Damages for breach of a time charter for loss of a subsequent fixture were recoverable where they were not too remote (The Achilleas distinguished)P time chartered a bulk carrier from S. The vessel was detained at Canada following inspection for repairs to the structure of her holds. P had previously entered into a sub-charter for a voyage from Canada which it lost as a result of its detention. P entered into a substitute fixture which was less profitable. It claimed its loss of profit from S on ...
|
Reducing damages for wrongful premature termination of a time charter to take into account benefits enjoyed by the Owners after the notional date on which the Vessel would (but for the breach) have been re-deliveredN time chartered a vessel from D. N redelivered the Vessel prematurely. Faced with no available market, D ordered the Vessel to another location, dry-docked her then delivered her to another charterer. The Vessel earned a significantly higher rate under this subsequent charter. The Tr ...
|
‘Readiness’ required under an FOB contract on GAFTA Form 49 was not equivalent to that required for a shipowner’s Notice of Readiness and a Seller was obliged to load despite concerns that the holds were unclean
S entered into an FOB contract to sell 15,000 tons of feed barley to B. The contract incorporated GAFTA Form 49 and required the vessel to be‘presented at loading port in readiness to load’. Laytime (and in turn demurrage) was to run from tender of a valid Notice of Readiness (NOR).The relevant vessel gave NOR on the last day of the delivery period. S refused to load the cargo as the holds were unclean and argued that a valid NOR could not be given. B disputed this and called upon S to load. S r ...
|
Collision action limitation periods & counterclaimsL’s ship collided with G’s in the Suez Canel, whereupon G’s sank. Both parties wished to make claims against each other. The limitation period for such a claim is provided as being 2 years by section 190(3) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Following a mutually agreed extension of time, G issued proceedings. L in turn issued a counterclaim, but G took the point that L’s counterclaim was out of time.The court found that the limitation period in ...
|
Extension of time for service of a claim formIn the usual way H had 6 months to serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction on B. 1 week before the end of this period, H applied ex parte for an extension of time which was granted. H then duly served the claim form on B. B applied to set aside the order extending time, an application which would have significant ramifications for H given that limitation had expired.B succeeded on its application. The core factor influencing the Court’s decision wa ...
|
Time charter damagesL let its Vessel to G on an NYPE time charter for “about minimum 3 months to about 5 months (about means +/- 15 days)”. G redelivered the Vessel 6.166 days late. G paid hire to L for the duration of the charter (at the charter rate), together with the market rate for the 6.166 days of overrun.L claimed further hire pursuant to Clause 101 of the charter which provided:“The Charterers hereby undertake the obligation/responsibility to makethorough investigations and every arrang ...
|
Anti-suit injunctions On 10 February 2009 the European Court of Justice answered a question posed by the House of Lords: ‘Is it consistent with Regulation No 44/2001 for a court of a Member State to make an order to restrain a person from commencing or continuing proceedings in another Member State on the ground that such proceedings are in breach of an arbitration agreement?’ The ECJ, following the Advocate General’s advisory opinion, ruled that an anti-suit injunc ...
|
Marine Insurance A trawler caught fire whilst in port. All the crew were ashore at the relevant time. The trawler owner (C) claimed on his insurance with the defendant (D). Under that policy, C warranted that there would be a “Warranted Owner and/or Owner’s experienced skipper on board and in charge at all times and one experienced crew member”. D argued that C could not recover under the policy by reason of breach of warranty as the required personnel were not onboard the trawler at the rele ...
|
Notices of Detention A cruise ship suffered from outbreaks of gastrointestinal virus. A surveyor acting ultimately on behalf of the defendant (D) issued notices prohibiting the ship from putting back to sea as being dangerously unsafe within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The claimant (C) owner of the ship claimed damages, arguing inter alia that the detention was invalid and that it amounted to the tort of conversion. Certain preliminary issues fell to be determined by the ...
|
Unilateral mistake: The Claimant/Seller (S) chartered a vessel to carry cargo from Norway to Mexico for delivery to the Defendant/Buyer (L). S received a demurrage claim from the vessel’s owners and in turn calculated a demurrage claim which it sent to L. S made a mistake in its calculations with the result that it claimed a lower amount from L than it intended to. L noticed the mistake but did not tell S. S and L reached an agreement on the demurrage claim based on these erroneous calculations. ...
|
| 1 2 |