Menu
Save now, pay later: Court endorses wait and see approach to potential costs savings

Insights / / London

Space Shipping Ltd (CV Stealth) v. ST Shipping & Transport Pte Ltd (CV Stealth) [2021] EWHC 2288 (Comm)

This case is an example of a party attempting the “if at first you don’t succeed…” approach to litigation, with the Owners filing numerous appeals and objections to a deduction for savings for drydocking following the prolonged detention of their vessel. An earlier appeal to the Commercial Court challenging such a deduction was unsuccessful. In this latest appeal, the Court reiterated its refusal to re-open issues of fact that have been put by the parties to arbitration. The Court also endorsed the "wait and see" approach to dealing with potential savings where it is too soon to assess them.

The background facts

In 2014, the Disponent Owners let the Vessel, CV Stealth, to the Charterers for a period of eight months. The Charterers ordered the Vessel to load cargo at the port of Puerto La Cruz in Venezuela. The Vessel arrived at the load port on 5 September 2014 and, on 19 September 2014, the Vessel was detained by order of the Venezuelan Court.

Despite several attempts to obtain her release, the Vessel was detained until 3 October 2017. She was redelivered to the Head Owners on 24 March 2018 without having been drydocked. On 30 August 2018, the Vessel was sold for scrap and, on 21 October 2018, she sailed for Pakistan where she was broken up. 

The arbitrations

The Vessel’s detention resulted in considerable losses for the Owners, who sought to recover these losses from the Charterers in arbitration proceedings.

In total, the arbitrator made seven Partial Final Awards. By the First Partial Final Award dated 23 September 2015, the arbitrator awarded the Owners sums in respect of hire, bunker conversion costs and damages in a total sum of over US$4.6 million plus interest and costs. The damages were calculated by reference to the average market hire rate.

In the Second Partial Final Award dated 2 August 2016, the arbitrator set aside a sum of US$1.4 million for dry docking expenses which were potentially saved by the Owners, taking a "wait and see" approach to how much the final figure would be. Despite objections from the Owners, this finding was maintained in the fourth Partial Final Award. Additionally, the Owners tried (and failed) following the fourth Final Partial Award to appeal this point to the Commercial Court.

A Final Award was made on 19 October 2020. The total sum awarded in favour of the Owners against the Charterers amounted to US$24,468,621.91. The arbitrator concluded that the US$1.4 million deduction in respect of dry docking should be maintained to prevent the Owners from being in a better off position than they would have been had they not been prevented from complying with their contractual obligations by the Charterers’ breach. The Owners appealed.

The Commercial Court decision

The Court considered whether a “possible saving” in drydocking costs or even a “saved” drydocking cost should have been deducted from the award.

In summary, the Owners argued that the arbitrator’s deduction for dry docking costs was wrong in law as:

  • The First Partial Final Award had already determined the Owners’ loss of profit claim without a deduction of the drydocking cost;
  • The Charterers had failed to prove that the Owners had made a saving;
  • Alternatively, if there was a “saving”, this saving lacked a sufficient causal nexus with the breach; and
  • There was an express right to indemnity against consequences of a breach but no express right to deduct or a provision for deduction of savings.

The Court dismissed the appeal and held that the arbitrator did not err in law. The Court thought it was clear that but for the detention, the drydocking would have taken place in 2015. In the Court’s view, the saving to the Owners by reason of the drydocking not having taken place was an “unassailable finding of fact” and no errors of law could be established. The Court added that when considering the consequences of a breach, it is appropriate and consistent with the notion of indemnity to bear in mind the consequences which have provided the claimant with a saving.

Finally, the Court affirmed that where the extent of such savings are unknown, the “wait and see” method is a sensible approach for the arbitrator to have taken.

Comment

The case is a useful reminder that the Court will not tolerate appeals from the arbitrators’ finding of facts disguised as errors of law.

The Court’s continued endorsement of the “wait and see” approach where a claimant’s potential savings are unknown is interesting as it involves a degree of speculation about future contingencies. It appears to open the door to parties “earmarking” potential savings that may be quantified later.

___________________________________________________

As proud platinum sponsors, Ince will be hosting a number of events as part of London International Shipping Week, taking place between 13 to 17 September 2021.
Ince hosts will be joined by several leading industry experts to discuss a range of topics affecting the maritime sector.
Please click here for further information, dates and timings, and to confirm your attendance - whether this be in–person or virtually.
Paul Crane

Paul Crane Partner

Sophie Forsyth

Sophie Forsyth Associate

Related sectors:

Related news & insights

News / Ince celebrates one year since Scotland office opening

23-11-2022 / Insurance, Maritime, Real Estate

We are pleased to be celebrating one year since opening our first Scottish office in the city of Glasgow.  Stefanie Johnston, dual-qualified Partner and Head of Scotland, has worked tirelessly over the last year to develop our offering through the opening of an Ince office in what is arguably an established Scottish market. Starting from the ground up, Stefanie and her team have successfully gained an admirable reputation in the region and further afield in the maritime, insurance, real estate and regulatory sectors. 

Ince celebrates one year since Scotland office opening

News / Shipping E-brief November 2022

17-11-2022 / Maritime

The Shipping E-Brief is a publication providing you with key information on legal decisions and developments in shipping and related business areas.

Shipping E-brief November 2022

News / Appeals from arbitration: is reform required?

15-11-2022 / Maritime

In September 2022, the UK Law Commission published a consultation paper with provisional recommendations for updating the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act 1996). Amongst other things, the Law Commission considered whether any changes need to be made to: (i) s.67 of the Act 1996, which deals with jurisdictional challenges to arbitral awards; and (ii) s.69 of the Act 1996, which deals with appeals on points of law.

Appeals from arbitration: is reform required?

News / Owners not in breach of charter and entitled to claim demurrage

09-11-2022 / Maritime

CM P-MAX III Limited v. Petroleos Del Norte SA (MT Stena Primorsk) [2022] EWHC 2147 (Comm) This recent laytime and demurrage dispute demonstrates that an owner can legitimately refuse orders where such orders may jeopardise the safety of a vessel.

Owners not in breach of charter and entitled to claim demurrage

News / Court of Appeal finds owner should have accepted non-contractual performance

09-11-2022 / Maritime

Mur Shipping BV v. RTI Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1406 A majority of the Court of Appeal has held that the Owner under a contract of affreightment (COA) should have accepted payment of freight in Euros, rather than the US dollars provided for in the COA. Its refusal to do so meant that the Owner could not rely on the force majeure clause in the COA, in circumstances where US sanctions might have restricted US dollar transfers from or on behalf of the Charterer.

Court of Appeal finds owner should have accepted non-contractual performance

News / “Due” means due!

03-11-2022 / Maritime

Ceto Shipping Corporation v. Savory Inc (Victor 1) [2022] EWHC 2636 (Comm) The Court in this case had to construe a purchase option clause in a bareboat charter. Specifically, it considered whether the fact that the charterer had not fulfilled certain payment obligations under the charter because it was disputing them in good faith meant that the owner was not obliged to transfer title to the vessel at the end of the charter period.

“Due” means due!