Chain of time charters – lien on freight not extending to hire paid under last charter for a single voyage The facts Three charters were entered into back to back on the NYPE form. The final charter was a time charter for a voyage from Portland, Oregon to Bandar Abbas to carry a cargo of […]
272. Compania Argentina De Navegacion De Ultramar v Tradax Export SA (The “Puerto Rocca”)  1 Lloyd’s Rep 252
Demurrage– clause in a berth charter construed to activate laytime when vessel still outside port limits.
271. Stag Line v Board of Trade (The “Cydonia”) (1949 – 1950) 83 Ll.L. Rep 356; (1950) 84 Ll.L. Rep 1
Demurrage– whether port or berth charter – berth charter where charterers have express right to nominate berth
Frustration – Vessel trapped in Suez Canal – possible alternative route via Cape Town – Charterparty not frustrated.
Laytime – berth/ port charter tension – decided by interpretation of contract
 Lloyd’s Rep 367;  2 Lloyds Rep 209;  1 Lloyds Rep 147
Navigation/Employment Dichotomy – The master unreasonably choosing longer route – not entitled to rely nagivation exception.
Off-hire – vessel detained by US Coast Guard – charterers’ claim for off-hire upheld.
266. ENE Kos Ltd v Petroleo Brasileiro SA (The “Kos”)  1 Lloyd’s Rep 87;  EWCA CIV 713;  UKSC 17
Withdrawal by owners – vessel detained in order to discharge cargo – charterers liable for loss of hire
The vessel, a VLCC, was chartered on a Shelltime 3 form which gave the owners the right to withdraw upon failure to make punctual payment of hire.
Clause 13 read: “The master (although appointed by owners) shall be under the orders and direction of the charterers as regards employment of the vessel, agency or other arrangements…charterers hereby indemnify owners against all consequences or liabilities that may arise ….from the master otherwise complying with the charterers’ or their agents’ orders”.
While the vessel was loading at Angra dos Reis, Brazil, the owners exercised their right to withdraw upon failure to pay hire. They called upon charterers to discharge the cargo on board. Charterers did not immediately accede to the request, disputing owners’ right to withdraw. After an exchange of correspondence in which owners held their position, charterers ordered the discharge of the cargo. At the same time, charterers requested the owners to put up a substantial sum as security to cover a potential claim for wrongful withdrawal.
Owners put up the security required, reserving their right to reclaim the costs involved.
In the event, the cargo was discharged in just under three days after the notice of withdrawal. Owners claimed the cost of bunkers and remuneration at a market rate over the period. In addition they claimed the costs of putting up security. (more…)
265. Aegnoussiotis Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v A/S Kristian Jebsens Rederi of Bergen, (The “Aegnoussiotis”)  1 Lloyd’s Rep 268
Withdrawal – owners withholding cargo in response to failure to pay hire – justified by lien over the cargo.
264. Steelwood Carriers Inc of Monrovia, Liberia v Evimeria Compania Naviera SA of Panama (The “Agios Giorgis”)  2 Lloyd’s Rep 192
Withdrawal – charterers making unwarranted deductions from hire entitling owners to withdraw – owners effecting partial withdrawal by instructing Master not to discharge – owners liable for delay caused by their instructions.
258. Total Transport Corporation v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd (The “Eurus”)  2 Lloyds Rep 408:  1 Lloyds Rep 351
Indemnity – Owners breaching special clause in Asbatankvoy requiring owners to follow charterers’ orders – charterers’ loss required to be foreseeable
257. Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisa (The “Golden Victory”)  1 Lloyd’s Rep .443:  Lloyds Rep 747:  2 Lloyds Rep 164
Time charter – breach by chaterers – supervening events reducing owners’ loss determined ex post facto – chaterers entitled to benefit
256. The Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd V FR8 Singapore PTE Ltd (The “Eternity”)  1 Lloyd’s Rep 107
Hague-Visby Rules – failure to properly manage Inert Gas System leading to cargo damage – exception under Rule IV not available to owners
255. The “Athanasia Comninos” and The “Georges CHR.Lemos”  1 Lloyd’s Rep.277:  2 Lloyd’s Rep 107[ Note ]
NYPE charterparty – vessels damaged by explosions caused by methane gas – owners entitled to indemnity flowing from employment and agency clause
back to homepage
254. Garbis Maritime Corporation v. Philippine National Oil Co (The “Garbis”)  2 Lloyd’s Rep. 283)
Incorporation – Voyage Charterparty – blank spaces left open in bill of lading which were intended to identify the Charterparty to be incorporated by reference – master refusing to sign bills of lading which caused delay – owners not liable for the delay.
263. Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha v Bantham Steamship Company Ltd (The “Nailsea Meadow”) (1938) 60 Ll.L Rep. 70; (1938) 61 Ll.L Rep.331
Withdrawal – owners entitled to withdraw upon failure of punctual payment of hire – hire computed at rate per ton of vessel’s deadweight capacity – charterers absolved from paying hire until informed of the deadweight.
Withdrawal – requirement of payment in advance held not to apply to first payment
Withdrawal – failure to pay hire timeously – owners failing to comply with anti-technicality clause
260. Royal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (The “Ann Strathatos”) (1949-50) 83 Ll.L.Rep 228
Indemnity – timecharter – nature of indemnity clause – operative despite other clauses in charterparty covering same subject matter – owners’ claim for indemnity failing because of absence of factual causation
259. Italian State Railways v Mavrogordatos and Another  2 KB 305 (The “Antonios M Mavrogordatos”)
Withdawal – owners entitled to withdraw vessel for failure to pay advance hire – not entitled to hire after withdrawal despite final voyage not yet completed.