Changes

From DMC
Jump to: navigation, search

Shipping & Transport

34,177 bytes added, 21:55, 2 November 2017
no edit summary
[[Main Page]] - [[Admiralty]] - [[Carriage of Goods]] - [[Other Cases]] - [[Time CDMC/P Disputes]] - [[Voyage CSandT/P Disputes]]17/14
England '''Glencore International AG v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.'''  '''English Court of Appeal; Lewison and Henderson LJJ, Sir Christopher Clarke; [2017] EWCA Civ 365; 24 May 2017:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Glencore_International_v_MSC_Mediterranean_Shipping_Company]]''' '''CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: MISDELIVERY OF CARGO: MEANING OF “DELIVERY ORDER": ELECTRONIC RELEASE SYSTEMS IN OPERATION AT PORT OF DISCHARGE: WHETHER A RELEASE NOTE CONTAINING PIN CODES CONSTITUTED A DELIVERY ORDER: WHETHER CONSIGNEE ESTOPPED BY PREVIOUS USE OF ERS SYSTEM'''  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: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Navalmare_UK_v_Kale_Maden_Hammaddeler_Sanayi_ve_Ticart_-_The_Arundel_Castle]]''' '''VOYAGE CHARTER: MEANING OF “PORT LIMITS”: ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL'''  DMC/SandT/17/12 Singapore  '''DSA Consultancy (FZC) v The “Eurohope”'''  '''Singapore High Court; Chua Lee Ming J; [2017] SGHC 218: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/DSA_Consultancy_(FZC)_v_The_Eurohope]] '''ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION: ARREST TO OBTAIN SECURITY IN AID OF FOREIGN COURT PROCEEDINGS'''  DMC/SandT/17/11 Canada '''De Wolf Maritime Safety BV v Traffic-Tech International Inc. (The “Zagora”)'''  '''Federal Court, Ontario: Madam Justice St-Louis; 2017 FC 23: 11 January 2017:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/De_Wolf_Maritime_Safety_v_Traffic-Tech_International_-_The_Zagora]]''' '''HAGUE-VISBY RULES: WHETHER CARGO CARRIED ON-DECK UNDECLARED AMOUNTED TO “GOODS” AS DEFINED IN THE RULES: WHETHER A CARRIER COULD RELY ON THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO GOODS CARRIED ON-DECK WITHOUT AUTHORISATION'''  DMC/SandT/17/10 England  '''Transgrain Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Yangtze Navigation (Hong Kong) Co Ltd.''''''English Commercial Court: Teare J: (2016) EWHC 3122 (Comm): [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Transgrain_Shipping_(Singapore)_v_Yangtze_Navigation_(Hong_Kong)]]''' '''CHARTERPARTY (TIME): NYPE INTER-CLUB AGREEMENT 1996, CLAUSE 8(D): WHETHER “ACT” REQUIRES FAULT'''   DMC/SandT/17/09 Singapore '''The “Posidon” and another matter'''  '''Singapore High Court; Belinda Ang Saw Ean J; [2017] SGHC 138:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Posidon]] '''CLAIMS AGAINST SHIP SALE PROCEEDS: PRIORITIES: CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH ESTABLISHED ORDER OF PRIORITIES MAY BE DEPARTED FROM: CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH NECESSARIES CLAIM MAY RANK ABOVE MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM: WHETHER REQUIREMENT OF KNOWLEDGE OF NATURE AND EXTENT OF EXPENDITURE DIFFERS FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF NECESSARIES CLAIMS'''  DMC/SandT/17/08 England '''Fulton Shipping Inc v Globalia Business Travel SAU (The “New Flamenco”)''' '''United Kingdom Supreme Court: Neuberger, Mance, Clarke, Sumption and Hodge SCJJ: [2017] UKSC 43: 28 June 2017:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Fulton_Shipping_v_Globalia_Business_Travel_-_The_New_Flamenco_-_Supreme_Court_Decision]]''' '''TIME CHARTER: REPUDIATION: QUANTUM: WHETHER CREDIT TO BE GIVEN FOR CAPITAL VALUE OF VESSEL SOLD ON REPUDIATION FOR A GREATER SUM THAN VALUE ON CONTRACTUAL REDELIVERY DATE: ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL'''  DMC/SandT/17/07 England '''Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd and another/China National Chartering Co Ltd v Gard Marine & Energy Ltd and another/Daiichi Chuo Kisen Kaisha v Gard Marine & Energy Ltd and another (The “Ocean Victory”)''' '''United Kingdom Supreme Court: Mance, Clarke, Sumption, Hodge and Toulson SCJJ: [2017] UKSC 35: 10 May 2017:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Gard_Marine_%26_Energy_v_China_National_Chartering_-_The_Ocean_Victory]] '''DEMISE CHARTERPARTY: TIME CHARTERPARTY: CONTACT WITH BREAKWATER AND GROUNDING AT PORT RESULTING IN CONSTRUCTIVE TOTAL LOSS AND WRECK REMOVAL OF VESSEL: WHETHER LOSS CAUSED BY BREACH OF SAFE PORT UNDERTAKING OR BY AN ABNORMAL OCCURRENCE: WHETHER SUBROGATED RIGHTS OF HULL INSURERS AND INSURED LOSSES OF OWNERS AGAINST DEMISE CHARTERERS PRECLUDED BY DEMISE CHARTERPARTY TERMS: WHETHER TIME CHARTERERS ENTITLED TO LIMIT LIABILITY AGAINST HULL INSURERS AND OWNERS: BARECON 89 FORM: MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT 1995: CONVENTION ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS 1976  DMC/SandT/17/06 England '''Bahamas Oil Refining Company International Limited v Cape Bari Tankschiffahrts GmbH & Co KG (The “Cape Bari”)''' '''Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: Neuberger, Mance, Clarke, Sumption and Toulson SCJJ: [2016] UKPC 20: 19 July 2016:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Bahamas_Oil_Refining_Company_v_Cape_Bari_Tankschiffahrts_-_The_Cape_Bari]]''' '''CONDITIONS OF USE OF BERTH: COLLISION BETWEEN VESSEL AND BERTH: WHETHER – UNDER CONDITIONS OF USE OF BERTH - VESSEL CAN CONTRACT OUT OF OR WAIVE STATUTORY RIGHT TO LIMIT LABILITY: WHETHER UNDER CONDITIONS OF USE VESSEL DID CONTRACT OUT OF OR WAIVE RIGHT TO LIMIT: MERCHANT SHIPPING (MARITIME CLAIMS LIMITATION OF LIABILITY) ACT 1989 OF THE BAHAMAS: CONVENTION ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR MARITIME CLAIMS 1976'''  DMC/SandT/17/05 England '''Oldendorff GmbH & Co KG v Sea Powerful II Special Maritime Enterprises (The “Zagora”)'''  '''English High Court (Commercial Court): Mr Justice Teare: [2016] EWHC 3212; 15 December 2016:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Oldendorff_GmbH_v_Sea_Powerful_II_Special_Maritime_Enterprises_The_Zagora]]''' '''LETTER OF INDEMNITY: WHETHER THE DISCHARGE PORT AGENT WAS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE SHIPOWNERS OR THE PERSON NAMED IN THE LETTER OF INDEMNITY AS THE PERSON TO WHOM DELIVERY OF THE CARGO WAS TO BE MADE'''  DMC/SandT/17/04 England '''MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v Cottonex Anstalt''' '''Court of Appeal; Moore-Bick and Tomlinson LJJ, Keehan J.; [2016] EWCA Civ 789; 27 July 2016:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/MSC_Mediterranean_Shipping_Company_v_Cottonex_Anstalt]] '''CONTAINER DEMURRAGE: FRUSTRATION: REPUDIATION AND LEGITIMATE INTEREST: GOOD FAITH: PENALTIES'''  DMC/SandT/17/03 England  '''SPAR SHIPPING AS v GRAND CHINA LOGISTICS HOLDING (GROUP) CO LTD (THE “SPAR CAPELLA”, “SPAR VEGA” AND “SPAR DRACO”)''' '''Court of Appeal; Sir Terence Etherton MR, Gross and Hamblen LJJ; [2016] EWCA Civ 982; 7 October 2016:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Spar_Shipping_v_Grand_China_Logistics_Holding_Group]]''' '''NYPE 1993 FORM TIME CHARTERPARTY: WHETHER THE CHARTERERS’ DUTY TO PAY HIRE IS A CONDITION OR AN INNOMINATE TERM: WHETHER THE CHARTERERS’ CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO REPUDIATORY BREACH OF THE TIME CHARTER'''  DMC/SandT/17/02 England  '''Volcafe Ltd and Others v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA (trading as “CSAV”)'''  '''English Court of Appeal: Gloster LJ, King LJ and Flaux J: (2016) EWCA Civ 1103: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Volcafe_&_Ors_v_Compania_Sud_Americana_de_Vapores_-_CSAV]]'''  '''CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: CONSIGNMENTS OF BAGGED COFFEE BEANS IN CONTAINERS CARRIED ON LCL/FCL TERMS: CARGO DAMAGED BY CONDENSATION: TEMPORAL SCOPE OF HAGUE RULES: BURDEN OF PROOF: WHETHER CARRIER FAILED PROPERLY AND CAREFULLY TO LOAD AND CARRY THE GOODS: WHETHER CARRIER ENTITLED TO RELY ON “INHERENT VICE” EXCEPTION: WHETHER DAMAGE INEVITABLE: HAGUE RULES, ARTICLE III RULE 2 AND ARTICLE IV RULE 2(M)'''   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''' '''CHARTERPARTY: WHETHER THE CHARTERERS’ RIGHT TO CANCEL THE CHARTERPARTY PURSUANT TO THE LAYCAN PROVISION SURIVIVES A RE-NOMINATION OF THE LOAD PORT'''  DMC/SandT/16/07 England '''FSL-9 Pte Ltd and Nordic Tankers Trading A/S v Norwegian Hull Club (The “FSL New York”)''' '''English Commercial Court: Blair J: [2016] EWHC 1091 (Comm): 10 May 2016: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/FSL-9_Pte_&_Nordic_Tankers_Trading_v_Norwegian_Hull_Club_-_The_FSL_New_York]] '''LETTER OF UNDERTAKING: P&I CLUB: WHETHER CLAIMANT OWNERS COULD APPLY TO HIGH COURT TO REQUIRE DEFENDANT P&I CLUB TO INCREASE LEVEL OF SECURITY AVAILABLE UNDER A LETTER OF UNDERTAKING ISSUED BY THE CLUB TO OWNERS: MEANING OF “LIBERTY TO APPLY” IN LETTER OF UNDERTAKING SUBJECT TO ENGLISH LAW AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT IN LONDON'''  DMC/SandT/16/06 England  '''NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NY v Cargill International SA, The “Global Santosh”''' '''Court; Lords Neuberger, Mance, Clarke, Sumption, Toulson; [2016] UKSC 20; 11 May 2016:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/NYK_Bulkship_(Atlantic)_v_Cargill_International_-_the_Global_Santosh_Supreme_Court_Decision]''' '''OFF-HIRE CLAUSE RE DELAY ARISING FROM ARREST OF VESSEL: WHETHER ACTS OF RECEIVERS AND SUB-CHARTERERS WERE TO BE CONSIDERED “DEFAULT OF THE CHARTERERS OR THEIR AGENTS”'''  DMC/SandT/16/05 '''England''' '''PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC & Product Shipping and Trading SA v OW Bunker Malta Limited & ING Bank NV, the “RES COGITANS”''' '''Supreme Court; Lords Neuberger, Mance, Clarke, Hughes, Toulson; [2016] UKSC 23, 11 May 2016: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/PST_Energy_7__Shipping_v_OW_Bunker_Malta_-_The_Res_Cogitans]] '''RETENTION OF TITLE CLAUSE; GOODS CONTEMPLATED TO BE CONSUMED BEFORE TITLE PASSED; SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979 INAPPLICABLE; COMMENTS ON POSITION IF SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979 APPLIED'''  DMC/SandT/16/04 '''England''' '''Crescendo Maritime Co. & Alpha Bank AE v Bank of Communications Co Ltd & Ors.''' '''English High Court; Teare J; [2015] EWHC 3364 (Comm), 25 November 2015: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Crescendo_Maritime_&_Alpha_Bank_v_Bank_of_Communications_&_Ors]]''' '''BACK-DATED SHIPBUILDING CONTRACT: REFUND GUARANTEES: ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS: ACTION COMMENCED IN CHINESE COURTS BY A PARTY TO THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT: BREACH OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT:WHETHER AN ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION SHOULD BE ISSUED:: WHETHER CHINESE PROCEEDINGS A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON ARBITRATION AWARD'''  DMC/SandT/16/03 '''England''' '''SBT Star Bulk & Tankers (Germany) GmbH & Co KG v Cosmotrade SA (The “Wehr Trave”)''' '''English Commercial Court: Eder J: [2016] EWHC 583 (Comm): 22 March 2016:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/SBT_Bulk_&_Tankers_v_Cosmotrade_-_The_Wehr_Trave]] '''TIME CHARTER TRIP: WHETHER THE PARTICULAR TERMS OF THE CHARTER PERMITTED CHARTERERS TO ORDER THE VESSEL TO LOAD A FURTHER CARGO AFTER THE INITIAL CARGO HAD BEEN DISCHARGED: ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL'''  DMC/SandT/16/02 '''England''' '''Fulton Shipping Inc v Globalia Business Travel SAU (The “New Flamenco”)''' '''English Court of Appeal: Longmore, Christopher Clarke and Sales LLJ: [2015] EWCA Civ 1299: 21 December 2015:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Fulton_Shipping_v_Globalia_Business_Travel_-the_New_Flamenco_-_Court_of_Appeal_Decision] '''TIME CHARTER: REPUDIATION: QUANTUM OF DAMAGES: WHETHER CREDIT TO BE GIVEN FOR CAPITAL VALUE OF VESSEL SOLD ON REPUDIATION FOR A GREATER SUM THAN ITS VALUE ON CONTRACTUAL REDELIVERY DATE: ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL'''  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: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Louis_Dreyfus_Commodities_Suisse_v_MT_Maritime_Management_-_The_MTM_Hong_Kong]]''' '''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/15/18  '''England''' '''Société de Distribution de Toutes Marchandises en Côte D’Ivoire, trading as “SDTM-CI”, and others v. Continental Lines N.V. and another (the “Sea Miror”)''' '''English High Court: Flaux J; 18 June 2015: [2015] EWHC 1747 (Comm): [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/SDTM-CI_and_others_v_Continental_Lines_amd_another_-_the_Sea_Miror]]''' '''SYNACOMEX 90 CHARTERPARTY: LOADING AND DISCHARGING TO BE AT THE EXPENSE AND RISK OF THE SHIPPERS/CHARTERERS AND RECEIVERS/CHARTERERS RESPECTIVELY: WHETHER OWNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR CARGO LOSS AND DAMAGE OCCURRING DURING LOADING AND DISCHARGE'''  DMC/SandT/15/17 '''England''' '''PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC & Product Shipping and Trading SA v OW Bunker Malta Limited & ING Bank NV, the “RES COGITANS”''' '''Court of Appeal; Moore-Bick, Longmore, McCombe LJJ; [2015] EWCA Civ 1058, 22 October 2015: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/PST_Energy_7_Shipping_v_OW_Bunker_Malta_&_ING_Bank_-_the_RES_COGITANS''']] '''ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL: SUPPLY OF BUNKERS: RETENTION OF TITLE CLAUSE: CONTEMPLATED THAT GOODS WOULD BE CONSUMED BEFORE TITLE PASSED: NO PASSING OF PROPERTY INTENDED: SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979 INAPPLICABLE'''  DMC/SandT/15/16 '''Singapore''' '''Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd v MISC Berhad, the “BUNGA MELATI 5”''' '''High Court; Prakash J; [2015] SGHC 190, 22 July 2015:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Equatorial_Marine_Fuel_Management_Services_v_MISC_Bhd_-_The_Bunga_Melati_5]] '''BUNKER BROKERS: AGENCY: ACTUAL AUTHORITY, APPARENT AUTHORITY, AND ESTOPPEL: NO GENERAL ‘DUTY TO SPEAK’'''  DMC/SandT/15/15 '''England'''  '''Arnold v Britton''' '''UK Supreme Court: Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge JJSC: [2015] UKSC 36, [2015] 2 WLR 1593: 10 June 2015:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Arnold_v_Britton]] '''LANDLORD AND TENANT: LONG RESIDENTIAL LEASES: INCREASE OF SERVICE CHARGE AT YEARLY RATE OF 10% ON COMPOUND BASIS: CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION: CONTROL OF PARTIES OVER LANGUAGE USED IN CONTRACT: THAT CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT WORKED OUT BADLY FOR ONE PARTY NO REASON FOR DEPARTING FROM NATURAL LANGUAGE'''   DMC/SandT/15/14 '''England''' '''Bunge SA v Nidera BV''' '''UK Supreme Court: Lords Neuberger, Mance, Clarke, Sumption and Toulson: [2015] UKSC 437: 1 July 2015:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Bunge_SA_v_Nidera_BV]] '''INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS: DAMAGES: SALE OF GRAIN BASED ON GAFTA FORM 49: EMBARGO ON EXPORTS: PREMATURE TERMINATION OF CONTRACT BY SELLERS BEFORE EMBARGO TOOK EFFECT: ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT EFFECT OF EMBARGO: NO LOSS SUFFERED BY BUYERS'''  DMC/SandT/15/13 '''The Netherlands''' '''The Kingdom of The Netherlands v Owners of the yacht Qubio – “The Qubio”''' '''Supreme Court of the Netherlands: Vice-President F.B. Bakels as chairman and judges G. Snijders, G. de Groot, M.V. Polak and T.H. Tanja-van den Broek'; 10July 2015, Case no. ECLI:NL:HR:2015:1836:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Kingdom_of_The_Netherlands_v_Owners_of_Yacht_Qubio]]''' '''WRECK OF VESSEL: EXTENSION OF LIABILITY OF THE OWNER OF A SUNKEN VESSEL TO PAY FOR COSTS OF MARKING THE WRECK AS A TEMPORARY OR PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE'''  DMC/SandT/15/12 '''Singapore''' '''Precious Shipping Public Company Ltd & Ors v OW Bunker Far East (Singapore) Pte Ltd & Ors and other matters''' '''Singapore High Court; Chong J; [2015] SGHC 187, 21 July 2015: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Precious_Shipping_&_Ors_v_OW_Bunker_Far_East_&_Ors]] '''WHETHER INTERPLEADER RELIEF AVAILABLE TO ULTIMATE PURCHASERS OF BUNKERS: WHETHER POTENTIAL CLAIMS BY PHYSICAL SUPPLIERS (WHO SOLD THOSE BUNKERS TO INTERMEDIATE BUYERS) WERE SUFFICIENT TO FOUND THE COURT’S INTERPLEADER JURISDICTION'''   DMC/SandT/15/11 '''England''' '''Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Cirrus Oil Services Ltd'''  '''English High Court (Commercial Court): Cooke J: [2014] EWHC 87 (Comm), [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1: 24 January 2014::[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Glencore_Energy_UK_v_Cirrus_Oil_Services]] '''CONTRACT FOR SALE OF OIL BLEND: WHETHER A BINDING CONTRACT EXISTED: FIRM OFFER WITH ESSENTIAL TERMS ACCEPTED: NAME OF SELLER INFERRED FROM PREVIOUS DEALINGS BETWEEN PARTIES: DAMAGES FOR NON-ACCEPTANCE UNDER SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979, SECTIONS 50(2) AND (3) NOT EXCLUDED BY CLAUSE 32.1 OF BP 2007 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR CFR SALES'''   DMC/SandT/15/10 '''England''' '''Maestro Bulk Ltd v Cosco Bulk Carrier Ltd, the “Great Creation”''' '''English High Court; Cooke J; [2014] EWHC 3978 (Comm), 15 December 2014:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Maestro_Bulk_v_Cosco_Bulk_Carrier_-_The_Great_Creation]] '''TIME CHARTERPARTY: UNTIMELY REDELIVERY NOTICES: “BELOW MARKET” FOLLOW-ON FIXTURE: HOW DAMAGES TO BE CALCULATED: MITIGATION'''  DMC/SandT/15/09 '''England''' '''Metall Market OOO v Vitorio Shipping Co Ltd (The “Lehmann Timber”)''' '''English Court of Appeal: Arden, Patten LLJ andSir Bernard Rix: [2013] EWCA Civ 650: [2014] QB 760, [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 541:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Metall_Market_v_vitorio_Shipping_the_Lehmann_Timber]]''' '''CARRIAGE OF GOODS: GENERAL AVERAGE: REQUEST BY SHIPOWNER FOR SECURITY IN THE FORM OF GENERAL AVERAGE BOND SUPPORTED BY GENERAL AVERAGE GUARANTEE: WHETHER TERMS OF REQUEST REASONABLE: WHETHER ACCEPTANCE OF PART SECURITY A WAIVER OF SHIPOWNER’S LIEN: WHETHER EXPENSES OF STORING CARGO ASHORE IN EXERCISE OF LIEN RECOVERABLE'''  DMC/SandT/15/08 '''England''' '''PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC & Product Shipping and Trading SA v OW Bunker Malta Limited & ING Bank NV, the “RES COGITANS”''' '''English High Court; Males J; [2015] EWHC 2022 (Comm) 14 July 2015:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/PST_Energy_7_Shipping_&_Product_Shipping_and_Trading_v_OW_Bunker_Malta_&_ING_Bank_the_Res_Cognitans]] '''ARBITRATION ACT 1996 S.69 APPEAL: BUNKER SUPPLY CONTRACT ON CREDIT TERMS: RETENTION OF TITLE CLAUSE: PARTIES CONTEMPLATED BUNKERS WOULD LIKELY BE CONSUMED BEFORE PAYMENT MADE AND TITLE PASSED: WHETHER SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979 APPLICABLE: WHETHER REQUIREMENTS OF S.49 MET'''  DMC/SandT/15/07 '''England''' '''Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co., Ltd''' '''English High Court: Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court: [2015] EWHC 718 (Comm): Popplewell J.: 18March 2015[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Spar_Shipping_v_Grand_China_Logistics]]''' '''NYPE 1993 FORM TIMECHARTER: FAILURE TO PAY HIRE ON TIME: WHETHER BREACH OF CONDITION: WHETHER BREACH OF AN INNOMINATE TERM: RIGHT TO CLAIM DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BARGAIN: WHETHER CHARTERER’S CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO REPUDIATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT'''  DMC/SandT/15/06 '''England''' '''Gard Marine & Energy Ltd (Respondents/Claimants) v China National Chartering Co. Ltd (Intermediate Charterers) v China National'''Chartering Co. Ltd v Daiichi Chuo Kisen Kaisha (Charterers/Appellants), - The “Ocean Victory”: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Gard_Marine_&_Energy_v_China_National_Chartering_-_The_Ocean_Victory_-_Court_of_Appeal]]''' '''English Court of Appeal: Longmore, Gloster and Underhill LJJ: [2015] EWCA Civ 16: 22 January 2015:''' '''SAFE PORT: WHETHER COMBINATION OF ‘LONG WAVE’ SWELL AND A SEVERE GALE AN ‘ABNORMAL OCCURRENCE’: SUBROGATION: WHETHER INSURER OF BOTH PARTIES TO A BARECON CHARTERPARTY MAY SUE AN ASSURED FOR BREACH OF CHARTER'''  DMC/SandT/15/05 '''England''' '''Standard Chartered Bank v Dorchester LNG (2) Limited (The “Erin Schulte”)''' '''English Court of Appeal: Sir Bernard Rix, Moore-Bick and Briggs LJJ: [2014] EWCA Civ 1382: 22 October 2014:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Standard_Chartered_Bank_v_Dorchester_LNG_(2)_-_The_Erin_Schulte]] '''BILL OF LADING: LETTER OF CREDIT: INITIAL REJECTION OF THE PRESENTATION: MEANING OF “INDORSEMENT” OF BILL OF LADING: TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF SUIT: CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT 1992 SECTIONS 2(2)(A) AND 5(2)(B)'''  DMC/SandT/15/04
'''Hong Kong'''
'''The “Hua Tian Long”'''Alas renamed The Kombos: Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Ng J: HCAJ 241/2009: [2014] 4 HKLRD 160: 21 July 2014:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_"Hua_Tian_LongThe_Alas_renamed_The_Kombos]] ''' '''ADMIRALTY: WARRANT OF ARREST: SHIPOWNERS’ CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AND UNPAID HIRE: FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARD NOT SATISFIED: NO BAR TO ACTION IN REM FOR CLAIM ARISING OUT OF AGREEMENT FOR USE OR HIRE OF THE SHIP''' 
'''Hong Kong SAR Court of First Instance: Stone J in Chambers: HCAJ No. 59DMC/2008: 23 April 2010'''http:SandT/15/www.hklii.org/hk/jud/eng/hkcfi/2010/HCAJ000059_2008-70707.html03
Charles Sussex SC and Christopher Chain, instructed by Holman Fenwick & Willan, for the Plaintiff, Intraline ResourcesTeresa Cheng SC and Adrian Lai, instructed by DLA Piper '''Hong Kong, for the Defendant shipowner'''
'''BREACH OF CONTRACT: DEFENDANT SHIPOWNER’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE VESSEL: CHINESE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AS SHIPOWNER: CLAIM FOR SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND CROWN IMMUNITY: WAIVER AND SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTIONAntwerp Diamond Bank NV v Brink’s Inc'''
'''SummaryHong Kong Court of First Instance: Lam and Lunn VPP and Barman JA: CACV No.282 of 2012: [2014] 4 HKLRD 158: 17 July 2014: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Antwerp_Diamond_Bank-v-Brink's_Inc]]'''
'''The Hong Kong Court of First Instance held that although the Crown Proceedings Ordinance allowed the Hong Kong government to be sued in Hong Kong courts, it did not remove the crown immunity of the British government before 1997. After Hong Kong’s handover in 1997, the Central People’s Government of China replaced the British government in exercising sovereignty over Hong Kong, and could similarly claim “crown” immunity in the Hong Kong courts. On the facts, although the Defendant shipowner could claim “crown immunity” as it was directly under the control of the Chinese government and formed part of the “crown”, it had nevertheless waived its right to do so by failing to claim immunity as soon as reasonably practicable.CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY AIR: MISDELIVERY: GOODS RELEASED TO BUYER WITHOUT CONSENT OF PLEDGEE BANK AND WITHOUT PAYMENT: LOCUS OF PLEDGEE BANK TO SUE FOR CONVERSION: AGREEMENT BY SELLER TO PLEDGE FINISHED GOODS TO BANK: DELIVERY OF GOODS TO FREIGHT FORWARDER COMPLETED PLEDGE: CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY OF GOODS TO BANK'''
This note has been contributed by Ken TC Lee, LLB(Hons), PCLL (University of Hong Kong), BCL (Oxon), an international contributor to this website.
'''Background'''
The derrick-barge in question, “Hua Tian Long” (“the Vessel”), was owned by the Defendant, Guangzhou Salvage Bureau (“the GZS”) of the Ministry of Communications of the PRC.DMC/SandT/15/02
The Plaintiff, Intraline Resources Sdn Bhd (“Intraline”), and the GZS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement that the latter would make available the Vessel for installing pipelines and oil platforms in certain offshore projects. However, Intraline alleged that the GZS failed to provide the Vessel, and initiated the present action against the GZS for breach of contract and/or fraudulent misrepresentation.'''England'''
When the Vessel entered Hong Kong waters in April 2008'''E D & F Man Sugar Ltd v Unicargo Transportgesellschaft GmbH (Polska Zegluga Morska PP, Intralink invoked the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court to arrest the Vessel. GZS triedinterested party), but failed, to obtain the release of the Vessel through court proceedings. Of particular note is that in those proceedings, the then-counsel for GZS stated in his skeleton argument that:The “Ladytramp”
“GZS is a Bureau '''Court of the Ministry of CommunicationsAppeal; Pattern, Tomlinson, Christopher Clarke LJJ; [2013] EWCA Civ 1449, 19 November 2013:''' '''[[http://www.onlinedmc. For the purpose of the present application, GZS will not seek to invoke any principle of Sovereign Immunityco. However, GZS reserve the right to do so at a future stageuk/index.”php/E_D_&_F_Man_v_Unicargo_Transportgesellschaft_GmbH_The_Ladytramp]]'''
GZS ultimately obtained the release of the Vessel by arranging a bail bond. In the meantime, it acknowledged service of the writ, and filed a Defence and Counterclaim, suing for damages for wrongful arrest. Discovery took place, and witness statements were exchanged. Dates for trial had also been set. At this point, GZS sought an order granting immunity from suit, which was the subject matter of the present proceedings.'''SUGAR CHARTERPARTY 1999: DESTRUCTION BY FIRE OF FACILITIES AT LOADING TERMINAL NOT WITHIN CLAUSE 28 EXCEPTION TO LAYTIME OF “MECHANICAL BREAKDOWNS”'''
The main issues before the Court were: (i) whether GZS was entitled to claim sovereign immunity and/or crown immunity; and (ii) whether it had waived the right to claim such immunity and/or had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong court.
The Crown Proceedings Ordinance (Chapter 300 of the Laws of Hong Kong; “CPO”) is based on the English Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Section 3 provides that:DMC/SandT/15/01
“Where any person has a claim against the Crown after the commencement of this Ordinance and, if this Ordinance had not been passed, the claim might have been enforced, subject to the consent of the Governor, under the Rules of the Supreme Court, or might have been enforced by the proceedings provided by any statute ceasing to have effect in the Colony by virtue of this Ordinance, the claim may be enforced as of right, and without the consent of the Governor, by proceedings taken against the Crown for that purpose in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance.”'''England'''
'''JudgmentNYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NY v Cargill International SA, The “Global Santosh”'''
Stone J dismissed the Defendant’s claim for sovereign immunity and crown immunity'''Court of Appeal; Gross LJ, Gloster LJ, Sir Burnton; [2014] EWCA Civ 403, 8 April 2014:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/NYK_Bulkship_(Atlantic)_v_Cargill_International_-_The_Global_Santosh_-_Court_of_Appeal]]'''
The Court firstly noted that sovereign immunity did not apply in the present case because it was not dealing with the impleading of a foreign sovereign state. The Vessel was owned by the GZS of the Ministry of Communications'''OFF-HIRE CLAUSE RE DELAY ARISING FROM ARREST OF VESSEL: WHETHER SUB-CHARTERERS AND RECEIVERS WERE ‘AGENTS’ OF THE CHARTERERS: WHETHER THE PERSONAL ACT, a government department under the CPG. Hence, the situation with which the court was faced was the arrest of a vessel ultimately owned by the Central People’s Government (CPG) of the PRC, which after 1 July 1997 exercised sovereign power over the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong. Thus the case involved the purported impleading of Hong Kong’s own sovereign under the ‘one country, two systems’ principle, and not that of a foreign state.OMISSION OR DEFAULT TO WHICH CLAUSE REFERRED MUST HAVE OCCURRED DURING PROVISION OF RELEVANT SERVICES'''
Similarly, the Court also rejected the GZS’s claim for a “modified” version of sovereign immunity. The GZS tried to rely on a series of Canadian cases which held that a province can claim sovereign immunity in a different jurisdiction within the same state. However, Stone J noted that Article 12 of the Basic Law (which is the constitution of Hong Kong) provided that the Hong Kong SAR is a local administrative region that comes “directly under the Central People’s Government”. It has no power to make any law binding on the CPG. Doctrinally, such immunity is fundamentally premised upon considerations of comity and mutual respect for the dignity of foreign sovereign states, and should not apply in any form within the same state. Therefore, even “modified” sovereign immunity could have no application here.
With respect to the claim for crown immunity, the Court first noted the traditional common law position that the Crown enjoys immunity from being sued in its own courts and from the levy of execution. The meaning of “Crown” also extends to a body corporate established by the executive arm of the Crown. In assessing whether a body corporate qualifies as part of “the Crown”, the applicable test is to be derived from cases like Townsville Hospitals Board v Council of the City of Townsville (1982) 56 AJLR 789 (High Court of Australia). The material consideration is the control which the Crown has over that corporation, or whether that corporation is able to exercise independent power of its own; although the objects and function of that corporation also go into the evaluative “mix”.DMC/SandT/14/17
The Court rejected Intralink’s argument that the common law position on “crown immunity” was changed by the CPO. Before 1997, there were two “Crowns” in Hong Kong – Her Majesty’s government in the then colony and Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom. The “crown”, albeit not defined in the CPO, referred to the former only. The CPO allowed proceedings to be brought against the government of Hong Kong, but it did not remove the “crown immunity” of the Her Majesty’s government in the UK. This is analogous to the principle that Hong Kong courts could not challenge acts of the British Crown before 1997. With the replacement of the British sovereign with the Chinese sovereign after Hong Kong’s handover in 1997, the CPG can claim “crown immunity”.'''Singapore'''
Stone J then considered the expert evidence before the '''Singapore Court, and held that the GZS was not a state-owned enterprise but formed part of the Ministry of Communications. It was under the Ministry’s control. Although the GZS performed operations commissioned by private clients, the aim was to generate revenue to supplement the funding shortfall for operations commissioned by the Ministry of Communications. If, as the judge believed to be the case, the concept of ‘control’ represents the modern benchmark for the attribution of Crown immunity, it had to follow that the control exercised by MOC over the GZS was prima facie confirmatory of the attribution of Crown immunity for this body. Hence the judge held that the GZS, the defendant owners of the derrick barge “HUA TIAN LONG”, was entitled to assert crown immunity.Appeal'''
However, the Court held that, on the facts of the case, the GZS had waived the right to invoke crown immunity and had submitted the jurisdiction '''Out of the Hong Kong court. Box Pte Ltd v Wanin Industries Pte Ltd [2013] SGCA 15:'''
As a matter of principle'''Sundaresh Menon CJ, the law governing waiver of crown immunity should be the same as that for sovereign immunityChao Hick Tin JA and Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA: 6 February 2013: [2013] 2 SLR 363:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co. A state would be regarded as having waived the right to claim crown immunity if it had taken any steps in the proceedings, knowing that it was entitled to immunity, but had failed to claim immunity as soon as reasonably practicableuk/index. Whether a party had knowledge of its right to immunity was to be assessed objectively (Peyman v Lanjani [1985php/Out_of_the_Box_v_Wanin_Industries]] Ch 4867), and its evidence would be compared against contradictory evidence to determine its credibility.'''
On the facts, the Court rejected evidence from the GZS that it was not aware of its entitlement to claim crown immunity. It noted that the GZS’s former counsel wrote in the skeleton submission for a previous interlocutory application that the GZS reserved the right “to seek to invoke any principle of sovereign immunity”. Although the reference was to “sovereign immunity”, Stone J considered it as a shorthand reference to a prospective assertion of immunity from suit. Further, on balance of probability, there must have been “an appropriate degree” of knowledge on the part of senior ranking officials in the CPG that the GZS could claim certain immunity under Hong Kong law. '''CONTRACT: REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE: BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTOR ENGAGING MANUFACTURER TO PRODUCE NEW SPORTS DRINK: MANUFACTURER UNAWARE OF DISTRIBUTOR’S PLAN TO PROMOTE POPULAR DEMAND FOR GENERIC DRINK THROUGH AGGRESSIVE ADVERTISING: MANUFACTURER SUPPLYING DEFECTIVE SHIPMENT OF DRINKS IN BREACH OF CONTRACT: ABANDONMENT OF PROMOTION: WHETHER WASTED ADVERTISING EXPENSES CLAIMED BY DISTRIBUTOR TOO REMOTE'''
In any event, there was no reasonable explanation as to why the GZS did not raise the defence of immunity earlier. The present application seemed to have been partly motivated by a desire to delay the impending trial.
'''Comment'''DMC/SandT/14/16
This is the first case in Hong Kong considering the “crown immunity” of the PRC government with respect to private law claims in Hong Kong courts.'''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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Great_Elephant_Corp_v_Trafigura_Beheer_-_The_Crudesky]]'''
'''VOYAGE CHARTER: FOB SALE CONTRACT CHAIN: DEMURRAGE: “RESTRAINT OF PRINCES” EXCEPTION: UNFORESEEABLE FORCE MAJEURE BEYOND CONTROL OR REASONABLE CONTROL'''
DMC/SandT/10/17
'''South Africa'''DMC/SandT/14/15
'''The MV “Ioannis NK”England'''[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Ioannis_N_K]]
'''The owner of the cargo lately laden on board the MV “Ioannis NK” Fulton Shipping Inc v Globalia Business Travel SAU (The Master and Crew & Others (AC 66/2009“New Flamenco”)'''
'''High English Commercial Court of South Africa : Popplewell J: [2014] EWHC 1457 (Western Cape High Court, Cape TownComm) exercising its admiralty jurisdiction: Cleaver J21 May 2014:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.; 26 August 2009php/Fulton_Shipping_v_Globalia_Business_Travel_-_The_New_Flamenco]]'''
'''EXAMINATION OF CREW FOR PURPOSE OF OBTAINING EVIDENCE WHERE DISPUTE SUBJECT TO FOREIGN PROCEEDINGSTIME CHARTER: REPUDIATION: EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE ADMIRALTY JURISIDICTION REGULATIONS ACT 1983QUANTUM: FACTORS WHETHER CREDIT TO BE CONSIDERED: RIGHTS GIVEN FOR CAPITAL VALUE OF CREW MEMBERS FOLLOWING VESSEL SOLD ON REPUDIATION FOR A CASUALTYGREATER SUM THAN VALUE ON CONTRACTUAL REDELIVERY DATE: ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL'''
DMC/SandT/1014/1614
'''England and Wales'''
'''Kolmar Group AG Geden Operations Ltd v Traxpo Enterprises Pvt LimitedDry Bulk Handy Holdings Inc (The “Bulk Uruguay”)''' [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Kolmar_v_Traxpo]]
'''English High Commercial Court: Popplewell J: [20102014] EWHC 113 885 (Comm)''': 28 March 2014[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Geden_Operations_v_Dry_Bulk_Handy_Holdings_-_the_Bulk_Uruguay]]
'''INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODSTIME CHARTER: FOB CONTRACT: ECONOMIC DURESS BY DEMANDING PAYMENT FOR LESSER AMOUNT OF GOODS AT HIGHER PRICE THAN AGREED UNDER THE CONTRACTANTICIPATORY REPUDIATORY BREACH: TORT RIGHT TO GIVE VOYAGE ORDERS TO TRANSIT GULF OF INTIMIDATIONADEN: DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL'''
DMC/SandT/1014/1513
'''New ZealandEngland'''
'''Tasman Orient Line CV Proton Energy Group SA v New Zealand China Clays Limited and othersOrlen Lietuva''' '''English Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court): HH Judge Mackie QC: [2013] EWHC 2872 (Comm): [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_%22Tasman_Pioneer%22Proton_Energy_Group_v_Orlen_Lietuva]]'''Supreme Court of New Zealand (Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Wilson JJ)[2010] NZSC 37 (16 April 2010)'''
'''CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: SHIP DAMAGED BY GROUNDING: SEAWATER ENTRY TO FORWARD COMPARTMENTS: DECK CARGO OF CONTAINERS DAMAGED BY INUNDATION: HAGUE-VISBY RULES: ART.IV RULE 2(a)CONTRACT: DEFENCE OF ACT, NEGLECT OR DEFAULT OF THE MASTER… IN THE NAVIGATION OR MANAGEMENT CONTRACT FOR SALE OF THE SHIPOIL BLEND: FAILURE TO NOTIFY AUTHORITIES EXISTENCE OF CASUALTYBINDING CONTRACT: FAILURE TO PROVIDE TIMELY AND ACCURATE INFORMATION TO SHIP’S MANAGERSPARTIES REGARDED THEMSELVES AS BEING BOUND AFTER DEAL WAS CONFIRMED: CAUSE SPECIFICATION OF CASUALTY INITIALLY FABRICATED: ALL LEADING TO DELAY IN PROVISION OIL BLEND NOT FORMING PART OF SALVAGE SERVICES: WHETHER ELEMENT OF GOOD FAITH ESSENTIAL TO CARRIER’S ENTITLEMENT TO RULE 2(a) DEFENCESALE BY DESCRIPTION'''
DMC/SandT/1014/1412
'''English High CourtEngland'''
'''Sylvia 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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Falkonera_Shipping_v_Arcadia_Energy_-_The_Falkonera]]''' '''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/14/11 '''England''' '''British American Tobacco Switzerland SA v Exel Europe Ltd; British American Tobacco Denmark A/S v Exel Europe Ltd''' '''Court of Appeal: McFarlane L.J.; Sir Bernard Rix; Sir Timothy Lloyd: [2013] EWCA Civ 1319: 30 October 2013:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/British_American_Tobacco_&_Ors_v_Exel_Europe]] '''CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY ROAD: CMR CONVENTION: CARGO LOSS: ESTABLISHING JURISDICTION AGAINST SUCCESSIVE CARRIERS: WHETHER CLAIMANT THAT HAS ESTABLISHED JURISDICTION UNDER ART.31.1 AGAINST ONE CARRIER CAN RELY ON THAT JURISDICTION TO JOIN SUCCESSIVE CARRIERS'''   DMC/SandT/14/10 '''England''' '''Trafigura Beheer BV v Navigazione Montanari SPA [2014] EWHC 129 Comm''' '''English High Court: Queen’s Bench Division: Andrew Smith J.: 30 January 2014:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Trafigura_Beheer_v_Navigazione_Montanari_-_the_Valle_de_Cordoba]] '''CHARTERPARTY: CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: VESSEL CARRYING CONSIGNMENT OF MOTOR OIL ATTACKED BY PIRATES: WHETHER QUANTITY OF OIL TAKEN BY PIRATES CONSTITUTED "IN-TRANSIT LOSS" OR "LOST CARGO" FOR PURPOSES OF IN-TRANSIT LOSS CLAUSE IN CHARTERPARTY'''  DMC/SandT/14/09 '''England''' '''Yuzhny Zavod Metall Profil LLC v Eems Beheerder B.V. (“the M/V EEMS SOLAR”):  '''English High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Admiralty Court: Jervis K, Q.C, the Admiralty Registrar: 5 June 2013:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Yuzhny_Zavod_Metall_Profil_v_Emms_Beheerder_-_the_M/V_Eems_Solar]]''' '''BILLS OF LADING: INCORPORATION OF CHARTERPARTY TERMS PROVIDING THAT CHARTERERS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR STOWAGE: WHETHER OWNERS COULD RELY ON THAT CLAUSE AS DEFENCE TO CLAIM BY RECEIVERS FOR CARGO DAMAGE CAUSED BY BAD STOWAGE'''  DMC/SandT/14/08 '''England''' '''Martrade Shipping & Transport GmbH V United Enterprises Corporation (The “Wisdom C”):[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Martrade_Shipping_and_Transport_v_United_Entreprises_-_The_Wisdom_C]]'''  English High Court, Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court); Popplewell J; [2014] EWHC 1884 (Comm); 12 June 2014 '''TIMECHARTER PROVIDING FOR ENGLISH LAW AND LONDON ARBITRATION: ARBITRATORS AWARDING PENAL RATE OF INTEREST: WHETHER “SIGNIFICANT CONNECTION” BETWEEN CHARTERPARTY AND ENGLAND: WHETHER “APPLICABLE LAW” A FOREIGN LAW: LATE PAYMENT OF COMMERCIAL DEBTS (INTEREST) ACT 1998: ARTICLES 3 AND 4 – CONTRACTS (APPLICABLE LAW) ACT 1990'''  DMC/SandT/14/07 '''Hong Kong''' '''Darby International Investment Ltd v Rong Tai International Shipping Ltd''' '''Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Deputy High Court Judge B Chu: HCMP1438 of 2013: 2 December 2013:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Darby_International_Investments_v_Rong_Tai_International_Shipping]]''' http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2013/2031.html '''MARITIME LAW: REGISTRATION OF VESSELS: VESSEL APPARENTLY REGISTERED IN MORE THAN ONE JURISDICTION: DECLARATION AS TO VALIDITY OF REGISTRATION IN HONG KONG: PURPOSE OF GRANTING DECLARATION'''  DMC/SandT/14/06 '''England''' '''Flame SA v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd''' '''English Commercial Court: Teare J: [2013] EWHC 3153 (Comm): 22 October 2013:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Flame_SA_v_Glory_Wealth_Shipping]]''' '''CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT: REPUDIATION: QUANTUM OF DAMAGES: COMPENSATORY PRINCIPLE: WHETHER INNOCENT PARTY MUST PROVE ABILITY TO PERFORM OBLIGATIONS, HAD CONTRACT CONTINUED, TO RECOVER SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES FROM CONTRACT BREAKER'''  DMC/SandT/14/05 '''England''' '''Bulk Ship Union SA v Clipper Bulk Shipping Limited (The "Pearl C")''' '''English High Court: Popplewell J.: 26 June 2012 [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 533:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Bulk_Ship_Union_v_Clipper_Bulk_Shipping_-_The_Pearl_C]] '''TIMECHARTER ON NYPE FORM: SLOW STEAMING: WHETHER A BREACH OF ‘UTMOST DESPATCH’ OBLIGATION: WHETHER VESSEL OFF-HIRE BY REASON OF DEFAULT OF MASTER: WHETHER PARTIAL INTERRUPTION IN SERVICE SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER OFF-HIRE CLAUSE'''   DMC/SandT/14/04 '''Hong Kong''' '''Maintek Computer (Suzhou) Co Ltd v Blue Anchor Line''' '''Hong Kong Court of First Instance: To J: HCAJ No.106 of 2008: 2 April 013:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Maintek_Computer_(Suzhou)_v_Blue_Anchor_Line''']] http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2013/506.html '''CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: MISDELIVERY BY OCEAN TERMINAL: CLAIM FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST CARRIER: MEANING OF “DELIVERY” FOR PURPOSE OF TIME LIMITATION: WHETEHR EXEMPTION CLAUSE FOR ANY CAUSE OR EVENT WHICH CARRIER COULD NOT AVOID APPLICABLE: WHETHER LIMITATION OF LIABILITY BY REFERENCE TO WEIGHT OF CARGO APPLICABLE'''  DMC/SandT/14/03 '''England''' '''Sea-Cargo Skips AS v State Bank of India''' '''English High Court: Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court): Teare J: [2013] EWHC 177 (Comm): 26 June 2013:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Sea-Cargo_Skips_AS_v_State_Bank_of_India]]''' '''SHIPBUILDING CONTRACT: REFUND GUARANTEE: QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION: WHETHER DEMAND WAS SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER BANK’S LIABILITY: AMBIGUOUS DEMAND NOT COMPLIANT'''  DMC/SandT/14/02 '''Singapore''' '''Singapore High Court''' '''The “Turtle Bay” [2013] SGHC 165 : Judgment delivered by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, 30 August 2013: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Turtle_Bay]] '''SALE OF VESSEL UNDER ARREST: WHEN DIRECT PRIVATE SALE OF VESSEL UNDER ARREST CONSTITUTES CONTEMPT OF COURT: PRINCIPLES AND EFFECT OF ADMIRALTY JUDICIAL SALE: WHEN COURT WILL SANCTION A DIRECT PRIVATE SALE'''  DMC/SandT/14/01 '''England''' '''Minerva Navigation Inc v Oceana Shipping AG; Oceana Shipping AG v Transatlantica Commodities S.A. The MV “Athena”''' '''Court of Appeal; Tomlinson, Lewison and Underhill LJJ; [2013] EWCA Civ 1723; 17 July 2013[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Minerva_Navigation_v_Oceana_Shipping_-_the_Athena]] '''TIME CHARTER ON NYPE FORM 1946: OFF-HIRE CLAUSE 15: WHETHER “LOSS OF TIME” MEANS NET LOSS OF TIME IN THE SERVICE IMMEDIATELY REQUIRED OR IN THE OVERALL CHARTER SERVICE'''  DMC/SandT/13/17 '''England''' '''MRI Trading AG v Erdenet Mining Corporation LLC''' '''English Court of Appeal: Pill, Tomlinson, McCombe LJJ: [2013] EWCA Civ 156: 08 Mar 2013:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/MRI_Trading_v_Erdenet_Mining_Corporation]]''' '''SALE OF GOODS: CERTAINTY OF CONTRACT TERMS: WHETHER TERMS AMOUNTED TO 'AGREEMENTS TO AGREE': PROPER APPROACH TO CONSTRUCTION AND IMPLICATION OF TERMS WITHIN A CONTRACT WHICH CONTAINS TERMS LEAVING MATTERS TO BE SUBSEQUENTLY AGREED'''   DMC/SandT/13/16 '''England''' '''NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) N.V. v Cargill International S.A., The “Global Santosh”''' '''English High Court; Field J; [2013] EWHC 30 (Comm); 1 February 2013:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/NYK_Bulkship_(Atlantic)_v_Cargill_International_-_The_Global_Santosh]] '''PERIOD OFF-HIRE CLAUSE COVERING DELAY ARISING FROM DETENTION OR ARREST OF VESSEL: WHETHER SUB-CHARTERERS OR RECEIVERS WERE AGENTS OF THE CHARTERERS: WHETHER DELAY TO VESSEL “OCCASIONED BY” RECEIVERS’ FAILURE TO DISCHARGE WITHIN THE LAYTIME AND/OR TO SECURE SELLERS’ DEMURRAGE CLAIM'''  DMC/SandT/13/15 '''England''' '''Greatship (India) Limited v Progress Bulk Carriers Limited Oceanografia SA de CV (The “Greatship Driti”)''' '''English Commercial Court: Gloster J: [2012] EWHC 3468 (Comm): 5 December 2012:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Sylvia_Shipping_vGreatship_(India)_Limited_v_Oceanografia_SA_de_CV_-_The_Greatship_Driti]] '''TIME CHARTER: BIMCO SUPPLYTIME 89 FORM: CLAUSE 10(E): RIGHT TO SUSPEND PERFORMANCE FOR FAILURE TO PAY HIRE PUNCTUALLY: WHETHER GRACE PERIOD (ANTI-TECHNICALITY) NOTICE REQUIRED BEFORE EXERCISING RIGHT'''  DMC/SandT/13/14 '''England'''  '''Minerva Navigation Inc v Oceana Shipping AG; Oceana Shipping AG v Transatlantica Commodities S.A. The MV “Athena”''' '''English High Court; Walker J; [2012] EWHC 3608 (Comm); 13 December 2012:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co._Progress_Bulk_Carriersuk/index.php/Minerva_Navigation_v_Oceana_Shipping_-__The_Athena]] '''TIMECHARTER ON NYPE FORM 1946: OFF-HIRE CLAUSE 15: WHETHER “LOSS OF TIME” MEANS NET LOSS OF TIME IN THE SERVICE IMMEDIATELY REQUIRED OR IN THE OVERALL CHARTER SERVICE'''  DMC/SandT/13/13 '''England''' '''Griffon Shipping LLC v Firodi Shipping Limited – The “MV Griffon”'''
[2010] EWHC 542 (Comm): English '''High Court of Justice - , Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court; Hamblen : Teare J.; 18 : [2013] EWHC 593 (Comm): 21 March 2010'''2013:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Griffon_Shipping_v_Firodi_Shipping_-_The_Griffon ]]
'''ARBITRATION APPEALSHIPSALE AGREEMENT ON NORWEGIAN SALE FORM 1993: TIMECHARTERPARTY: MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR OWNERS’ WHETHER SELLER CAN RECOVER UNPAID DEPOSIT WHERE BUYER IN REPUDIATORY BREACH: WHETHER OWNERS LIABLE FOR TIMECHARTERERS’ LOSS OF PROFIT ON CANCELLED SUB-CHARTER'''
DMC/SandT/1013/1312
'''Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionEngland'''
'''Maintek Computer (Suzhou) Wuhan Guoyu Logistics Group Co Ltd and others & Anor v Blue Anchor Line and othersEmporiki Bank of Greece SA'''[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Maintek_Computer_v_ECT_Delta_Terminal]]
'''Hong Kong SAR English Court of First InstanceAppeal: Reyes J in ChambersLongmore, Rimer and Tomlinson, LJJ.: HCAJ No. 106/2008[2012] EWCA Civ 1629: 25 February 2010[[http://www.hkliionlinedmc.co.orguk/hk/jud/eng/hkcfiindex.php/2010/HCAJ000106_2008-69910.htmlWuhan_Guoyu_Logistics_v_Emporiki_Bank]]'''
'''CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: MISDELIVERY BY OCEAN TERMINAL: SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENTSHIPBUILDING CONTRACT: REAL PROSPECT OF SUCCESSPAYMENT GUARANTEE: LIMITATION CLAUSE: MEANING OF ‘DELIVERY’: STAY IN FAVOUR OF ARBITRATION: APPLICABILITY OF TERMINAL CONTRACTWHETHER PAYMENT GUARANTEE A TRUE GUARANTEE OR AN ON-DEMAND BOND'''
DMC/SandT/13/11 '''England''' '''Dalmare SpA v Union Maritime Ltd & Anor''''''English High Court: Queen’s Bench Division: Commercial Court; Flaux J; [2012] EWHC 3537; 13 Dec 2012:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Dalmare_v_Union_Maritime_-_The_Union_Power]] '''SALE OF VESSEL "AS SHE WAS AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION": STATUTORY IMPLIED TERM AS TO QUALITY UNDER SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979: WHETHER SELLERS HAD EXCLUDED APPLICATION OF STATUTORY IMPLIED TERM; WHETHER SELLERS IN BREACH OF STATUTORY IMPLIED TERM'''   DMC/SandT/13/10/12
'''The Netherlands'''
'''Maersk Dana Petroleum Netherlands B.V., formerly “P&O Nedlloyd” and before that called Nedlloyd Lijnen v Vos Sympathy B.V., Rotterdam, the Netherlands v. Irano European Co. Ireco S.A., Luxembourg - The “Dolphin I”[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Dolphin_1]]“Vos Sympathy”'''
'''Court of Appeal of The Hague (The Netherlands). J: Judges: M.M. van der KloosterOlthof, JA.EA.HRijperman and R.Mvan der Vlist: 11 December 2012: Case no. Pickaers, J200.H079.J897/01:[[http://www. Teunissen, 29 September 2009, Case number 105onlinedmc.co.002uk/index.543php/01 (unpublished)Dana_Petroleum_Netherlands_v_Vos_Sympathy_-_The_Vos_Sympathy]]'''
'''CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEASUPPLYTIME 2005 CHARTERPARTY: HAGUE RULES: RECEIVED WHETHER HIMLAYA AND KNOCK FOR SHIPMENT BILL OF LADING: CARGO DAMAGE: PERISHABLE GOODS: GROSS NEGLIGENCE: CARRIER’S KNOWLEDGE OF GOODS IN CONTAINERS: ‘BEFORE KNOCK CLAUSES 'REASONABLE AND AFTER’ CLAUSEFAIR' UNDER DUTCH CIVIL CODE ART.6: LIMITATION OF APPLICABILITY OF CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES: REASONABLENESS AND FAIRNESS248.2'''
DMC/SandT/10/11
'''High Court of England and Wales'''DMC/SandT/13/09
'''Sotrade Denizcilik Sanayi Ve Ticaret AS v Amadou LO and others (The “Duden”)[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Duden_2008_EWHC_2762_Comm]]England'''
'''Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court): Jonathan Hirst, Q.C.: [2008] EWHC 2762 (Comm); [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 145: 19 November 2008White Rosebay Shipping SA v Hong Kong Chain Glory Shipping Limited'''
'''CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEAEnglish High Court: CHARTERPARTYQueen’s Bench Division: LONDON ARBITRATION CLAUSE INCORPORATED IN BILLS OF LADINGCommercial Court; Teare J; [2013] EWHC 1355 (Comm); 23 May 2013: CONSERVATORY ARREST BY CARGO OWNER AND INSURER[[http: JURISDICTION//www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/White_Rosebay_Shipping_v_Hong_Kong_Chain_Glory_Shipping]]'''TIME-CHARTERPARTY: ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONCHARTERERS EVINCING INTENTION NOT TO PERFORM: OWNERS AFFIRMED CHARTERPARTY: WRONGFUL INDUCEMENT OR PROCUREMENT OF BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED TERMS OF BILL OF LADING CONTRACTWHETHER CHARTERERS’ REPUDIATORY CONDUCT CONTINUED: REFUSAL WHETHER OWNERS SUBSEQUENTLY ENTITLED TO ACCEPT PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY CLUB UNDERTAKINGTERMINATE'''
DMC/SandT/1013/1008 '''Singapore High Hong Kong''' '''Kulemesin Yuriy v HKSAR - The Neftegaz67''' '''Hong Kong Courtof Final Appeal: Ma CJ, Chan, Riberio and Tang PJJ and Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony NPJ: FACV No. 6 and 7 of 2012: 22 February 2013:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Kulemesin_Yuriy_v_HKSAR_-_The_Neftegaz67]]'''
'''The “Asia Star”''' [[http://www.onlinedmchklii.co.ukhk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfa/2013/index15.php/The_Asia_Star]][2009] SGHC 91'''html
'''Judgment delivered by Judith Prakash JCOLLISION: OFFENCE OF ENDANGERING THE SAFETY OF OTHERS: STATE OF MIND REQUIRED FOR THE OFFENCE OF ENDANGERMENT: NARROW CHANNEL AS QUESTION OF FACT: SHIPPING AND PORT CONTROL ORDINANCE (CAP.313, 17 April 2009 '''[2009] SGHC 91LAWS OF HONG KONG)'''
'''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'''
DMC/SandT/13/07
DMC/SandT/10/09'''England'''
'''English High Court''']]'''Kallang Shipping Bunge SA Panama v AXA Assurances Senegal and Comptoir Commercial Mandiaye Ndiaya (Kyla Shipping Company Limited - The “Kallang”)[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Kallang]]"Kyla"'''
'''Queen's Bench Division (Commercial English High Court): Jonathan Hirst, Q.C.: ; Flaux J; [20082012] EWHC 2761 3522 (Comm); 10 December 2012:[[2009http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Bunge_SA_v_Kyla_Shipping_Company_-_The_Athena]] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 124: 19 November 2008'''
'''CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: NYPE 1946 CHARTERPARTY: LONDON ARBITRATION CLAUSE INCORPORATED IN BILLS OF LADINGH&M INSURANCE REQUIRED FOR AGREED FIGURE: IMPLIED TERMSCASUALTY REPAIRS EXCEED SHIP’S MARKET VALUE BUT NOT AGREED HULL VALUE: ARREST BY CARGO OWNER AND INSURER: SECURITY: JURISDICTION: WRONGFUL INDUCEMENT OR PROCUREMENT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT: PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY CLUB: LETTERS OF UNDERTAKINGWHETHER CHARTERPARTY FRUSTRATED'''
DMC/SandT/10/08
'''Singapore'''DMC/SandT/13/06
TAT SENG MACHINE MOVERS PTE LTD V. ORIX LEASING SINGAPORE LTD:[2009] SGCA 42 [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Tat_Seng_Machine_Movers_v_Orix_Leasing]]'''England'''
'''Singapore Court of Appeal: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Chao Hick Tin JA, V K Rajah JA: 11 September 2009Kuwait Rocks Co v AMN Bulkcarriers Inc (The “Astra”)'''
'''BAILMENT – BAILOR’S RIGHT TO IMMEDIATE RIGHT TO POSSESSION IF BAILEE’S BEHAVIOUR REPUGNANT TO TERMS OF BAILMENT – WHETHER CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS RESTRICTED BAILOR’S RIGHTS UNDER COMMON LAW'''English Commercial Court: Flaux J: [2013] EWHC 865 (Comm): 18 April 2013: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Kuwait_Rocks_Co_v_AMN_Bulkcarriers_The_Astra]]
'''TORT – CONVERSION – TIME CHARTER: WHETHER ACT OF REMOVING MACHINE FROM PREMISES AND DELIVERING IT AS INSTRUCTED AMOUNTED CHARTERERS’ CONDUCT REPUDIATORY: WHETHER OBLIGATION TO CONVERSION OF MACHINE – WHETHER ACT OF STORING MACHINE AT WAREHOUSE AMOUNTED PAY HIRE IS A CONDITION: RIGHT TO CONVERSION CLAIM LOSS OF MACHINE – WHETHER ACT OF REDELIVERING MACHINE TO PURPORTED OWNER AMOUNTED TO CONVERSION PROFIT FOR REPUDIATION OR BREACH OF MACHINEHIRE PAYMENT OBLIGATION'''
DMC/SandT/13/05
DMC/SandT/10/7'''The “Decurion”'''
'''Hong Kong'''
'''Hong Kong Court of Appeal: Fok, Chu JJA and McWalters J: CACV No.97 of 2012: 12 May 2012:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Decurion_on_Appeal]]''' http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2013/180.html '''ADMIRALTY: IN REM JURISDICTION: CLAIM AGAINST VESSEL OWNED BY DEFENDANT: PAYMENT OUTSTANDING FOR BUNKERS SUPPLIED TO DEFENDANT FOR VESSELS CHARTERED BY RELATED COMPANY: STRIKING OUT: WHETHER DEFENDANT “IN POSSESSION OR IN CONTROL” OF CHARTERED VESSELS WITHIN SECTION 12B(4) OF HIGH COURT ORDINANCE'''  DMC/SandT/13/04 '''Germany''' '''German Federal Supreme Court: Date of Judgement: 13 June 2012: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/CMR_Art.29_and_Contributory_Negligence]]''' '''CMR TRANSPORT: APPLICATION OF ART. 29 CMR: BURDEN OF PROOF: REDUCTION OF UNLIMITED LIABILITY DUE TO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE SENDER IF THE CARRIER IS NOT NOTIFIED OF AN UNEXPECTEDLY HIGH VALUE OF THE TRANSPORT GOODS'''  DMC/SandT/13/03 '''England'''  '''Dry Bulk Handy Holding Inc and Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Fayette International Holdings Ltd and Metinvest International SA (The “Blue Bridge” “Bulk Chile”): English Commercial Court: Andrew Smith J: [2012] EWHC 2107 (formerly known as The “Great Power”Comm): 24 July 2012:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Dry_Bulk_Handling_&_CSAV_v_Fayette_International_&_Metinvest_-_The_Bulk_Chile]]''' '''CHAIN OF CHARTERPARTIES: HEAD TIME CHARTER, SUB-TIME CHARTER, TIME TRIP CHARTER AND VOYAGE CHARTER: OWNERS’ BILLS OF LADING: RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN COLLECTION OF FREIGHT: RIGHT TO LIEN SUB-FREIGHT AND SUB-HIRE: RIGHT TO HIRE OR REASONABLE REMUNERATION FOR COMPLETION OF VOYAGE FOLLOWING TERMINATION OF TIME CHARTER'''  DMC/SandT/13/02 '''England''' '''Wuhan Ocean Economic & Technical Cooperation Co Ltd v Schiffahrts-Gesellschaft “Hansa Murcia” MBH & Co KG''' '''English Queen’s Bench (Commercial Court): Cooke J: [2012] EWHC 3104 (Comm): 6 November 2012:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Wuhan_Ocean_v_Hansa_Murcia]]''' '''CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF VESSEL: ADDENDUM FOR SELLERS TO OBTAIN EXTENSION OF REFUND GUARANTEE: IMPLIED TERM TO OBTAIN EXTENSION WITHIN REASONABLE TIME BEFORE EXPIRY OF ORIGINAL GUARANTEE: INNOMINATE TERM: BUT BREACH OF IMPLIED TERM NOT A REPUDIATORY BREACH AS, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE GUARANTEE, BUYERS COULD MAINTAIN THE SECURITY BY COMMENCING ARBITRATION'''  DMC/SandT/13/01 '''Germany' '' '''German Federal Supreme Court''' '''"Und Adryatik"; Date of Judgement: 15 December 2011: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Blue_BridgeUnd_Adryatik]]''' '''CMR TRANSPORT: APPLICATION OF ART. 2 CMR: FIRE ON RO-RO-CARRIER: HAGUE RULES AS ‘CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY LAW’: FIRE AS AN EVENT WHICH COULD ONLY HAVE OCCURRED BY REASON OF CARRIAGE BY SEA'''  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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/E_D_and_F_Man_v_Unicargo_Transport]]''' '''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'''
'''Hong Kong SAR Court of First Instance: Reyes J in Chambers: HCAJ No. 136/1999: 1 February 2010'''
http:DMC/SandT/www.hklii.org12/hk/jud/eng/hkcfi/2010/HCAJ000136_1999-69593.html24
'''CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ENTERED INTO AGAINST A SHIPOWNING COMPANY THAT HAD BEEN DISSOLVED: APPLICATION BY RE-INSURER TO INTERVENE: AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR PRINCIPAL IN LITIGATION: DELAY IN APPLICATION TO INTERVENE: REAL PROSPECT OF SUCCESSEngland'''
'''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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Carboex_SA_v_Louis_Dreyfus_Commodities]]
'''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/1012/0623
'''Singapore'''
'''Singapore Court of Appeal''' '''The “Catur Samudra”“Bunga Melati 5” [2012] SGCA 46: Judgment delivered by VK Rajah JA, 21st August 2012: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Bunga_Melati_5]] '''ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION: WHETHER A GOOD ARGUABLE CASE ON THE MERITS REQUIRED: THE VASILIY GOLOVNIN EXPLAINED'''  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):[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Catur_Samudra_1._Jebsens_International_(Australia)_v_Interfert_Australia:_2._Norden_A/S_v_Beach_Building_&_Civil_Group]]''' '''WHETHER VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY A "SEA CARRIAGE DOCUMENT" FOR PURPOSES OF S.11 AUSTRALIAN CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT 1991'''   DMC/SandT/12/21 '''England'''  '''TAOKAS NAVIGATION SA v. KOMROWSKI BULK SHIPPING KG (GMBH & CO); KENT LINE INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. SOLYM CARRIERS LTDTHE MV “PAIWAN WISDOM”'''
'''Singapore English High Court; Teare J; [2012] EWHC 1888 (Comm); 11 July 2012: Judgment delivered by Steven Chong JC, 15 January 2010[[http: [2010//www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Toakas_Navigation_v_Komrowski_Bulk_Shipping:_Kent_Line_v_Solym_Carriers_-_The_Paiwan_Wisdom]] SGHC 18'''
'''ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION CONWARTIME 2004: WHETHER CLAIM UNDER GUARANTEE IS A CLAIM “ARISING OUT OF AN AGREEMENT RELATING OWNERS’ LIBERTY TO THE USE OR HIRE” REJECT VOYAGE ORDERS: MATERIAL INCREASE IN RISK BETWEEN CHARTERPARTY DATE AND DATE OF A VESSEL ORDER NOT REQUIRED: SECTION 3(1)(H) HIGH COURT (ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION) ACT CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION'''
DMC/SandT/1012/0420 '''England''' '''Petroleo Brasileiro SA v ENE Kos 1 Ltd''' '''United Kingdom Supreme Court: Lords Phillips, Walker, Mance, Clarke and Sumption: [2012] UKSC 17, [2012] 2 WLR 976: 2 May 2012:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Petroleo_Brasiliero_v_ENE_Kos_1]]''' '''TIME CHARTERPARTY: SHELLTIME 3 FORM: VESSEL WITHDRAWN FOR NON-PAYMENT OF HIRE WHILST LOADING: LOSS OF USE OF VESSEL: EXPENSES INCURRED IN DISCHARGING CARGO BACK TO SHORE: WHETHER LOSS AND EXPENSE RECOVERABLE UNDER INDEMNITY CLAUSE: WHETHER RECOVERABLE AS RIGHT CORRELATIVE TO DUTY AS BAILEE TO LOOK AFTER GOODS: WHETHER CHARTERERS’ ORDER TO LOAD AN EFFECTIVE CAUSE...  DMC/SandT/12/19
'''Hong Kong'''
'''Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc The “Decurion”'''  '''Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Reyes J: HCAJ No.141 of 2010: 4 May 2012: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Decurion]] '''ADMIRALTY: IN REM JURISDICTION: CLAIM AGAINST VESSEL OWNED BY DEFENDANT: PAYMENT OUTSTANDING FOR BUNKERS SUPPLIED TO DEFENDANT FOR VESSELS CHARTERED BY RELATED COMPANY: STRIKING OUT: WHETHER DEFENDANT “IN POSSESSION OR IN CONTROL” OF CHARTERED VESSELS WITHIN SECTION 12B(4) OF HIGH COURT ORDINANCE'''  DMC/SandT/12/18 '''England'''  '''EITZEN BULK A/S v . TTMI SARL - THE “BONNIE SMITHWICK”''' '''English High Court; Eder J; [2012] EWHC 202 (Comm); 14 February 2012:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Eitzen_Bulk_v_TTMI_-_The_Bonnie_Smithwick]]''' '''SHELLTIME 4: CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION: “BUNKERS ON DELIVERY/REDELIVERY” CLAUSE: MEANING OF ‘PRICE ACTUALLY PAID’'''  DMC/SandT/12/17 '''Hong Kong''' '''The Owners “Marcatania”'''  '''Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Reyes J: HCAJ No.138 of 2008: 2 December 2011:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Marcatania]]''' '''CONTRACT: AGREEMENT TO EXCHANGE SLOTS FOR USE: SLOTS ON VESSEL CHARTERED BY THIRD PARTY: FAILURE TO PAY HIRE: VESSEL WITHDRAWN BY SHIPOWNER: WHETHER SHIPOWNER OBLIGED TO ON-CARRY CARGO UNDER BAILMENT: WHETHER LIABLE IN CONVERSION FOR DELAY IN RELEASING CARGO'''  DMC/SandT/12/16 '''England''' '''M.H. Progress Lines SA v Orient Shipping Rotterdam BV andother, The “Genius Star 1”''' '''English Queen’s Court (Commercial Court): Teare J: [2011] EWHC 3083 (Comm), [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 222: 28 November 2011:[[http:/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “Asian Atlas” /www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/M_H_Progress_Lines_v_Orient_Shipping_-_The_Genius_Star_1]] '''TIME CHARTERPARTY: SUB-CHARTER: CARGO CLAIM AGAINST SUB-CHARTERER: APPORTIONMENT OF CLAIMS AGAINST CHARTERER AND SHIPOWNER UNDER INTER-CLUB AGREEMENT 1996: DIFFERENT TIME BARS PROVIDED IN HEAD CHARTER AND INTER-CLUB AGREEMENT: APPLICABLE TIME BAR'''  DMC/SandT/12/15 '''England''' '''Sideridraulic Systems SpA v BBC Chartering & Logistics GmbH & Co KG''' '''English Queen’s Bench (Commercial Court): Andrew Smith J: [2011] EWHC 3106 (Comm): 30 November 2011: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Sideridraulic_Systems_v_BBC_Chartering_&_Logistics] '''CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: INTERPRETATION OF MASTER’S REMARK IN BILL OF LADING: WHETHER CARGO WAS DECK CARGO UNDER HAGUE-VISBY RULES: IF DECK CARGO, WHETHER PARTIES AGREED THAT HAGUE-VISBY RULES NEVERTHELESS APPLIED: WHETHER US COURTS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE APPLIED'''  DMC/SandT/12/14 '''England''' '''Isabella Shipowner SA v Shagang Shipping Co Ltd (The “Asian Atlas”“Aquafaith”)]]'''
'''Hong Kong SAR English Commercial Court of Appeal: Ma CJHC, Stone and Reyes JJCooke J: CACV No. 257 of 2007[2012] EWHC 1077 (Comm): 23 26 April 2008 (2012:[2008] 3 HKLRD 604; [http://www.hkliionlinedmc.orgco.uk/hkindex.php/jud/eng/hkca/2008/CACV000257_2007-60848.htmlIsabella_Shipowner_v_Shagang_Shipping_The_Aquafaith]]'''
'''ACTION IN REM UNDER HK HIGH COURT ORDINANCE, S.12A(2)(e)TIME CHARTERPARTY: WARRANT OF ARRESTARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL: FOR “ANY CLAIM FOR DAMAGE DONE BY A SHIP”AMENDED NYPE FORM: SETTING ASIDERULE IN WHITE AND CARTER V MCGREGOR: MATERIAL NONWHETHER OWNERS OBLIGED TO ACCEPT PREMATURE RE-DISCLOSURE DELIVERY OF FACTS RELATING TO JURISDICTIONVESSEL BY CHARTERERS'''
DMC/SandT/1012/0313
'''Hong Kong'''
'''Cheong Yuk Fai A O Smith Electrical Products (Changzhou) Co Ltd v Blue Anchor Line & Ors''' '''Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Reyes J: [2012] 1 HKLRD 301: 18 November 2011:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/A_O_Smith_Electrical_Products_v_Blue_Anchor_Line_&_Ors]] '''CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: WAYBILL: LETTER OF UNDERTAKING: INTERPRETATION: GOVERNING LAW OF CARRIAGE: APPLICABLE LIMIT OF LIABILITY'''  DMC/SandT/12/12 '''Malaysia''' '''Sarawak Shell Berhad v South Sumatra Richfield Marine Pte Ltd (The “Red Gold”)''' '''Malaysian Court of Appeal: Sulaiman Bin Daud JCA, Syed Ahmad Helmy Bin Syed Ahmad JCA and another Anantham Kasinather JCA: 19 March 2012: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Sarawak_Shell_v_South_Sumatra_Richfield_Marine_-_The_Red_Gold]]''' '''ADMIRALTY: COLLISION BETWEEN OFFSHORE SUPPLY VESSEL AND FIXED OFFSHORE OIL PLATFORM: RIGHT OF VESSEL OWNERS TO LIMIT LIABILITY: WHETHER COLLISION CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE OF OWNERS IN THE NAVIGATION OR MANAGEMENT OF VESSEL: WHETHER VESSEL OWNERS ENTITLED TO LIMIT LIABILITY DUE TO ABSENCE OF ACTUAL FAULT OR PRIVITY: MERCHANT SHIPPING ORDINANCE 1952 SECTION 360 VIZ. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY CONVENTION 1957'''   DMC/SandT/12/11 '''England''' '''Osmium Shipping Corporation v China Cargill International Freight Forwarders SA (The “Captain Stefanos”)''' '''English Commercial Court: Cooke J: [2012] EWHC 571 (Comm): 13 March 2012: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Osmium_Shipping_v_Cargill_International_-_The_Captain_Stefanos]] '''TIME CHARTERPARTY: ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL: AMENDED NYPE (1946) FORM INCORPORATING CONWARTIME 2004: WHETHER VESSEL WAS OFF-HIRE DURING PERIOD OF HIJACKING BY SOMALI PIRATES: WHETHER RIDER CLAUSE PROVIDING FOR OFF-HIRE DURING “CAPTURE/SEIZURE” WAS QUALIFIED BY THE PHRASE “BY ANY AUTHORITY”: WHETHER CONWARTIME 2004 CLAUSE QUALIFIED OFF-HIRE RIDER CLAUSE'''  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 (HKComm) Ltd: 17 February 2012:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Progress_Bulk_Carriers_v_Tube_City_IMS_-_The_Cenk_Kaptanoglu]]''' '''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/12/09
[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Cheong_Yuk_Fai_and_another_v_China_International_Freight_Forwarders_(HK)_Ltd]]'''England'''
'''Hong Kong SAR Court of AppealAcergy Shipping Ltd v. Société Bretonne De Réparation Navale SAS''': Cheung and Yuen JJA and A Chung J: CACV No. 463 of 2002: 26 January 2005: [2005] 4 HKLRD 544 (English translation; judgment handed down in Chinese)
'''Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court): David Steel J: [2011] EWHC 2490 (Comm): 5 October 2011: [[http://www.hkliionlinedmc.orgco.uk/hkindex.php/jud/eng/hkca/2005/CACV000463X_2002-47015.htmlAcergy_Shipping_v_Société_Bretonne_de_Réparation_Navale]]
'''CARRIAGE CONTRACT FOR PROVISION OF GOODSREPAIR SERVICES TO VESSEL: FIRE CAUSING DAMAGE BEYOND REPAIR WORK UNDERTAKEN: CLAIM AGAINST CARRIER FOR WRONGFUL DELIVERY INTERPRETATION OF GOODS: CONVERSIONCONTRACT: LIMITATION UNDER HAGUE-VISBY RULES AND BILL SCOPE OF LADINGINDEMNITY CONTAINED THEREIN'''
DMC/SandT/1012/02 08
'''German Federal Supreme CourtEngland'''
'''Date of Judgement: 18 June 2009: Case Reference 1ZR 140/06:[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/indexGeofizika DD v.php/Case_ReferenceMMB International Limited and Greenshields Cowie & Co Ltd:_1_ZR_140/06]“The Green Island”'''
'''CARRIER’S LIABILITYEnglish Court of Appeal; Lord Neuberger, Thomas LJ, and Sir Nicholas Wall; [2010] EWCA Civ 459, [2010] 2 Lloyds Rep 1; 28 April 2010: BREAKING THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY[[http: SUB//www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Geofizika_v_MMB_International_-CONTRACTING''' _The_Green_Island]]
'''INCOTERMS 2000 CIP: CARRIAGE ON DECK: OBLIGATIONS OF FREIGHT FORWARDER: CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION: CAUSATION'''
DMC/SandT/10/01
DMC/SandT/12/07 '''England''' '''Hyundai Merchant Marine Company Limited v Trafigura Beheer BV (The “Gaz Energy”)''' '''English Commercial Court: Flaux J: [2011] EWHC 3108 (Comm): 29 November 2011:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Hyundai_Merchant_Marine_v_Trafigura_-_the_Gas_Energy]] '''TIME CHARTER: SPEED AND PERFORMANCE WARRANTY: PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF CHARTER: WHETHER SPEED AND PERFORMANCE AN “ALL WEATHERS” WARRANTY OR LIMITED TO “MAXIMUM WIND FORCE 4 ON BEAUFORT SCALE”'''  DMC/SandT/12/06 '''The “Oriental Baltic”'''  '''Singapore High Court: Tan Lee Meng J : [2011] 3 SGHC 75: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_Oriental_Baltic]] '''OWNERS OF VESSEL UNDER VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION: IN REM PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VESSEL COMMENCED AFTER LIQUIDATION: PLAINTIFF FILED CAVEAT AGAINST RELEASE AGAINST VESSEL PRIOR TO LIQUIDATION: ACTION AGAINST COMPANY UNDER LIQUIDATION ORDINARILY STAYED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT: WHETHER LEAVE SHOULD BE GRANTED TO PLAINTIFF TO CONTINUE WITH ITS ACTION'''  DMC/SandT/12/05 '''England''' '''Thai Maparn Trading Co Ltd v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia Pte Ltd (The “Med Salvador” and “Goa”)''' '''English Commercial Court: Beatson J: [2011] EWHC 2494 (Comm): 4 October 2011:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Thai_Maparn_Trading_v_Louis_Dreyfus_Commodities]]''' '''INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS: FOB CONTRACT: WHETHER BUYERS IN BREACH OF CONDITION PRECEDENT IN CONTRACT BY FAILING TO ISSUE 7 DAY ETA OF VESSEL: WHETHER SELLERS IN REPUDIATORY/RENUNCIATORY BREACH BY REJECTING BUYERS’ NOTICE AND STATING THAT CARGO WOULD NOT BE READY IN TIME'''  DMC/SandT/12/04 '''England''' '''Pacific Basin IHX Limited v Bulkhandling Handymax AS (The “Triton Lark”): English Commercial Court: Teare J: [2011] EWHC 2868 (Comm): 8 November 2011:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Pacific_Basin_v_Bulkhandling_Handymax,_the_Triton_Lark]]''' '''TIME CHARTER: PIRACY RISKS IN GULF OF ADEN IN 2008: CONWARTIME 1993/2004 CLAUSE: ARBITRATION APPEAL: SECTION 69 OF ARBITRATION ACT 1996: CORRECT TEST FOR ASSESSING RISK OF PIRACY INCIDENT OCCURING FOR PURPOSE OF 1993/2004 CLAUSE: WHETHER OWNERS DEVIATED BY REROUTING VESSEL VIA CAPE OF GOOD HOPE INSTEAD OF GULF OF ADEN'''  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:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Emeraldian_Limited_v_Wellmix_Shipping,_the_Vine]]''' '''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/12/02 '''England'''  '''ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED v. ALBEMARLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and ALBEMARLE CORPORATION''' '''English High Court; Flaux J; [2011] EWHC 1574 (Comm); 21 June 2011:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Astrazeneca_UK_v_Albemarle_International]]''' '''CONTRACT: CLAUSES GRANTING THE RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL: EXCLUSION CLAUSES AND DELIBERATE BREACH'''  DMC/SandT/12/01 '''The Netherlands Supreme Court'''  '''Furtrans Denzilick Ticaret Ve Sanayi AS (“Furtrans”) v Augusta Due Srl (“Augusta”): The "Constanza M”'''
'''Nile Dutch Africa Line B.V, Rotterdam, Supreme Court of the Netherlands (“NDAL”“SCN”) v. (1summary proceedings) Delta Lloyd Schadeverzekering N: Vice-President J.VB., Rotterdam, Fleers as Chairman and the Netherlands (“Delta Lloyd”)judges A.M.J. van Buchem-Spapens, (2) Premium Tobacco Investments NF.VB.Bakels, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (“Tobacco”), (3) MC. Meerapfel Söhne AE.Drion and G.Snijders LJN:BT2708, BaselDecember 9, Switzerland (“Meerapfel”) and (4) CETAC, Douala, Cameroon (“Cetac”) - The “NDS Provider” ''' '''2011:[[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/The_%E2%80%9CNDS_Provider%E2%80%9DFurtrans_v_Augusta,_the_Constanza_M]]'''
'''CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA UNDER BILL OF LADING: HAGUE VISBY RULES: LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE CONTAINERS SUPPLIED BY CARRIER: PACKAGING OR PART CONSTRUCTION OF ART. 3(4) SECOND PARAGRAPH, INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION RELATING TO THE VESSEL? INTERPRETATION ARREST OF TREATIES UNDER DUTCH LAWSEA-GOING SHIPS 1952'''
Retrieved from ‘https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/321...1378’

Navigation menu