Under specific C/P provisions, Charterers, Vitol succeeded against owners, Rhine, in respect of a 6-day delay in reaching a load port, requiring Vitol to pay a higher price to its seller (derived from Platts on the eventual, rather than expected B/L date). Before the C.A., Rhine re-cast its argument that Vitol’s internal hedging should have been taken into account. The C.A. disallowed the new basis and confirmed that Vitol’s internal hedging was unrelated and did not serve to reduce the damages payable by Rhine.
Rhine Shipping DMCC v Vitol SA [2024] EWCA Civ 580 (23 May 2024)- (Underhill LJ, Asplin LJ, Popplewell LJ)
Previous
Previous
Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) plc (as Subrogee of Modrono's Bimini Place Ltd) v RAV Bahamas Ltd (Bahamas) [2024] UKPC 11 (21 May 2024)- (Briggs LJ, Hamblen LJ, Leggatt LJ, Burrows LJ, Stephens LJ)
Next
Next