Menu
Legal Update: English Law: When can you set-off claims against freight?

News / / Hamburg, Legal Update: English Law: When can you set-off claims against freight?

The Commercial Court has confirmed that the rule in The “Aries”, which precludes set-off against freight, does not extend to sums payable to a freight forwarding agent for arranging carriage under a freight forwarding contract.

The background facts

In 2014 the Chinese energy giant Sinopec was engaged for the modernisation of the oil refinery at Atyrau in Kazakhstan, near where the Ural river drains into the Caspian Sea. Sinopec engaged DHL to arrange the transport of refinery units from China.

DHL sub-contracted Globalink for the sea and road leg from the Black Sea port of Novorossiyk through the Ural-Caspian canal to the refinery. Their agreement was entitled “Freight-Forwarding Services Contract”, Globalink was referred to as the “Forwarding Agent”, and they were to be liable for any delay in delivery.

In October 2014 two barges carrying the units launched from Novorossiysk. One barge failed to arrive at the destination because the water level in the Ural-Caspian canal was too low for its draught. To make matters worse, on 23 November 2014, the Ural-Caspian canal closed for winter, so some of the cargo had to be put into storage. Globalink were only able to complete the carriage to the destination when the canal re-opened the following spring.

As a result of this delay, DHL refused to pay the final two instalments of the contract price due to Globalink. Globalink brought a claim for those sums plus the winter storage charges, amounting to USD 1,647,780. DHL contended that they had a counterclaim of USD 2,364,976.05, being the costs they incurred in excess of what they would have paid to Globalink if the original agreement been fulfilled.

Globalink applied for summary judgment, relying inter alia on the rule precluding the set-off of counterclaims against the payment of freight under voyage charterparties.

The legal issues

Defendants to claims for money due under commercial contracts often resist payment on the basis that they have a counterclaim, which they wish to set-off against the sums due.  English law generally permits this where a claim and cross-claim are so closely connected that it would be unjust to enforce one without taking the other into account.

One notable exception is the long-established principle that a defendant is not entitled to raise any counterclaims it may have in order to reduce the freight payable under a contract of carriage.

The Courts have taken a strict approach in only applying this rule to claims for freight payable under a contract of carriage. It does not, for example, extend to claims for hire under a time charterparty. However, while the rule is most widely known for its application to freight payable under voyage charterparties, it is not limited to the carriage of goods by sea and has been held to apply to the carriage of goods by road and by air.

It has also been held, in Britannia Distribution v Factor Pace [1998] 2 Lloyds Rep 420, that if a freight forwarder has acted as agent in entering a contract of carriage with a carrier and that carrier charges freight, then the forwarder is entitled to claim the sums due for that freight from his principal and the rule against set-off applies.

In this case, Globalink argued that the sum charged by Globalink to DHL was charged in consideration for transporting the equipment from one place to another.  It is therefore properly described as freight, such that the rule in The Aries should apply.

DHL argued that the rule in The Aries only applies to contracts of carriage and that this was not such a contract.  It was instead a contract to arrange carriage and was not subject to the rule against set-off.

The Commercial Court’s decision

The Judge’s starting point was to consider the nature of the contract between the parties. He noted that the contract described itself as a freight forwarding agreement, not a contract of carriage.

He stated that “the essential nature of [Globalink’s] obligation is not an obligation to carry, but an obligation to procure that carriage is achieved by others.” The fact that Globalink could incur liability for delayed delivery of the cargo did not mean that Globalink was a carrier, nor that Globalink accepted an obligation to deliver on a particular date, it just meant that if Globalink did not arrange for others to deliver the cargo by that date it would incur a penalty to DHL.

The Judge considered that applying the no set-off rule in this case would represent an extension of the existing law, extending the ambit of the rule beyond contracts of carriage and beyond freight in the narrow sense established by the authorities.

He concluded that it was not open to him to extend the rule to cover the services provided by a freight forwarding agent, when those services are simply to arrange the carriage of goods.

Comment

This decision confirms that the rule preventing set-off against freight only applies in cases of payment of freight under a contract of carriage. It will not assist freight forwarders who merely contract to arrange the carriage of goods by another.

It is advisable for freight forwarders who wish to avoid deductions being made from payment due to them to insert clear wording in their contracts, requiring the payment of all sums due in full and prohibiting their counterparty from making any deductions or set-offs against the sums that are payable.

ayable.

Related sectors:

Related news & insights

News / Thélem’s the breaks: recovering English solicitors’ fees in the Scottish Courts

10-08-2022 / Maritime

Kirkwood v. Thélem Assurances [2022] CSOH 53 A recent Outer House Opinion has provided welcome clarity on the recovery of English solicitors’ fees in the Scottish Courts.

Thélem’s the breaks: recovering English solicitors’ fees in the Scottish Courts

News / Court finds extra-contractual counterclaims fell within scope of arbitration agreement

02-08-2022 / Maritime

Sea Master Special Maritime Enterprise & another v. Arab Bank (Switzerland) Ltd (Sea Master) [2022] EWHC 1953 (Comm) This bill of lading dispute raised issues as to whether the Bank financing the purchase of a cargo, and the holder of a switch bill of lading for the cargo, was a party to the arbitration agreement incorporated into the switch bill and, if so, whether certain counterclaims brought by the Owners came within the scope of that arbitration agreement. The Court agreed with the tribunal’s findings that, once the Court had decided that the Bank was a party to the arbitration agreement, then the counterclaims for reasonable remuneration and quantum meruit came within the ambit of the arbitration agreement, being claims “arising out of or in connection” with the bill of lading contract.

Court finds extra-contractual counterclaims fell within scope of arbitration agreement

News / Party offered reasonably satisfactory security following collision obliged to accept it

20-07-2022 / Maritime

MV Pacific Pearl Co Ltd v. Osios David Shipping Inc (Panamax Alexander) [2022] EWCA Civ 798 The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a party to ASG 2, the standard form Collision Jurisdiction Agreement, is obliged to accept reasonable security once it is offered and cannot choose to refuse that security and seek alternative or better security by arresting a ship. In such circumstances, there is no right to an arrest or any justification for it.

Party offered reasonably satisfactory security following collision obliged to accept it

News / Rosita Lau, MH calls for China businesses to opt for Hong Kong arbitration in their contracts

15-07-2022 / Maritime

In an interview published this morning (14 July) in The Hong Kong Maritime Hub, Ince Partner Rosita Lau, MH calls for Chinese businesses to opt for Hong Kong arbitration in their contracts, initiative that requires attention of officials from the highest level.

Rosita Lau, MH calls for China businesses to opt for Hong Kong arbitration in their contracts

News / Court finds Covid-19 restrictions did not constitute force majeure under MOA

13-07-2022 / Maritime

NKD Maritime Limited v. Bart Maritime (No 2) Inc (Shagang Giant) [2022] EWHC 1615 (Comm) The Court has construed a force majeure clause and considered whether Buyers validly terminated a contract for the sale of a vessel on the basis that Covid-19 lockdown restrictions prevented Sellers from transferring title in the Vessel. 

Court finds Covid-19 restrictions did not constitute force majeure under MOA

News / Shipping gets smart

20-06-2022 / Maritime

On 25 November 2021, the UK Law Commission published its Advice to the UK Government on how English law currently applies to smart legal contracts. Subsequently, on 16 March 2022, the Law Commission published its report on electronic trade documents, together with draft legislation that would implement its recommendations to allow for the legal recognition of trade documents such as bills of lading and bills of exchange in electronic form.

Shipping gets smart