You, Sophie Henniker-Major
& Ince, in any case

24-02-2023 / Maritime

This is the first collision case since the Supreme Court decision in the Ever Smart, in which the Admiralty Court has applied the crossing rules. This article discusses the Court's decision, which is unusual because of the finding of 100% liability against one vessel.

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.

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.

07-09-2022 / Maritime

Eastern Pacific Chartering Inc v. Pola Maritime Ltd (Divinegate) [2022] EWHC 2095 (Comm) The Court has recently dismissed a claim for wrongful arrest in an underperformance dispute and also given helpful guidance as to how speed and performance cases are to be approached.

30-05-2022 / Maritime

Wilforce LLC and Awilco LNG AS v. Ratu Shipping Co SA and Sea Queen Shipping Corporation (Wilforce v. Western Moscow) [2022] EWHC 1190 (Admlty) The Admiralty Court has recently handed down judgment in the case of the collision between the LNG carrier Wilforce and the bulk carrier Western Moscow which took place in the Singapore Straits in May 2019. This case is notably the first collision case to come before the Admiralty Court since the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the Ever Smart collision case. It is also the first case in which the Court has had to consider responsibility for a collision in a Precautionary Area.

08-02-2022 / Maritime

DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v. Gemini Ocean Shipping Co Ltd (Newcastle Express) [2022] EWHC 181 (Comm) In this recent charterparty dispute, the Commercial Court has set aside an arbitration award on the basis that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to rule in circumstances where the parties had not concluded a binding contract (or arbitration agreement) after conditions to which the fixture were expressed to be subject (“subjects” or “subs”) were not lifted.

25-05-2021 / Maritime

ZHD v. SQO (Precious Sky) [2021] EWHC 1262 (Comm)

19-02-2021 / Maritime

Evergreen Marine (UK) Limited v. Nautical Challenge Ltd (Ever Smart c/w Alexandra I) [2021] UKSC 6

27-01-2021 / Maritime

Ulusoy Denizilik AS v. COFCO Global Harvest (Zhangjiagang) Trading Co Ltd (Ulusoy-11) [2021] EWHC 3645 (Comm)

10-09-2020 / Maritime

This case involved an unsuccessful appeal to the Court, where charterers contended that there was serious irregularity in the way that the sole arbitrator had dealt with two issues in the underlying arbitration, which had caused them substantial injustice. 

18-07-2019 / Maritime

Classic Maritime Inc v. Limbungan Makmur SDN BHD & another [2019] EWCA Civ 1102 The Court of Appeal has upheld a Commercial Court finding that the effect of an exceptions clause in a contract of affreightment (“COA”) depended on its proper construction. It further found that the Commercial Court had misapplied the compensatory principle. The principle, properly applied, was to compare the financial position of the Owners following the Charterers’ breach of the COA with their financial position had the Charterers actually performed the COA, not their financial position had the Charterers been willing but unable to perform.

04-04-2019 / Maritime

Alize 1954 and CMA CGM SA v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG and others (CMA CGM Libra) 2019 EWHC 481 (Admlty)

29-03-2019 / Maritime

The team at Ince Gordon Dadds recently contributed the UK chapter of the Chambers Shipping Guide 2019 which has now been published and is available for download.

29-11-2018 / Maritime

Classic Maritime Inc v. Limbungan Makmur SDN BHD [2018] EWHC 2389 (Comm) In this case, the Charterer failed in its attempt to excuse its non-performance under a contract of affreightment on the basis that a force majeure event – a burst dam that halted production at a Brazilian mine - had prevented it from shipping the relevant cargoes under the contract. However, the Owner could only recover nominal damages because even if the Charterer had been willing and able to perform its contractual obligations, the burst dam would have prevented its performance.

17-02-2016 / Maritime

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