Category: English Maritime Cases
SHELLTIME 3 -- TIME CHARTER -- UNPAID HIRE -- WITHDRAWAL OF VESSEL FOR UNPAID HIRE -- DETENTION OF VESSEL -- CONSUMPTION OF BUNKERS -- SECURITY -- Partial Owner Award
The Court was called to determine if, following the Charterer's failure to pay hire, Owner's withdrawal of the Vessel during load operations was legal. If so, was the Owner entitled to damages or solely compensation for expenses (bunkers and time consumed discharging the cargo) incurred fulfilling their duties as bailee, plus the cost of securing the bank guarantee as required by the Charterer.
NYPE -- DISCHARGE OF CARGO WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILLS OF LADING -- MISDELIVERY OF CARGO -- RESPONSIBIILITY FOR PROVISION OF SECURITY TO PREVENT ARREST -- PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF LETTER OF INDEMNITY -- Preliminary Owner Award
In a chain of back-to-back charters with sub-Charterers (with identical terms and LOI clause), the Judge decides who is responsible for putting up security to prevent the Vessel’s arrest by the bill of lading holder for alleged non-delivery of the cargo.
NYPE -- OFF-HIRE -- CHARTERER'S RIGHT TO CANCEL -- WHETHER “COMMON ROUTE” QUALIFIES AS ON-HIRE WHEN VESSEL UNDER OWNER’S ORDERS -- Charterer Award
Under a time charter contract, the Vessel incurred damage necessitating transit to a repair port along the same voyage route as the Charterer’s next intended port call. The Judge decides whether that constitutes off-hire, or if the vessel was operating under the Charterer’s instructions.
NYPE -- LATE REDELIVERY -- ILLEGITIMATE LAST VOYAGE -- PENALTY CLAUSES -- GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF DAMAGES -- Charterer Award
This ruling concerns a time charter clause which stipulates a remedy for a vessel’s late redelivery including compensation to the Owner if the market has risen and is calculated commencing a period of 30 days prior to the maximum period date until actual redelivery. The question posed to the Judges was, is that considered a penalty clause and thus illegal under English law?
NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- NOTICE OF VESSEL REDELIVERY -- MEANING OF THE ACRONYM “WP” -- Charterer Award
After submitting an approximate notice of redelivery, Charterer revised the date of redelivery in order to complete an additional voyage. Though the revised date still fell within the contractually stated range of delivery, Owner rejected the change and withdrew the Vessel from Charterer's service. Charterer claimed damages, alleging wrongful withdrawal.
BPVOY -- TIME BAR -- SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- INERT GAS SYSTEM -- ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION VS USE OF DUE DILIGENCE -- NEGLIGENCE -- Partial Charterer, Owner Award
If the Vessel’s crew failed to secure the common Inert Gas line resulting in the contamination of Charterer’s two cargoes, is the Owner excused under Hague Visby Article IV rule 2(a) i.e. "an act, neglect or default of the master and/or servants of the carrier in the management of the vessel"? Regarding demurrage time bar requirements, if the governing clause stipulates that the Vessel’s pump log is to be counter-signed by the Terminal and said signature is not obtained, is this cause for barring the entire claim or just that one aspect of the claim? If the operative demurrage time bar clause requires the Vessel’s documents to be counter-signed by a “Terminal” representative and the cargo transfer takes place at anchorage in a ship-to-ship (STS) transfer, does the lack of the Terminal’s signature give cause to bar that aspect of the claim?
SHELLTIME 4 -- TIME CHARTER -- VESSEL NOT DELIVERED BY CANCELLATION DATE -- DELIVERY PORT NOT NAMED -- RIGHT TO CANCEL -- FUTILITY -- Charterer Award
Although the Vessel was due to be delivered to Nigeria to commence a time charterer contract, she was at drydock in Greece and missed the deadline for the delivery date. Charterer cancelled the charter, which Owner refuted, citing additional work which Charterer had ordered on the Vessel's tanks which made the deadline impossible to meet. Owner also argued that Charterer failed in their obligation to nominate a specific delivery port, which would have given Owners 30 days to make delivery.
AMERICANIZED WELSH COAL -- CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- LATE NOMINATION OF LAYDAYS -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- Owner Award
On the 5th lifting under a contract of affreightment (COA) covering six voyages, the Charterer nominated the layday spread but was subsequently unable to secure a cargo, and asked Owner to move the laydays back two weeks. Due to a rising freight market, Owner was unwilling to do so, but offered to simply cancel voyage #5 and lift the cargo as the last voyage under the fixture. At issue is whether the laydays were irrevocable even though Owner had not yet nominated a Vessel.
GENCON -- VESSEL DAMAGED WHILE BERTHING -- MULTIPLE BERTH CALLS IN PORT -- SAFE BERTH WARRANTY -- Charterer Award
If a specific port is named in a voyage charterparty and there are several possible berths within that port to which a vessel could be directed and there is no express "safety" warranty of either the port or the berth, is the charterparty subject to an implied term that the Charterers must nominate a “safe” berth?
MEANING OF "ACCEPT / EXCEPT" -- TIME-BAR -- CALCULATION ERROR -- UNILATERAL MISTAKE -- Seller Award
If a demurrage claim is paid, and later discovered to have contained an error, is there an obligation to pay the additional amount, even if the time bar has long since passed? When negotiating a contract, what is the meaning of the phrase "accept/except"?
