Voyage C/P Disputes

DMC/SandT/19/05

England

Seatrade Group NV v Hakan Agro DMCC (The “Aconcagua Bay”)

English High Court: Commercial Court: Mr Justice Robin Knowles CBE: [2018] EWHC 654 (Comm): 26 March 2018: [[1]]

VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY: WHETHER “ALWAYS ACCESSIBLE” WARRANTY INCLUDED BOTH ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE: WHETHER OWNERS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR DETENTION FOLLOWING DELAYED DEPARTURE OF VESSEL

DMC/SandT/19/02

England

CSSA Chartering and Shipping Services S.A. v Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd (The “Pacific Voyager”)

English Court of Appeal: Longmore, King and Sir Rupert Jackson LLJ: [2018] EWCA Civ 2143: 6 November 2018: [[2]]

VOYAGE CHARTER: SHELLVOY 5 FORM: WHETHER OBLIGATION ON OWNER TO GET THE VESSEL TO THE LOADING PORT WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME: WHETHER SUCH AN OBLIGATION IS ABSOULTE OR ONLY ONE OF DUE DILIGENCE: WHETHER LAYCAN EQUIVALENT TO AN ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL OR READINESS TO LOAD DATE

DMC/SandT/19/01

England

Sucden Middle-East v Yagci Denizcilik Ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi - (The “Muammer Yagci”)

English Commercial Court: Robin Knowles J: [2018] EWHC 3873 (Comm): 2 November 2018:[[3]]

VOYAGE CHARTER: LAYTIME & DEMURRAGE: SUGAR CHARTER PARTY 1999 FORM: CLAUSE 28 “STRIKES AND FORCE MAJEURE” EXCEPTIONS: SEIZURE OF CARGO ON BOARD VESSEL AFTER PRESENTATION OF FALSE DOCUMENTS TO CUSTOMS AT DISCHARGE PORT: MEANING OF “GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCES”: APPEAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW PURSUANT TO SECTION 69 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996

DMC/SandT/18/03

England

Lukoil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Ocean Tankers Pte Ltd (The “Ocean Neptune”)

English Commercial Court: Popplewell J: [2018] EWHC 163 (Comm): 2 February 2018:[[4]]

VOYAGE CHARTER: EXXONMOBILVOY 2005 FORM: LITASCO CLAUSES: DEMURRAGE CLAIM PRESENTATION TIME-BAR REQUIRING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM TO BE PRESENTED TO CHARTERERS WITHIN 90 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF CARGO DISCHARGE: WHETHER CLAIM FOR TIME LOST WAITING FOR ORDERS TIME-BARRED DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE WITH DOCUMENT PRESENTATION REQUIREMENT: APPEAL FROM PARTIAL FINAL AWARD UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996

DMC/SandT/18/01

England

CSSA Chartering and Shipping Services S.A. v Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd (The “Pacific Voyager”)

English Commercial Court: Popplewell J: [2017] EWHC 2579 (Comm): 18 October 2017: [[5]]

VOYAGE CHARTER: SHELLVOY 5 FORM: WHETHER OBLIGATION ON OWNER TO GET THE VESSEL TO THE LOADING PORT WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME: WHETHER SUCH AN OBLIGATION IS ABSOULTE OR ONLY ONE OF DUE DILIGENCE: WHETHER LAYCAN EQUIVALENT TO AN ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL OR READINESS TO LOAD DATE

DMC/SandT/17/13

England

Navalmare UK Limited v Kale Maden Hammaddeler Sanayi ve Ticart AS (The “Arundel Castle”)

English Commercial Court: Knowles J: [2017] EWHC 116 (Comm): 31 January 2017: [[6]

VOYAGE CHARTER: MEANING OF “PORT LIMITS”: ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL

DMC/SandT/17/01

England

ST Shipping & Transport INC v Kriti Filoxenia Shipping Co SA (The “Kriti Filoxenia”)

High Court: Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court); Mr Justice Walker; [2015] EWHC 997 (Comm); 14 May 2015[[7]]

CHARTERPARTY: WHETHER THE CHARTERERS’ RIGHT TO CANCEL THE CHARTERPARTY PURSUANT TO THE LAYCAN PROVISION SURIVIVES A RE-NOMINATION OF THE LOAD PORT

DMC/SandT/16/01

England

Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA v MT Maritime Management BV (The “MTM Hong Kong”)

English Commercial Court: Males J: [2015] EWHC 2505 (Comm): 1 September 2015: [[8]]

CHARTERPARTY: QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGES FOR REPUDIATION OF VOYAGE CHARTER: DAMAGES FOR POSITIONAL LOSS IN ADDITION TO USUAL PROFIT LOSS: WHETHER DAMAGES LIMITED BY REFERENCE TO PERIOD WHEN CONTRACT VOYAGE WOULD HAVE ENDED: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996

DMC/SandT/15/02

England

E D & F Man Sugar Ltd v Unicargo Transportgesellschaft GmbH (Polska Zegluga Morska PP, interested party), The “Ladytramp”

Court of Appeal; Pattern, Tomlinson, Christopher Clarke LJJ; [2013] EWCA Civ 1449, 19 November 2013: [[9]]

SUGAR CHARTERPARTY 1999: DESTRUCTION BY FIRE OF FACILITIES AT LOADING TERMINAL NOT WITHIN CLAUSE 28 EXCEPTION TO LAYTIME OF “MECHANICAL BREAKDOWNS”

DMC/SandT/14/16

England

Great Elephant Corporation v Trafigura Beheer BV v Vitol SA & Vitol Asia Pte Ltd v China Offshore Oil (Singapore) International Pte Ltd (The “Crudesky”)

English Court of Appeal: Longmore, Tomlin and Underhill LJJ: [2013] EWCA Civ 1547, [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1: 25 July 2013:[[10]] T VOYAGE CHARTER: FOB SALE CONTRACT CHAIN: DEMURRAGE: “RESTRAINT OF PRINCES” EXCEPTION: UNFORESEEABLE FORCE MAJEURE BEYOND CONTROL OR REASONABLE CONTROL

DMC/SandT/14/12

England

Falkonera Shipping Company v Arcadia Energy Pte Ltd (The “Falkonera”)

English Court of Appeal (Civil Division); Floyd and Christopher Clarke LJJ, Sir Stanley Burnton; [2014] EWCA Civ 713; 5 June 2014:[[11]]

SHIPPING: TANKER TRANSHIPMENT: SHIP-TO-SHIP (“STS”) TRANSFERS: CHARTERPARTY PROVIDING FOR STS TRANSFERS TO BE SUBJECT TO OWNERS’ APPROVAL WHICH NOT TO BE UNREASONABLY WITHHELD: OWNERS WITHHOLD CONSENT FOR A STS TRANSFER BETWEEN TWO VLCCs: WHETHER OWNERS’ WITHHOLDING OF APPROVAL REASONABLE

DMC/SandT/12/25

England

E.D. & F. Man Sugar Ltd v Unicargo Transportgesellschaft mBh

English High Court (Commercial Court): Eder J: [2012] EWHC 2879 (Comm): 23 October 2012:[12]]

CHARTERPARTY: LAYTIME AND DEMURRAGE: DESTRUCTION OF CONVEYOR-BELT SYSTEM AT LOADING PORT BEFORE FIXTURE: DELAY IN BERTHING: NO OBLIGATION ON CHARTERERS TO NOMINATE A SECOND BERTH: DESTRUCTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN: ACT OF STATE-SPONSORED PORT AUTHORITY IN ORDINARY COURSE OF CARRYING OUT PORT OR ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS DID NOT FALL WITHIN EXCEPTION OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE

DMC/SandT/12/24

England

Carboex SA v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA

English Court of Appeal: Lord Neuberger MR, Moore-Bick and Toulson LJJ: [2012] EWCA Civ 838: 19 June 2011:[[13]]

DEMURRAGE: CALCULATION OF LAYTIME: STRIKE EXCEPTION: STRIKE CAUSING CONGESTION AT PORT AND CHARTERED VESSELS DELAYED FROM BERTHING AS A RESULT: PERIOD OF DELAY TO BE DISCOUNTED FROM CALCULATION OF LAYTIME SO LONG AS STRIKE WAS THE EFFECTIVE CAUSE OF DELAY

DMC/SandT/12/22

Australia

1. Jebsens International (Australia) Pty Ltd and Anor v Interfert Australia Pty Ltd and Ors (2011) 112 SASR 297, 25 August 2011 (Anderson J)

2. Dampskibsselskabet Norden A/S v Beach Building & Civil Group Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 696, 29 June 2012 (Foster J):[[14]]

WHETHER VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY A "SEA CARRIAGE DOCUMENT" FOR PURPOSES OF S.11 AUSTRALIAN CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT 1991

DMC/SandT/12/10

England

Progress Bulk Carriers Limited v Tube City IMS LLC (The “Cenk Kaptanoglu”)

English Commercial Court: Cooke J: [2012] EWHC 273 (Comm): 17 February 2012:[[15]]

VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY: ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL: WHETHER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT VOIDABLE FOR DURESS: WHETHER OWNERS’ CONDUCT, ALTHOUGH NOT ILLEGAL, AMOUNTED TO “ILLEGITIMATE PRESSURE”

DMC/SandT/12/03

England

Emeraldian Limited Partnership v Wellmix Shipping Limited and Guangzhou Iron & Steel Corporation Limited (The “Vine”)

English Commercial Court: Teare J: [2010] EWHC 1411 (Comm): 17 June 2010:[[16]]

VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY: WHETHER VESSEL’S OBLIGATION TO OBTAIN CLEARANCE BY PORT AUTHORITIES BEFORE GIVING NOTICE OF READINESS WAIVED FOR PURPOSE OF COMMENCEMENT OF LAYTIME: WHETHER CHARTERERS COULD RELY ON EXCEPTIONS TO RUNNING OF LAYTIME: WHETHER CHARTERERS IN BREACH OF SAFE PORT WARRANTY: WHETHER DEMURRAGE RECOVERABLE FOR DETENTION OF VESSEL

DMC/SandT/11/26

England

National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia v BP Oil Supply Company

English Court of Appeal: Ward and Tomlinson LJJ and Sir Mark Potter: 12 October 2011: [2011] EWCA Civ 1127:[[17]]

VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY: BPVOY4: DEMURRAGE CLAIMS TO BE PRESENTED WITH FULL DOCUMENTATION WITHIN 90 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF DISCHARGE: FINAL SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM: WHETHER MIS-DESCRIBED FURTHER DEMURRAGE CLAIM TIME-BARRED: COST OF BUNKERS CONSUMED FOR RE-BERTHING

DMC/SandT/11/21

England

Carboex SA v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA

English High Court: Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court): Field J.: [2011] EWHC 1165 (Comm: 12 May 2011: [[18]]

AMWELSH CHARTERPARTY: DEMURRAGE: EXCEPTION OF STRIKES: WHETHER DELAY IN DISCHARGE ARISING FROM CONGESTION CAUSED BY STRIKES EXCEPTED FROM LAYTIME

DMC/SandT/10/10

Singapore High Court

The “Asia Star”[2009] SGHC 91 [[19]]

Judgment delivered by Judith Prakash J, 17 April 2009 [2009] SGHC 91

BREACH OF CONTRACT TO CARRY CARGO: WHETHER PLAINTIFF ACTED REASONABLY IN MITIGATION OF LOSS: PLAINTIFF NOT REQUIRED TO INCUR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSE OR TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS IN ORDER TO MITIGATE LOSS: MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT TO CARRY CARGO