The global shipping industry is the backbone of international trade. This article explores areas in which legal strategies can help the shipping industry meet supply chain risks
Continue Reading Navigating Storms: Some legal strategies for contingency planning in shipping supply chains
Time Charters
Bunkers Legerdemain
By Jody Wood on
Reed Smith recently acted for a mortgagee client who successfully purchased a vessel at a judicial auction, following default by a borrower under a loan facility and the vessel’s subsequent arrest.
Continue Reading Bunkers Legerdemain
The Supreme Court decision in the Ocean Victory
By Sally-Ann Underhill on
The Supreme Court decision in the Ocean Victory was handed down this morning. We will prepare a detailed client alert on the implications of the decision, but for now can report that:
(1) Unsafe ports
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal that there was no breach of the safe port…
The Global Santosh: The Supreme Court provides guidance on a charterer’s responsibility for its agents
By Sally-Ann Underhill & Janine Foster on
NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV (Respondent) v Cargill International SA (Appellant) (“The Global Santosh”) [2016] UKSC 20 (overturning the Court of Appeal [2014] EWCA Civ 403)
The Supreme Court last week handed down an important decision concerning the issue of when a charterer will be held responsible for its agents under a charterparty.
Contractual position
NYK was the disponent owner of the m.v. Global Santosh (“the Vessel”). NYK time chartered the Vessel to Cargill on an Asbatime form, which is a variation of the NYPE 1946 form. Cargill sub-chartered the Vessel to Sigma Shipping Limited under a voyage charter. The Vessel carried a cargo of cement in bulk from Sweden to Nigeria under a sale contract between Transclear SA (“Transclear”) and IBG Investments Ltd (“IBG”). It is likely that Transclear was a further sub-charterer of the Vessel.Continue Reading The Global Santosh: The Supreme Court provides guidance on a charterer’s responsibility for its agents
Don’t trip up – a warning for owners
By Sally-Ann Underhill & Chloe Rogers on
The recently decided case of SBT STAR BULK & TANKERS (GERMANY) GMBH & CO KG V COSMOTRADE SA (THE “WEHR TRAVE”) [2016] EWHC 583 (Comm) in the Queen’s Bench Division of the Commercial Court and before The Hon Sir Bernard Eder will, perhaps, come as a surprise.
This was an appeal pursuant to section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 following an arbitration.
The question to be decided related to the interaction between the nature of a trip time charterparty for “one trip”, and the language of the contract governing the range of load and discharge ports. The question before the arbitrators, and then before the court, was whether the charterparty permitted the Charterers to load another cargo having discharged all its originally loaded cargoes. Once the vessel was free of cargo, could the Charterers load again? Furthermore, was the intended load port within the range of permissible ports?Continue Reading Don’t trip up – a warning for owners
Client Alert: Is payment of time charter hire a condition? “The Astra” reconsidered.
By Alexandra Allan on
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
By Alexandra Allan on
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 considers nature of the breach and consequent measure of damages in “early redelivery” case
By Alexandra Allan & Sally-Ann Underhill on
Maestro Bulk Ltd v Cosco Bulk Carrier Ltd (The “Great Creation”) [2014] EWHC 3978 (Comm)
The vessel was chartered on an amended NYPE form for a minimum of four months and a maximum of five months, plus 15 days in Charterers’ option. Hire was at a rate of US$18,500/day gross. Clause 60 of the charterparty…
Tribunal rules on speed and performance claims under two consecutive time charterparties
By Alexandra Allan on
London Arbitration 18/14
The vessel in question was the subject of two charters on the NYPE 46 form, for one time charter trip under each, with the second charter being in direct continuation of the first.
Performance claims
Clause 128(1) of each charter provided:
“Owners not to be responsible if the vessel under the currency…
Owners validly exercised right to withdraw for non-payment of hire and awarded discounted damages for repudiatory breach
By Alexandra Allan on
London Arbitration 19/14
Two new buildings were let by Owners to Charterers on an amended NYPE form for a period of about 35 months up to 37 months. Hire was to be paid semi-monthly in advance. Clause 55 of the charter allowed Owners to withdraw for non-payment of hire after the expiry of three clear…