The recent case of Bunge S.A. v. Pan Ocean Co., Ltd. [2025] EWHC 193 (the “Sagar Ratan”) sheds helpful light on the interpretation of the BIMCO Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clause for Time Charter Parties 2015 (“BIMCO Clause”) and in particular, the definition of an “Affected Area”.Continue Reading “SAGAR RATAN”: Useful guidance on the BIMCO Infectious Diseases Clause
Hapag-Lloyd AG v. Skyros Maritime Corporation and Agios Minas Shipping Company [2024] EWHC 3139 (Comm)
In a significant new case, the UK Commercial Court assessed damages following late redelivery of two vessels under time charterparties where, pursuant to the terms of MOAs signed with third party buyers for their sale, Owners could not charter the
This case illustrates the complex relationship that can exist between proceedings brought against two different sea carriers arising out of the same event. French Courts addressed the following question: how can judgments issued in one of the proceedings be used in the other proceedings? Ultimately, the handling of circular recourses between cargo interests, sea carriers and stevedore companies depends on the interpretation of privity of contract and res judicata.Continue Reading One event, two legal realities! Successful outcome for Reed Smith’s Paris shipping team in major cargo claim dispute
Trading companies that seek to insulate their shipping risk by allocating their chartering activities to a separate entity will be reassured by a recent judgment of the English Court, in which it was decided that a letter of indemnity was enforceable only against the entity which had issued it, and not against a connected entity (or their exporter clients) as supposed undisclosed principals.Continue Reading Keeping Risk at Arm’s Length – The Xing Zhi Hai [2024] EWHC 2371 (Comm)
Despite living in an age of instantaneous correspondence and fast contractual negotiations, parties may still assume that promises as important as parent company guarantees, require detailed written documents, wet-ink, or e-signature signatures in order to be enforceable. The English Courts have recently reaffirmed that this is not the case.
SFL Ace 2 Co Inc v DCW Management Ltd (formerly Allseas Global Management Ltd) (the “M/V Green Ace”)Continue Reading The importance of email sign offs: the formalities of executing a parent company guarantee under the Statute of Frauds 1677
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Smit Salvage BV & Ors v Luster Maritime SA & Anr (The ‘Ever Given’), illustrates the challenges of negotiating contracts in rapidly changing environments, particularly within the maritime domain.
Continue Reading The Ever Given Court of Appeal decision unveils contractual complexities in salvage agreements
The question of whether demurrage liquidates all or just some of the damages arising from a charterer’s breach in failing to complete cargo operations within the laytime will no longer be decided by the UK Supreme Court following a commercial settlement. The parties have therefore consented to the appeal not proceeding.Continue Reading The Eternal Bliss – Court of Appeal has the final say
Introduction
In Perusahaan Perseroan (Persero) Pt Pertamina v Trevaskis Ltd and Others [2023] HKCFA 5, the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”), upon hearing submissions from both parties on 16 February 2023, granted leave to Perusahaan Perseroan (Persero) Pt Pertamina (“Plaintiff”) to appeal to the full court of the CFA on the following question of great general or public importance (“GGPI”) relating to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (“LLMC”):
“Where a Contracting State has enacted LLMC Article 2(1) in full into local law but has, by a provision of local law (pursuant to Article 18), disapplied (permanently or temporarily) head (d), is a shipowner nonetheless entitled to limit its liability for a Private Recourse Claim under head (a), or does the existence and/or suspension of head (d) exclude the shipowner’s reliance upon head (a) for such claims?”
(the “Question”)
In broad and practical terms, the issue in dispute is whether the Wreck Removal Claim was subject to limitation under LLMC article 2(1)(a) (“Head (a)”) in Hong Kong notwithstanding that LLMC article 2(1)(d) (“Head (d)”) has been suspended by way of local Hong Kong legislation as permitted by the LLMC. The two heads are quoted below:-
Head (a): “claims in respect of … loss of or damage to property … occurring on board or in direct connection with the operation of the ship or with salvage operations, and consequential loss resulting therefrom;”
Head (d): “claims in respect of the raising, removal, … of a ship which is sunk, wrecked …;”Continue Reading Hong Kong team takes novel LLMC case to Court of Final Appeal
Can Charterers withhold hire without Owners’ consent, even if the vessel was off hire on the hire due date and where they had agreed deductions from hire would not be allowed without Owners’ written agreement?
Key facts
Under a charterparty dated 13 April 2021 on a heavily amended NYPE 1993 form, Bulk Trident Shipping Ltd (”Owners”) trip time chartered the “Anna Dorothea” (the “Vessel”) to Fastfreight Pte Ltd (“Charterers”) for the carriage of a bulk cargo from East Coast, India to China (the “Charterparty”).Continue Reading To have and to (with)hold – Fastfreight Pte Ltd v Bulk Trident Shipping Ltd [2023] EWHC 105 (Comm) The “Anna Dorothea”
There have been several decisions in 2022 about carrier’s defences to misdelivery claims under bills of lading.
Carriers face misdelivery claims when they deliver cargo without production of original bills of lading, but then someone else claiming to be the ‘lawful holder’ of the bills complains the cargo should have been delivered to them instead. A common scenario is where a bank has financed the import of a cargo, but the finance has not been repaid. The bank then looks to the bills of lading it holds as a form of security. Unfortunately, the bank often finds the financed cargo has already been discharged from the ship (usually under a letter of indemnity) and cannot be traced. The bank finds it has no security for its claim against its defaulting customer, and brings a claim against the carrier for misdelivery under the bills of lading, arguing the carrier should not have discharged the cargo without the production of the original bills of lading. The carrier in turn looks to the letter of indemnity under which it agreed to discharge the cargo without the original bills.Continue Reading Misdelivery claims: not an open goal for financing banks