention at the disport and the cost incurred when containers were left on board one of the vessels at redelivery.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Thai Mapar Trading Co. Ltd. v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia Pte. Ltd. – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 4 Oct 2011

GAFTA FORM 120 -- FOB SALE -- INSUFFICIENT ETA NOTICE -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- Buyer Award When the FOB Buyer failed to nominate the vessel at least 7 working days prior to vessel's ETA, Seller rejected the nomination. Despite non-conformity with the contract’s ETA requirement, this was not a sufficient basis for Seller to repudiate the contract.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

ED & F Man Sugar Ltd. v. Belmont Shipping Ltd. (The “Amplify”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 18 Nov 2011

SUGAR CHARTER PARTY 1999 -- INVALID NOTICE OF READINESS -- DEMURRAGE -- ALLEGED SERIOUS IRREGULARITY BY ARBITRATORS -- Owner Award In ruling for Charterer in an arbitration on documents alone, the Panel noted that as Charterer had not introduced the case of "The Happy Day", the inclusion of which may have further reduced Charterer's demurrage obligation, the Panel need not consider it. Charterer subsequently appealed to the High Court on the basis that the arbitrators, knowing Charterer had made a concession, had a duty to alert Charterer and failing to do so it constituted a serious irregularity.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Transpetrol Maritime Services Ltd. v. SJB Marine Energy (The “Rowan”) – English Court of Appeal, 27 Jan 2012

CONSTRUCTION OF WARRANTY -- OIL COMPANIES APPROVALS CLAUSE -- "TBOOK" DEFINED -- Owner Award At the time of the fixture, Owner alleged that the Vessel was approved by five oil majors as required by the charter. Thus, when Charterer’s buyer rejected the Vessel due to a sea-chest valve needing repairs as imposed by the Class survey, a sale was lost with Charterer incurring substantial damages. The Commercial Court ruled Owner had breached the Oil Companies Approval Clause. The Court of Appeal overturned the Commercial Court’s ruling and clarified the meaning of the acronym "TBOOK" and the word “approved” in regards to the charter's majors approval requirement.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 6/11

GENCON -- DEMURRAGE -- TIDE -- EXCESSIVE AIR DRAFT -- TERMINAL BREAKDOWN OR BAD WEATHER -- Partial Owner Award Whilst loading, operations ceased due to excessive air draft of the Vessel during high tide. Later operations stopped again due to either the breakdown of the terminal’s camera or bad weather. Owner claimed demurrage during both delays which Charterer refuted.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 9/11

GENCON -- SOF VS METEOROLOGICAL REPORT -- FREIGHT CALCULATION WHEN DISPORT NOT NAMED IN FIXTURE -- Partial Owner Award At the disport the Vessel’s statement of facts (SOF) referenced possible weather related delays yet when Charterer attempted to deduct said delays from time counting, Owner produced a weather report for a nearby port which reflected fair weather during the time in question. Additionally, there was a dispute over the calculation of freight when the nominated disport, albeit an acceptable port option, was not within any of the port ranges in the fixture’s freight rate schedule.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Suek AG v. Glencore International AG (The “Hang Ta”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 19 May 2011

CIF SALES CONTRACT -- WIBON -- BERTH CONGESTION CONCURRENT WITH TIDE DELAY -- Seller Award Upon arrival at the discharge port the berth was occupied and inaccessible owing to tide. Per the WIBON phrase in the CIF Sales Contract, Notice of Readiness (NOR) could be tendered prior to arrival in berth should the berth be occupied. The Buyer, however, argued that in this instance NOR must be tendered at the berth since congestion was not the sole cause of delay.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.