
Case Summaries
Gard Shipping AS v Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd [2017]
“A Charterparty on an amended BPVoy4 form provided an enhanced and escalating demurrage rate in the event of revised voyage orders, including stopping and waiting. In construing the relevant clauses, the Court held that the enhanced rate was not triggered in the absence of a clear instruction, prior to NOR, to stop and wait; a passive failure to give orders, post-NOR, even where such failure was driven by commercial reasons, was not a trigger.”
Sam Purpose AS v Transnav Purpose Navigation Ltd (Rev 2) [2017]
“In breach of a London arbitration clause, charterers commenced substantive proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction in addition to arresting the vessel as security for their claim. The English Court had granted the owners (ex-parte) an anti-suit injunction, in accordance with normal principles. However, the Court later declined to grant further injunctive relief or order discontinuance of the foreign proceedings (including the 'tainted' arrest) in circumstances where charterers had in the meantime applied to the foreign court for a stay of the substantive proceedings. In other words, charterers had cured the historic breach by the time of the present hearing so no further injunctive relief was appropriate.”
Cruise And Maritime Services International Ltd v Navigators Underwriting Agency Ltd The "Marco Polo" [2017]
“After the outbreak of norovirus on-board, the Claimant cruise line agents sought an indemnity from Charterers' Liability insurers for payments to passengers following curtailment of the voyage. The Court found that the Claimant was not a contracting carrier under the Athens Convention and instead passengers' claims lay against the Tour Operators with whom they had a contractual relationship. The Claimant, therefore, had incurred "no losses costs or expenses as Charterer", money having been refunded to passengers for commercial and reputational reasons only. “
Kyokuyo Co Ltd and A.P. Moller - Maersk A/S trading as "Maersk Line" [2017]
“The Court stated that the Hague-Visby Rules apply not only to contracts of carriage covered by bills of lading but also when waybills are issued instead. The Court also held that Article IV.5(c) of the Hague-Visby Rules does not require enumeration of the cargo inside a container, pallet or similar article of transport "as packed", being sufficient that the number of units or packages is exactly stated in the bill. Here the cargo consisted of unpackaged tuna loins identified as "units" for the purposes of the Rules. “
Su (aka Hsin Chi Su, Su Hsin Chi and Nobu Morimoto) v Clarksons Platou Futures Ltd & Anor [2017]
“Court holds claim is time barred since the cause of action arose more than 6 years from any breach of contract and/or 3 year from knowledge necessary for bringing an action in negligence under s. A4A of the Limitation Act 1980.”
Sinocore International Co Ltd v RBRG Trading (UK) Limited [2017]
“Sinocore obtained an order from the English Court allowing the enforcement of a foreign, New York Convention arbitral award against the defendant UK company. The defendant challenged the order on the grounds that pursuant to the Arbitration Act, public policy rendered the award unenforceable, as forged bills of lading were involved in the transaction underlying it. The Court dismissed the challenge as the defendant's liability had been ascertained under the lawful sale contract, irrespective of any other tainted transaction (i.e. forged bills).”