Category: English Maritime Cases

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.

Choil Trading SA v. Sahara Energy Resources LTD ( The “Prem Mala”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 26 Feb 2010

SALES CONTRACT -- FOB SALE -- CONTAMINATED CARGO -- DAMAGES -- HEDGING LOSSES FLOW NATURALLY FROM BREACH -- SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979 -- Buyer Award Given that the quality of naphtha originating from the Port Harcourt Refining Company (PHRC) in Nigeria was variable, the naphtha was sold "as is" and “PHRC naphtha quality”. Thus, the Court ruled that when the naphtha was found to be contaminated with MTBE, Buyer was not obliged to accept the cargo given that it contained a contaminate not normally present in naphtha produced by PHRC.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

National Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia v. BP Oil Supply Co. ( The “Abqaiq”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 22 Nov 2010

BPVOY 4 -- SAME BERTH CALLED TWICE -- CARGO NOT READY WITHIN LAYDAYS -- WAITING TIME AND BUNKER COSTS -- DETENTION OR DEMURRAGE -- SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS -- TIME-BAR -- Charterer Award The Vessel was required by Charterer to attend to the same load berth twice with Owner subsequently claiming for the time and bunkers consumed. At the disport, Owner invoiced for excess time used as demurrage. 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; first, 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.

X v. Y – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 9 Feb 2011

SYNACOMEX 2000 -- CONSECUTIVE VOYAGE CHARTER -- UNPAID DEMURRAGE -- COMMENCEMENT OF TIME-BAR -- Owner Award Chartered for three consecutive voyages, a dispute arose over the time bar provision which required arbitration to be commenced "within 12 months of final discharge or termination of this Charter Party".
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 1/11

NYPE 1946 -- TIME CHARTER -- OPTION TO ADD OFF-HIRE PERIOD TO CHARTER PERIOD -- OPTION NOT DECLARED -- VESSEL NOT DELIVERED WITHIN INITIAL CHARTER PERIOD -- Charterer Award During the initial time charter period the Vessel was off-hire for 159 days with the charter party giving Charterer the option to add the off-hire to the charter period. Charterer, without formally advising Owner that they were exercising this option delivered the Vessel two months after the initial period. The Panel determined that either there was no need for Charterer to formally advise Owner of Charterer exercising the option or, even if there was a need, Charterer’s actions leading up to the initial redelivery date and when continuing to trade the Vessel after the initial redelivery date was Charterer advising Owner that off-hire would be added to the initial charter period.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Glencore Energy UK Ltd. v. Transworld Oil Ltd. – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 3 Feb 2010

FOB SALES CONTRACT -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- TIME BAR --ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES -- MITIGATION OF LOSS -- Buyer Award When the FOB Seller failed to deliver a cargo of oil, the Court awarded Buyer damages representing the difference between the contract price and the value of the oil on the date when it should have been delivered less Buyer’s reduced hedging loss when Buyer closed out its position early due to non-delivery of the oil. The Court also ruled Buyer’s claim was not deemed time barred as there was no time bar clause in the 2007 NNPC Terms.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.