In Falkonera Shipping Co v Arcadia Energy Pte Ltd (The “Falkonera”), the Court considered issues arising from the Claimant Owners’ withholding of approval to discharge from the chartered VLCC to two other VLCCs by STS transfer. Charter Terms Owners chartered the “FALKONERA”, a VLCC, to the Defendant Charterers on an amended BPVOY4 form. Clause 8.1 … Continue Reading
In Dalmare SpA v Union Maritime Ltd (The “Union Power”), the court was required to decide whether a term as to satisfactory quality was to be implied into an MOA on the Norwegian Saleform 1993. The MOA provided at clause 11 that the vessel was to be “delivered and taken over as she was at … Continue Reading
In Minerva Navigation Inc v Oceana Shipping AG (The “Athena”), the Commercial Court considered the nature of the loss of time which Charterers were required to prove in order to bring the vessel within the off-hire provisions of an amended NYPE 46 charterparty. Clause 15 of the charterparty provided as follows (with amendments from the … Continue Reading
An article by Edward Yang Liu, Legal Assistant at Reed Smith Richards Butler in Hong Kong, commenting on Isabella Shipowner SA v Shangang Shipping Co Ltd (The “Aquafaith”) (2012) EWHC 1077 (Comm) has been published in Shipping and Trade Law. The article considers the issues examined by the court, in particular whether Owners could refuse … Continue Reading
In Osmium Shipping Corp v Cargill International SA [2012] EWHC 571 (Comm), the Commercial Court considered the grammatical structure and syntax of an off-hire clause in the context of whether seizure of the vessel by pirates constituted an off-hire event. The charterparty was on an amended NYPE 1946 form, and the off-hire clause in question … Continue Reading
Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds 1677 states that a guarantee must be in writing and signed by a person with the requisite authority in order to be enforceable. In Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 265, the Court of Appeal considered the application of this section … Continue Reading
The Court of Appeal’s judgment in Transpetrol Maritime Services Limited v SJB (Marine Energy) BV (the “Rowan”) [2012] EWCA Civ 198 is interesting in two respects: 1. It considered the meaning of clause 18 of the Vitol terms, which provides under the heading “Oil Company Approvals Clauses” that “Owner warrants that the Vessel is approved … Continue Reading
The Commercial Court has considered the true construction and implementation of the CONWARTIME 1993 clause in a time charter on the NYPE form (Pacific Basin IHX Limited v Bulkhandling Handymax AS [2011] EWHC 2862 (Comm)). The “TRITON LARK” was instructed to carry a cargo from Hamburg to China, via Suez and the Gulf of Aden. … Continue Reading
