Shipping E-brief February 2023
The Shipping E-Brief is a publication which provides key information on legal decisions and developments in shipping and related business areas.
Missed a previous edition? Read them here:
Featured news & insights
News / Court of Appeal finds arbitration agreement ‘subject’ to charterparty being concluded
12-12-2022 / Maritime
The Court of Appeal has held that a proposed charterparty which was expressly stated to be ‘subject shippers/receivers approval’ did not contain a binding arbitration agreement conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal to determine whether the charterparty had been properly concluded.
News / Court confirms applicable package limit when cargo interests have to pay salvage
23-01-2023 / Maritime
Court confirms applicable package limit when cargo interests have to pay salvage Trafigura Pte Ltd v. TKK Shipping Pte Ltd (Thor Lineage)  EWHC 26 (Comm)
News / Court considers scope of charterparty provision restricting deductions from hire
30-01-2023 / Maritime, Yachts & Superyachts
The Court recently considered the following question: “Where a charterparty clause provides that no deductions from hire (including for off-hire or alleged off-hire) may be made without the shipowner’s consent: is non-payment of hire a ‘deduction’ if the Vessel is off hire at the instalment date?”
News / Court declines anti-enforcement injunction in charterparty dispute
19-12-2022 / Maritime
In a charterparty dispute, the Court has declined to grant an anti-enforcement injunction in respect of foreign proceedings because it found that there was no binding arbitration agreement between the parties. The decision also highlights that delay can be a bar to the grant of an anti-suit injunction. Read Peter McNamee and Reema Shour’s article for an analysis of the Court’s conclusions.
News / Widely worded no-assignment clause shuts out insurer’s claims
24-01-2023 / Insurance
An insurer that paid out on a claim brought by its assured, the buyer of aircraft under an English law sale contract, has been prevented from making a recovery against the seller because the sale contract incorporated a widely worded no-assignment clause.