London Arbitration 1/26

Charterers claimed off-hire and a deduction from hire under a time charter trip, alleging that hull fouling on delivery reduced the vessel’s speed and performance and citing The Divinegate. Owners resisted the claim, arguing that the performance warranty was not engaged because there was insufficient “good weather” data within the meaning of the charterparty, and that The Divinegate was irrelevant. The Tribunal held that underwater fouling constituted a defect in the hull capable of engaging the off-hire clause and that Charterers were entitled to a deduction from hire, notwithstanding the lack of qualifying good-weather period under the performance clause. The performance-evidence regime did not prevent recovery where loss of speed was otherwise established.

 

Read the full judgment here.

Previous
Previous

Moeve Trading SAU v Mael Trading FZ LLC [2026] EWHC 17 (Comm)

Next
Next

Unity Ship Group SA v Euroins Insurance JSC (the “Happy Aras”) [2026] EWHC 7 (Admlty)