2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
2. Among other reasonings in the Judgment, the Court carefully discussed the Supreme Court decision in the New Flamenco (2017). In the New Flamenco case, the owners elected to sell the vessel following the wrongful early redelivery of the vessel, but the early redelivery did not cause the sale. There was no causal connection between the early redelivery of the vessel and the sale of the vessel. That being so, the benefit obtained by selling was a result of owners’ independent decision, and therefore not be credited against the owners’ loss.
3. Different from the facts in the New Flamenco case, the arbitral tribunal in the instant case found a clear casual causal connection between the detention of the vessel and the saving made by the disponent owners by not drydocking her. There was no possibility to drydock the vessel whilst she was detained, and afterwards it became pointless to drydock her once she was declared a constructive total loss. The ratio of the New Flamenco case could not, therefore, apply to the instant case as the facts were materially different. Thus, the New Flamenco case had to be distinguished.
4. A good summary of the New Flamenco case and its application is contained in the paragraphs 48 to 50 of the Judgment of the instant case.
