Tagged: Vol. 22 No. 2

Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd v. Flame SA – QBD (Comm. Ct.) – 23 February 2016

CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT - CHARTERER’S FAILURE TO NOMINATE CARGOES - OWNER A DISPONENT OWNER - ASSESSMENT OF OWNER’S LOSS - Owner Award A three year contract of affreightment was fixed to ship bulk commodities between 2009-2011. The global financial crisis caused Charterer to breach the COA by not nominating cargoes. Arbitrators would find that Owner had suffered no loss due to their utilization of third party companies to receive inward freight from the COA as well as pay outward freight to head owner. This decision was appealed by Owner with the intention being to prove Owner’s entitlement to $3 million in lost freight due to charterer’s breach.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Jenlor International LLC v. Agribusiness United DMCC (The “Iris Halo”) – SMA No. 4268, 12 Apr 2014

DISCHARGE ALLOCATION - SHORT LOADED CARGO - DRAFT SURVEYS - OWNER ACTING WITHOUT CONSENT OF CHARTERER - DETENTION - DEMURRAGE The cargo was loaded aboard the vessel according to Charterer’s orders and in line with the initial discharge allocation. However, the shore reading and multiple draft surveys indicated a loading figure 265 MT less than the aggregate B/L figures. After sailing the load port Charterer amended the discharge port rotation as well as the discharge allocation of the cargo onboard. And after completion of operations at the first discharge port Charterer’s receiver complained that the quantity received was short ~200MT and threatened legal action if the remainder was not provided. The vessel eventually obliged and sailed for her second discharge port wherein the same situation arose. The panel majority found the Owner’s actions to be acceptable with the third arbitrator dissenting.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v. Globalia Business Travel SAU (The “New Flamenco”) – Court of Appeal [2015] EWCA Civ 1299, 21 Dec 2015

On 28 June 2017 the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeal and reinstated the Comm. Court’s ruling.  I.e. After repudiating the charter party, charterer is not entitled to a credit for the difference in diminished value between when the vessel was sold in 2007 versus had it been sold in 2009  when it was to have been redelivered. NYPE – TIME CHARTER  –  ANTICIPATORY BREACH – EARLY REDELIVERY – WHETHER A MARKET AVAILABLE IN WHICH TO MITIGATE LOSS – CAUSATION – Charterer Award While under a time charter the vessel was redelivered two years early. An arbitrator found in favor of...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Lord & Taylor LLC v. Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. – 13 Civ. 3478, 10 Jun 2015

HURRICANE SANDY – WHETHER HURRICANE AN ACT OF GOD – WHETHER HURRICANE DAMAGE FORESEEABLE – Defendant Award A disagreement arose between two companies when cargo was damaged by Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge. The claimant hoped to recover damages for the lost cargo. The defendant refused, citing that the storm was an Act of God and that the damage was not foreseeable.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.