Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Laytime and demurrage – oil tanker arriving after cancelling date and rejected twice for dirty tanks – charterers electing not to cancel, missing turn in regulated allocation of gasoil – delay for the account of the charterers

The facts

Asbatankvoy form with amendments.

Loadport Sikka, India. Cargo, gasoil.

By the time the vessel had arrived and presented with clean tanks, the supplier from whom the charterers had bought, became contractually entitled  to postpone delivery.

The effect was about a month’s delay after valid NOR.

Demurrage of US$291k was in dispute.


Moore- Bick J found in favour of shipowners.

Mance LJ agreed.

Charterers had the opportunity of cancelling but chose not to do so.

Providing cargo was an absolute obligation which they failed to perform.

Of interest

Clause 30(c) (v) indemnified the charterers for the consequences of the vessel not being clean to the satisfaction of a “jointly appointed inspector”.

Moore-Bick J rejected Timothy Hill QC’s reliance on this clause. He based his reasoning on the technicality that, although the inspectors separately appointed by the parties agreed, there was still no jointly appointed inspector.

Mance LJ preferred not to choose sides on the distinction but held that the “rough and ready” clause was too widely worded and could not excuse the charterers for their own breach, in this case, failing to provide cargo.

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please login. New users may register below.

Existing Users Log In
New User Registration
Please indicate that you agree to the Terms of Service *
*Required field
Charter Party Casebook