Category: English Maritime Cases

English Maritime Cases / Featured

DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v. Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Ltd (The “Newcastle Express”) – Court of Appeal – (Males, Birss and Snowden LJJ) [2022] EWCA Civ 1555 – 24 November 2022

JURISDICTION of ARBITRATION – SECTION 67 OF ARBITRATION ACT 1996 – LIFTING of SUBJECTS – FIXTURE – ARBITRATION AGREEMENT – ARBITRATION CLAUSE – FORMATION OF CONTRACT – APPEAL

DHL Project & Chartering and Gemini Ocean Shipping negotiated a proposed voyage charter for the carriage of 130,000 metric tons of coal from Newcastle, Australia, to Zhoushan, China. When the vessel, the NEWCASTLE EXPRESS, did not obtain RightShip approval, DHL informed Gemini that they were releasing the vessel. DHL did not confirm to Gemini that either the shipper or receiver had approved the vessel. Owners asserted that the charterparty had been concluded, and thus the arbitration clause was binding. Furthermore, by releasing the vessel this way, the Charterer was in breach of the charterparty. The arbitration was in favor of the Owners and later overturned in court. Charterers appealed, and the claim was then heard by the Court of Appeals.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 32/22 

AMENDED NYPE – TIME CHARTER – DEDUCTIONS FROM HIRE- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION- GOOD WEATHER AND SMOOTH SEA- WEATHER CONDITIONS – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY REPORT
The subject vessel was chartered on an amended NYPE to transport steel from Brazil to Baltimore. After the voyage, the owners claimed a balance of hire which the charterers subsequently denied. Under dispute were speed and consumption, vessel weather reporting, and the weather routing company report.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 21/19

DEMURRAGE – TROPICAL STORM- FORCE MAJEURE – DUE DILIGENCE – BAD WEATHER CLAUSE – TERMINAL CLOSING – PORT CLOSING – HURRICANE
A vessel chartered under a contract of affreightment was scheduled to load 60,000 mt of coal from a terminal on the Mississippi when the terminal ordered her to vacate the berth due to an impending hurricane. The owner claimed demurrage of US$330,495 for the time spent awaiting the vessel’s return to the berth, however, the charterer denied any liability for the demurrage incurred claiming bad weather, events outside of their control, and force majeure.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 31/32

DEMURRAGE – DETENTION – GENCON 94 – AWAITING ORDERS
The subject vessel was chartered to carry wheat from the Russian Federation to Turkey. The owners claimed damages for detention at the discharge port, calculated at the demurrage rate. However, the charterer denied the provisions of the charterparty entitled the owner to these damages, and asserted the owner was only entitled to demurrage.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 12/22

BERTHING CHARGES – LAYTIME – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES – AMENDED GENCON 94
Owner refused to let its vessel proceed to berth at the discharge port due to lack of space in its storage yard. Arbitration continued to decide whether the owner was entitled to refuse the orders of the charterer.

English Maritime Cases

SK Shipping Europe PLC v. Capital VLCC 3 Corporation and Others (The “C Challenger”) – Court of Appeal (Males, Phillips and Carr LJJ) [2022] EWCA Civ 231– 25 February 2022

OVER CONSUMPTION – REPUDIATORY BREACH – TIME CHARTER – SHELLTIME 4 FORM – FALSE REPRESENTATION
Capital Maritime and Trade Corporation negotiated a two-year time charter with SK Shipping on November 25, 2016. The speed and consumption data of the vessels’ last 3 voyages were set out in the charterparty and were guaranteed for future voyages by SK Shipping. Capital Maritime noticed far greater consumption than was guaranteed and ceased paying hire, eventually terminating the charter. Capital Maritime appealed the first court’s decision claiming the representation of consumption in the charter implied a guaranteed representation of future performance.

English Maritime Cases

Sea Master Shipping Inc v. Arab Bank (Switzerland) Ltd and Another (The “Sea Master”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 28 July 2020

NORGRAIN 89 FORM – INSOLVENT CHARTERER – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES – COGSA 1992 – CARGO FINANCING – RECEIVERS
Seamaster Shipping, the registered owner of the subject vessel Sea Master, appealed an earlier court decision dismissing their claim for demurrage, or damages in lieu of demurrage, due to delays at the discharge port during a charter to Agribusiness United DMCC.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 16/22

ELECTRICAL FAILURE – OFF HIRE – REPUDIATORY BREACH – EARLY TERMINATION
An electrical failure occurred on a vessel during a charter period. Both owner and charterer filed claims for the balance of the time spent fixing the issue.The charterer claimed that the vessel was off hire after the breakdown, because she could no longer perform the tasks they required. The owner claimed that the vessel was ready to perform the services that were initially instructed, and that the charterer was in breach of the charterparty.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 27/22

COVID-19 – QUARANTINE -OFF HIRE- HEALTH AUTHORITY – AVIAN FLU – AMENDED NYPE – TIME CHARTER
The subject vessel was chartered on an amended NYPE form to load in South America then discharge and redeliver in the Far East. When the vessel arrived at the load port, health authorities immediately quarantined the ship due to the bosun testing positive for COVID-19. The owner claimed a balance of hire of $275,108 for the quarantine period and delay. The charterer claimed that the vessel was off hire during the quarantine period and counterclaimed for damages due to the crew’s history before delivery.

English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 11/22

TIME TRIP CHARTERPARTY – AMENDED NYPE 93– LEGAL FEES – DEVIATION CLAUSE – BUNKERS – CREW CHANGE – WEATHER DELAY
A vessel was chartered for a 25-30 day period to load at a port in the Sea of Japan and discharge at a port in the South China Sea. The parties agreed the vessel would deviate to Hongai, Vietnam for a crew change. After leaving Hongai, the vessel encountered bad weather, resulting in a 1.05 day delay. The charterer claimed the weather delay would not have occurred if the vessel had made a direct journey. The owner claimed the vessel was on hire at the time of the weather delay.