Tagged: Vol. 16 No. 1

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Novologistics SARL v. Five Ocean Corporation (The “Merida”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 27 Nov 2009

BERTH OR PORT CHARTER -- WAITING TIME -- CHARTERPARTY CONSTRUCTION -- ONE SAFE BERTH -- Charterer Award With no incorporation of a proforma charter party form, at issue was whether the fixture constituted a berth charter or port charter. The key terms considered include "one good and safe Charterer’s berth" in conjunction with other clauses addressing a safe port warranty and shifting time. In overturning the arbitration award, the Court examined the fixture terms and explained contract construction.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

AET Inc. Ltd. v. Arcadia Petroleum Ltd. (The “Eagle Valencia”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 8 Oct 2009

SHELLVOY 5 -- NOTICE OF READINESS -- FAILURE TO OBTAIN FREE PRATIQUE WITHIN 6 HOURS -- Owner Award With the charter party fixed on an amended Shellvoy 5 form inclusive of "Shell Additional Clauses – February 1999", this dispute hinged on whether the Vessel’s NOR was valid in light of the fact that Free Pratique was not granted within six hours as specified within Shell Additional Clause 22.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v. Swissmarine Service SA (The “Lowlands Orchid”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.) 13 Nov 2009

CHARTERPARTY LANGUAGE "SHINC" -- SUPER HOLIDAYS -- ADDITIONAL CLAUSE SUPERCEDING PRO-FORMA – DESPATCH – DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award This laytime dispute hinged on the interpretation of a fixture recap term, SHINC (Sundays and Holidays included), in conjunction with the terms of the underlying charter party form. The underlying charter party Clause 63 stipulated "Sundays and Holidays included", followed by the phrase, “…excluding Super Holidays”. At issue is how the contract should be interpreted specifically relating to the terminal shutdown during the Christmas holiday period.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Maritime Articles

Securing Assets for Maritime Claims in N.Y.: Pre- and Post-Judgment

For centuries, physical assets such as ships, cargoes, bunkers, and bank accounts have been seized to satisfy maritime commerce debts, before a judgment is rendered, whenever those assets were found within the court’s jurisdiction. Since maritime transactions are oftentimes international and transitory in nature, securing assets from a defendant can be achieved by the plaintiff appealing within the court’s jurisdiction and showing that the asset, whether it be a ship or cargo, is within the jurisdiction and that the defendant is not. In those cases, the attachment is granted. In turn, the defendant must appeal to the court to have the attachment vacated. If the plaintiff prevails, the value of the seized asset is secured.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.