Further to the previous post commenting briefly on Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co., Ltd, for further details and commentary please see the recent Reed Smith Client Alert by Andrew Taylor and Alexandra Allan.
Is payment of time charter hire a condition? “The Astra” re-considered
In Kuwait Rocks Co v AMB Bulkcarriers Inc (The Astra) (as reported in a previous post), the court determined that the obligation to make punctual payment of hire under the amended NYPE time charter in that case was a condition of the contract, so that failure to pay a single hire payment entitled the
Court awards as damages costs incurred as a result of a breach of a law and jurisdiction clause
Swissmarine Services SA v Gupta Coal India Private Limited [2015] EWHC 265 (Comm)
The Claimant and Defendant entered into a COA which contained an English law and jurisdiction clause. When the Defendant failed to comply with the terms due to difficulties in despatching and shipping the cargo, the Claimant brought a claim for breach of
Loss of cargo due to piracy held not to be an “in-transit loss”
Trafigura Beheer BV v Navigazione Montanari SpA [2015] EWCA Civ 91
The subject vessel was chartered to carry a cargo of oil from Abidjan, Ivory Coast to Lagos, Nigeria. Clause 46 of the charter (on an amended BPVOY3 form) incorporated the Hague-Visby Rules, which contain exemptions in respect of loss or damage arising or resulting
Court considers the documents required to be supplied in support of a demurrage claim under BPVOY4
Kassiopi Maritime Co Ltd v Fal Shipping Co Ltd [2015] EWHC 318 (Comm)
Owners and Charterers had entered into a voyage charter on the BPVOY4 form. The charter contained the following provisions:
- Clause 19.7.1: demurrage claims to be accompanied by the vessel’s pumping log signed by a senior officer of the vessel and a terminal
Owners’ demurrage claim succeeds where Charterers fail to bring themselves within a force majeure clause
London Arbitration 3/15
A vessel was chartered for one voyage from “1-2 load berth chop always afloat Santander” to a port in the UK. Charterers ordered the vessel to load bulk bauxite at a berth adjacent to one where cars were waiting to be loaded. Although all reasonable preventative measures were taken, the loading of bauxite caused dust. When the wind direction changed, the dust was blown over the cars at the adjacent berth. To prevent the dust from getting on and inside the cars, the port authority ordered the loading of the bauxite cargo to be suspended.
Owners claimed demurrage for the resulting delay. Charterers argued that they were entitled to rely on the force majeure clause in the charterparty. The Tribunal held that Charterers had failed to bring themselves within the force majeure clause, and so Owners’ demurrage claim succeeded.
Charterers were responsible for the choice of berths at the loadport. A change in the wind direction such that it would blow dust over the adjacent berth was possible. Charterers could reasonably have foreseen this, and also that if the change in wind direction occurred, it would affect the performance expected of them. Further, it was not unexpected that the port authorities would give priority to a high-value and sensitive cargo such as cars. The bulk bauxite could have been loaded at an alternative berth, although moving the vessel and cargo would have incurred additional cost.Continue Reading Owners’ demurrage claim succeeds where Charterers fail to bring themselves within a force majeure clause
High Court rules on inconsistency in charterparty arbitration clauses and applicable curial law
Reed Smith (Lianjun Li and Min Li of the Hong Kong office, Nick Shaw and Halani Lloyd of the London office) recently represented the successful Charterers in Shagang South-Asia (Hong Kong) Trading Co. Ltd v Daewoo Logistics [2015] EWHC 194 (Comm).
The Respondent Owners chartered their vessel to the Claimant Charterers by a fixture note, clause 23 of which stated, “ARBITRATION: ARBITRATION TO BE HELD IN HONGKONG. ENGLISH LAW TO BE APPLIED”. Clause 24 stated “OTHER TERMS/CONDITIONS AND CHARTER PARTY DETAILS BASE ON GENCON 1994 CHARTER PARTY”. No boxes of Part I of the Gencon 1994 form were completed, including Box 25, which was otherwise to be filled in according to the following instructions: “Law and Arbitration (state 19(a), 19(b) or 19(c) of Cl. 19… (if not filled in 19(a) shall apply (Cl 19)).” Clause 19(a) provided for English law and London arbitration in accordance with the English Arbitration Act, before a Tribunal of three arbitrators if a sole arbitrator was not agreed. It also provided for the appointment of a party’s appointed arbitrator as sole arbitrator if the other party failed to appoint its arbitrator within 14 days.
Owners commenced arbitration in a dispute relating to shortlanded cargo, and purported to appoint their arbitrator as sole arbitrator pursuant to Gencon clause 19(a). Charterers queried the appointment and jurisdiction of the arbitrator, arguing that the seat of the arbitration was Hong Kong, and that the law governing the arbitration (i.e., the curial law) was Hong Kong law, not English law. The sole arbitrator ruled on his jurisdiction, concluding that the arbitration was subject to the Arbitration Act 1996 and that Gencon clause 19(a) was applicable. In the circumstances, he had been properly appointed.Continue Reading High Court rules on inconsistency in charterparty arbitration clauses and applicable curial law
“OCEAN VICTORY” – Court of Appeal Decision
In Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd (Rev 1) [2015] EWCA Civ 16, the Appellant sub-charterers appealed the 2013 judgment of Teare J.
On or around 12 September 2006, the sub-charterers ordered the vessel, “Ocean Victory”, a Cape-size bulk carrier, to discharge a cargo of iron ore at Kashima, Japan.
Owners held not liable under charterparties signed by manager in breach of implied warranty of authority
Navig8 Inc v South Vigour Shipping Inc [2015] EWHC 32 (Comm)
The claimant had chartered four vessels, the charterparties for which had been signed by the vessels’ commercial manager. Each charterparty contained the phrase “the disponent owners signatory in contract”, followed by the manager’s name. During the negotiations, the manager had made it apparent that
Tartsinis v Navona: A Successful Rectification Claim
Tartsinis v Navona Management Co [2015] EWHC 57
Case note posted with thanks to 7 King’s Bench Walk.
An apparently normal case – a dispute under a Share Transfer Agreement – resulted in a very unusual outcome in commercial litigation – a successful claim for rectification.
Two individuals, Tartsinis and Nikolaou, agreed to sell their