Voyage C/P Disputes

From DMC
Revision as of 22:18, 18 May 2018 by Dmcadmin (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

DMC/SandT/18/03

England

Lukoil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Ocean Tankers Pte Ltd (The “Ocean Neptune”)

English Commercial Court: Popplewell J: [2018] EWHC 163 (Comm): 2 February 2018:[[1]]

VOYAGE CHARTER: EXXONMOBILVOY 2005 FORM: LITASCO CLAUSES: DEMURRAGE CLAIM PRESENTATION TIME-BAR REQUIRING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM TO BE PRESENTED TO CHARTERERS WITHIN 90 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF CARGO DISCHARGE: WHETHER CLAIM FOR TIME LOST WAITING FOR ORDERS TIME-BARRED DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE WITH DOCUMENT PRESENTATION REQUIREMENT: APPEAL FROM PARTIAL FINAL AWARD UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996


DMC/SandT/18/01

England

CSSA Chartering and Shipping Services S.A. v Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd (The “Pacific Voyager”)

English Commercial Court: Popplewell J: [2017] EWHC 2579 (Comm): 18 October 2017: [[2]]

VOYAGE CHARTER: SHELLVOY 5 FORM: WHETHER OBLIGATION ON OWNER TO GET THE VESSEL TO THE LOADING PORT WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME: WHETHER SUCH AN OBLIGATION IS ABSOULTE OR ONLY ONE OF DUE DILIGENCE: WHETHER LAYCAN EQUIVALENT TO AN ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL OR READINESS TO LOAD DATE


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: [[3]

VOYAGE CHARTER: MEANING OF “PORT LIMITS”: ARBITRATION ACT 1996 SECTION 69 APPEAL


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[[4]]

CHARTERPARTY: WHETHER THE CHARTERERS’ RIGHT TO CANCEL THE CHARTERPARTY PURSUANT TO THE LAYCAN PROVISION SURIVIVES A RE-NOMINATION OF THE LOAD PORT


DMC/SandT/16/01

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: [[5]]

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/15/02

England

E D & F Man Sugar Ltd v Unicargo Transportgesellschaft GmbH (Polska Zegluga Morska PP, interested party), The “Ladytramp”

Court of Appeal; Pattern, Tomlinson, Christopher Clarke LJJ; [2013] EWCA Civ 1449, 19 November 2013: [[6]]

SUGAR CHARTERPARTY 1999: DESTRUCTION BY FIRE OF FACILITIES AT LOADING TERMINAL NOT WITHIN CLAUSE 28 EXCEPTION TO LAYTIME OF “MECHANICAL BREAKDOWNS”


DMC/SandT/14/16

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:[[7]] T VOYAGE CHARTER: FOB SALE CONTRACT CHAIN: DEMURRAGE: “RESTRAINT OF PRINCES” EXCEPTION: UNFORESEEABLE FORCE MAJEURE BEYOND CONTROL OR REASONABLE CONTROL


DMC/SandT/14/12

England

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:[[8]]

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/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:[9]]

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


DMC/SandT/12/24

England

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:[[10]]

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/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):[[11]]

WHETHER VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY A "SEA CARRIAGE DOCUMENT" FOR PURPOSES OF S.11 AUSTRALIAN CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT 1991


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 (Comm): 17 February 2012:[[12]]

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/12/03

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:[[13]]

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/SandT/11/26

England

National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia v BP Oil Supply Company

English Court of Appeal: Ward and Tomlinson LJJ and Sir Mark Potter: 12 October 2011: [2011] EWCA Civ 1127:[[14]]

VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY: BPVOY4: DEMURRAGE CLAIMS TO BE PRESENTED WITH FULL DOCUMENTATION WITHIN 90 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF DISCHARGE: FINAL SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM: WHETHER MIS-DESCRIBED FURTHER DEMURRAGE CLAIM TIME-BARRED: COST OF BUNKERS CONSUMED FOR RE-BERTHING


DMC/SandT/11/21

England

Carboex SA v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA

English High Court: Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court): Field J.: [2011] EWHC 1165 (Comm: 12 May 2011: [[15]]

AMWELSH CHARTERPARTY: DEMURRAGE: EXCEPTION OF STRIKES: WHETHER DELAY IN DISCHARGE ARISING FROM CONGESTION CAUSED BY STRIKES EXCEPTED FROM LAYTIME


DMC/SandT/10/10

Singapore High Court

The “Asia Star”[2009] SGHC 91 [[16]]

Judgment delivered by Judith Prakash J, 17 April 2009 [2009] SGHC 91

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

Retrieved from ‘https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php?title=Voyage_C/P_Disputes&oldid=1412’