Changes

From DMC
Jump to: navigation, search

ENE 1 Kos Limited v Petrobras

196 bytes added, 12:32, 9 October 2017
no edit summary
'''TIME CHARTERPARTY: SHIP WITHDRAWN FOR NON-PAYMENT OF HIRE WHILST LOADING CARGO: CARGO DISCHARGED BACK TO SHORE TWO DAYS LATER: WHETHER SHIPOWNER COULD CLAIM REMUNERATION AT MARKET RATE FOR STORING THE CARGO DURING THAT PERIOD: WHETHER REMUNERATION DUE UNDER IMPLIED TERM OR AS QUANTUM MERUIT: WHETHER DUE AS RIGHT CORRELATIVE TO DUTY OF LOOKING AFTER GOODS: WHETHER SHIPOWNER COULD RECOVER COSTS OF PROVIDING BAIL BOND'''
 
[Note: this judgment has been in part reversed by the decision of the Supreme Court [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php?title=Petroleo_Brasiliero_v_ENE_Kos_1]] , delivered on 2 May 2012]
 
'''Summary'''
'''Although the Charterer’s cargo remained on board the ship for several days after the Shipowner legitimately withdrew the vessel from the charterparty for non-payment of hire, the Court of Appeal rejected the Shipowner’s claim for remuneration at the market rate for storing the cargo. There was no element of accident, emergency or necessity in the present case. By storing the cargo as it had done, the Shipowner had done no more than what a gratuitous bailee would have done. But the Shipowner was allowed to recover the costs of bunkers consumed in pumping the cargo ashore.
 '''As for the issue of costs, the Court overruled The Collingrove (1885) 10 PD 158 and held that the costs of providing and maintaining a bail bond could be awarded to a Shipowner as costs “incidental to” the proceedings.'''
This note has been contributed by Ken To-ching Lee, LLB(Hons), PCLL (University of Hong Kong), BCL(Oxon).

Navigation menu