Category: English Maritime Cases

Glory Wealth Shpping Pte. Ltd. v. Korea Line Corp. (The “Wren”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 14 July 2011

NYPE -- REPUDIATED TIME-CHARTER -- MEASURE OF DAMAGES -- Charterer Award and Seller Award This court case is an appeal by Charterer of an arbitration award. When the economy went sour, Charterer wrongfully repudiated a time-charter contract. At the time of the repudiation there was no available long-term charter market on which to base Owner’s damages. About six months later an available market developed. The arbitration panel awarded Owner damages using a hybrid assessment: actual losses based on spot trading and then market losses once a long-term charter market emerged (despite Owner opting, for own business reasons, to continue trading on the spot market).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Far East Chartering Ltd. (The “Jag Ravi”) – English Court of Appeal, 9 Mar 2012

FOB SALES CONTRACT-- LETTER OF INDEMNITY -- WRONGFUL DELIVERY -- SALES CONTRACT -- Owner Award The Vessel discharged cargo without presentation of Bills of Lading (B/Ls) per the Receiver's Letter of Indemnity (LOI) to the Voyage Charterer. FOB Seller successfully claimed damages from Owner for delivering cargo without presentation of the Bills of Lading with Owner subsequently claiming indemnity from Receiver as Owner had acted as an agent of Charterer as referenced within the LOI.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

National Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia v. BP Oil Supply Co. (The “Abqaiq”) – Court of Appeal, 12 Oct 2011

BPVOY4 -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME-BAR -- DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TIMELY BUT CLAIM MISLABELED AS DEVIATION -- COST OF BUNKERS FOR CALLING SAME BERTH TWICE -- Partial Owner Award This award is Owner’s appeal of the Commercial Court’s 22 Nov 10 decision. When Vessel was required by Charterer to attend to the same load berth twice, Owner invoiced the time and bunkers consumed for the second call as a deviation claim. In addition, demurrage was claimed by Owner for excess time used at the discharge port. Charterer agreed to and paid a "final agreed demurrage invoice" which covered demurrage and then claimed that the load port expenses should have been submitted as demurrage. Owner subsequently altered the load port claim such that it was for demurrage with Charterer subsequently denying it twofold; firstly, demurrage had already been settled in full and secondly, the claim for demurrage at the load port was now time-barred.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Stolt Tankers Inc. v. Landmark Chemicals SA (The “Stolt Spur”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 21 Dec 2001

ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- WORKING OTHER CARGOES -- TANK CLEANING -- Charterer Award In the appeal to the High Court the judge agreed with the arbitrators that if the vessel was unavailable to the charterers for their cargo operations because she was being used by the owners for their own purposes, the owners were deriving a benefit even if the vessel was still waiting for a berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 4/11

NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION WARRANTY -- BEAUFORT SCALE -- BAD WEATHER -- EQUITABLE SET-OFF -- OFF-HIRE -- Charterer Award At the commencement of the time charter the Vessel had problems with the main engine sea water cooling system which Charterer suspected subsequently caused the Vessel to underperform. Owner denied that the Vessel breached the performance warranty and claims for the withheld hire; whereas, Charterer maintains that the Vessel was off-hire or, alternatively, seeks damages for Owner’s breach of the speed warranty as an equitable set-off.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Transpetrol Maritime Services Ltd. v. SJB Marine Energy (The “Rowan”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 18 Feb 2011

CHARTERPARTY BREACH -- OIL COMPANIES APPROVALS CLAUSE -- CLASS CONDITION IMPOSITION -- Charterer Award At the time of the fixture, Owner alleged that the Vessel was approved by five oil majors. 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. In deciding whether the Owner breached the Oil Companies Approval Clause, the Court clarified the meaning of the acronym "TBOOK" and the word "approved".
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

TTMI Sarl v. Statoil ASA (The “Sibohelle”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 9 May 2011

SHELLVOY 5 -- ERRONEOUS PARTY NAMED IN CHARTER -- WHETHER CONTRACT BINDING BY PERFORMANCE -- ARBITRATION JURISDICTION -- Owner Award The fixture recap erroneously listed TTMI’s parent company, Sempra Energy, as the time chartered Owner rather than TTMI. Thus, when TTMI claimed demurrage, Charterer denied that a contract with TTMI existed and alternatively, if a contract was deemed to have been created by performance, that the terms would not be as set forth in the fixture recap.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Carboex SA v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 12 May 2011

AMWELSH -- BERTHING DELAYS CAUSED BY STRIKE -- WHETHER IN BERTH OR NOT -- WIBON PHRASE RELATIVE TO A STRIKE CLAUSE -- Charterer Award Under the same Contract of Affreightment (COA), two vessels arrived at port in the midst of a haulage strike and two vessels arrived after the haulage strike ended. All four of these vessels experienced berthing delays as a result of port congestion attributable to the strike. At issue is whether the WIBON clause supersedes the strike clause regarding berthing delays.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 2/11

TIME CHARTER -- ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATORY BREACH -- EARLY REDELIVERY OF THE VESSEL -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award Well prior to the contractual end of the Charter Party, Charterer notified Owner of its intention of premature redelivery unless Owner reconsidered the daily hire. Owner took Charterer’s statement to be an anticipatory repudiatory breach and in order to minimize losses Owner looked for alternative employment and took the Vessel back 653 days before earliest redelivery. Owner was subsequently awarded the balance of hire owed and loss of earnings being the difference between the net charter party rate and the net market rate.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd. v. Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. (The “Kildare”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 28 Apr 2010

CONSECUTIVE VOYAGE CHARTER -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award When Charterer repudiated a Consecutive Voyage Charter (CVC) 4.5 years early, and as there was no comparable market at the time of the repudiation with Vessel subsequently traded on the spot market, the Court ruled that damages paid to Owner were to reflect the difference between what Vessel would have earned under the CVC and what the Vessel earned on the spot market (i.e. the Vessel’s actual losses) less 1.5% to account for the accelerated receipt and less 1.5% to reflect "catastrophic contingencies" such as the possibility that the Vessel would become a total loss prior to when the CVC would have concluded. The emergence of a comparable market after the repudiation was deemed moot in regards to the calculation of damages as it needed to exist at the time of repudiation to be taken into consideration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.