2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
Case Note contributed by Sri Azali BB (Human Resource Management & Business Law), Paralegal at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP Singapore.
'''Note: the judgment reported here has been upheld on appeal. A note on the decision of the Court of Appeal is being preparedhere [[https://www. Edonlinedmc. 1 February 2021co.uk/index.php?title=Priminds_Shipping_v_Noble_Chartering_-_the_Tai_Prize]]'''
'''Background'''
The bill of lading which was presented for signature by or on behalf of the master of the vessel (“the Bill of Lading”) had been prepared by the shippers, acting as agents for Priminds. The Bill of Lading, which was on a standard GENCON 1994 form, incorporated the Hague Rules and described the cargo as being “clean on board” and “shipped at the Port of Loading in apparent good order and condition”. The Bill of Lading was signed as a clean bill by agents for and on behalf of the Master. The Bill of Lading was thus a contract between the shippers and the registered owners of the Vessel (the “Owners”).
During the unloading of cargo at the discharge port, receivers found that the cargo in two or the Vessel’s holds had suffered heat and mould damage. Receivers then commenced proceedings against the Owners in the PRC and were awarded the sum of US$1,086,564.70. Subsequently, the Owners shipowner commenced arbitration against Noble, claiming a 50% contribution to the sum paid to cargo receivers for the damage to cargo. In a negotiated settlement, Noble agreed to pay US$500,000 to the Owners in full and final settlement. In further arbitration proceedings, Noble then sought to be indemnified by Priminds for the amount paid to the Owners and the associated costs. There was no express provision in the Charterparty by which Noble was entitled to the indemnity.
The Arbitrator found that:
