2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
The Charterers appealed against the decision of the tribunal. At the appeal before Field J, [insert huyperlink] the parties invited the court to consider a third issue which it was said would decide the issues of construction common to those raised by questions (i) and (ii) above, namely whether the strike exception in Clause 9 applied to a vessel which was unable to berth due to berth congestion caused by a strike.
Field J ([2011] EWHC 1165 (Comm), [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 365) [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Carboex_v_Louis_Dreyfus_Commodities]] held that, following Leonis Steamship v Joseph Rank Ltd (No 2) (1908) 13 Com Cas 295, the ordinary meaning of Clause 9 was that it covered not only delay in discharging caused by congestion due to a strike but also delay in discharging caused by congestion due to the after-effects of a strike which had ended. This was so whether the vessel arrived at the discharging port before or after the strike had ended. Statements by various members of the House of Lords in the Marwood case were obiter and were not binding on the Court. Field J thus allowed the appeal and set aside the award.
The Shipowners appealed against the judgment of Field J.
