You, Jamila Khan
& Ince, in any case

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.

01-06-2022 / Maritime

Ince is growing its Piraeus office with the addition of three shipping litigators, three ship finance experts, and an additional mariner to the admiralty team.

04-05-2022 / Maritime

Unicredit Bank AG v. Euronav NV (Sienna) [2022] EWHC 957 (Comm) This was a claim brought by a bank that financed the purchase of a cargo and subsequently sought to recover damages for misdelivery following discharge of the cargo without production of the original bill of lading. The claim failed because, in the circumstances of this case, the bill of lading that had been endorsed to the Bank did not contain or evidence the contract of carriage in respect of the cargo.

27-04-2022 / Maritime

In a charterparty dispute, the Court has set aside part of an arbitration award on the grounds that the arbitrator reached a conclusion that was contrary to the common position of the parties, and for which neither party contended, without providing an opportunity for the parties to address him on the issue. In the circumstances, this represented a failure to conduct the proceedings fairly. The decision provides useful guidance on how to proceed where a tribunal makes an obvious mistake in its award but declines to remedy it.

02-03-2022 / Maritime

Following recent developments in Ukraine, the international community has acted quickly in introducing sanctions against Russia, targeting a number of Russian entities and Russian individuals, including specified shipping companies and their vessels, as well as financial institutions. Key are the US, EU and UK sanctions against Russia. The scope of these sanctions is continuously evolving in response to the escalating situation and it is important for those who may be impacted to keep a close eye on daily developments.

24-11-2021 / Maritime

Navig8 Chemical Pools Inc v. Aeturnum Energy International Pte Ltd (Navig8 Ametrine) [2021] EWHC 3132 (Comm)

21-06-2021 / Maritime

Enemalta Plc v. Standard Club Asia Ltd (MV Di Matteo) [2021] EWHC 1215 (Comm)

18-03-2021 / Maritime

CVLC Three Carrier Corp and another v. Arab Maritime Petroleum Transport Company [2021] EWHC 551 (Comm)

12-02-2021 / Maritime

Noble Chartering Inc v. Priminds Shipping Hong Kong Co Ltd (Tai Prize) [2021] EWCA Civ 87

19-01-2021 / Maritime

This was a cargo damage claim which raised the issue of whether the P&I Club’s letter of undertaking amended the arbitration agreement contained in the bills of lading.

06-11-2020 / Maritime

Weco Projects APS v. Loro Piana and others (My Song) [2020] EWHC 2150 (Comm)

27-07-2020 / Maritime

Altera Voyageur Production Limited v. Premier Oil E&P UK Ltd (Voyageur Spirit) [2020] EWHC 1891 (Comm)

24-06-2020 / Maritime

A party named as the shipper in a bill of lading has successfully argued that it was not the shipper under the contract of carriage and that its inclusion in the bill of lading was a mistake.

07-05-2020 / Maritime

Classic Maritime Inc v. Limbungan Makmur Sdn Bhd and another company [2020] EWHC 619 (Comm) This was the latest dispute under a Contract of Affreightment (“COA”) between Classic Maritime Inc (“Owners”) and Limbungan Makmur Sdn Bhd (“Charterers”), with the Owners claiming damages for unperformed shipments under the COA. In reaching its decision, the Court relied closely on an earlier Court of Appeal judgment relating to the Owners’ claim for damages involving seven unperformed shipments.

12-02-2020 / Maritime

Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd v. Noble Chartering Inc (MV Tai Prize) [2020] EWHC 127 (Comm)

24-09-2019 / Maritime

Rubicon Vantage International Pte Ltd v. Krisenergy Ltd [2019] EWHC 2012 (Comm) The Commercial Court recently considered the scope of a parent company guarantee given with regard to a bareboat charterparty, which the parties agreed was, at least in part, an on-demand guarantee imposing an autonomous obligation on the guarantor to pay.

04-04-2019 / Maritime

Manchester Shipping Ltd v (1) Balfour Worldwide Ltd (2) Mr N V Sochin 2019 EWHC 194 (Comm)

24-01-2019 / Maritime

Uniteam Marine Shipping GMBH v. MS “United Tenorio” Schifffahrtsgesellschaft mbH (United Tenorio) [2018] EWHC 1593 (Comm) The Court has recently overturned an arbitration award that dealt with the construction of a termination clause in a crew management agreement. The Court found that the objective meaning of the clause based on the language used was sufficiently clear and the wider commercial considerations did not require a different result.

29-11-2018 / Maritime

Clearlake Shipping Pte Limited v. Privocean Shipping Limited (M/V Privocean) [2018] EWHC 2460 (Comm) In this case, the Master was negligent in insisting that the only safe stowage plan for the ship was one where cargo was part loaded in two holds and strapped, thereby incurring additional time and expense. In fact, the Master had been presented with an alternative stowage plan, which did not require strapping and this would have been perfectly safe, but the Master refused to use it.

12-06-2018 / Maritime

Sevylor v. Altfadul & SIAT (Baltic Strait) [2018] EWHC 629 (Comm) This case considers the extent of the damages that a bill of lading holder, as receiver of damaged goods, can claim from shipowners, in circumstances where the vessel’s charterers have already paid the receivers partial compensation for the cargo damage. The judgment also clarifies the applicability of sections 2(1) and 2(4) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) 1992 in these circumstances.

22-01-2018 / Maritime

Transgrain Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Yangtze Navigation (Hong Kong) Co Ltd (Yangtze Xing Hua) 2017 EWCA Civ 2107This recent Court of Appeal decision reaffirms the view that the word act in the phrase act or neglect in Clause 8(d) of the Inter-Club Agreement (the ICA) does not stretch to culpable act The Court of Appeal, upholding the first instance decision, held firm to the reasoning that the intention behind Clause 8 was to provide a mechanical apportionment of liability based on causation without comprising a fault-based analysis

07-09-2017 / Maritime

Dainford Navigation Inc. v. PDVSA Petroleo S.A. (Moscow Stars) [2017] EWHC 2150 (Comm) In this case, the Owners had exercised a contractual lien over their Charterers’ cargo on board the vessel due to failure to pay hire. The hire dispute was being resolved in arbitration proceedings but, during this time, the Owners’ vessel was effectively being used as a floating warehouse as the cargo could not be discharged into storage. The decision provides an illustration of when an owner can obtain an order for sale of cargo on board before the conclusion of arbitration proceedings, thereby releasing the vessel for other employment.

11-07-2017 / Maritime

Gard Shipping AS v. Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd (MV Zaliv Baikal) [2017] EWHC 1091 (Comm)

14-03-2017 / Maritime

Star Polaris LLC v HHIC-PHIL INC (Star Polaris) 2016 EWHC 2941nbspThe Commercial Court has recently considered the meaning of consequential or special losses, damages or expenses in a shipbuilding contract warranty Did the phrase have the traditional English law meaning or a particular meaning of its ownnbsp

26-01-2017 / Maritime

London Arbitration 3016nbspThis decision illustrates how disputes often arise under the NYPE Inter-Club Agreement (the ICA) even though it purports to be a simple, mechanical, knock-for-knock agreement nbspnbsp

18-10-2016 / Maritime

Imperator I Maritime Company v. Bunge SA (Coral Seas) [2016] EWHC 1506 (Comm) The Court has recently held that, in considering whether owners are in breach of a continuing performance warranty, it is no defence for the owners to show that the underperformance has been caused by underwater fouling following the charterers’ employment orders.

28-04-2016 / Maritime

Glencore International AG v. (1) PT Tera Logistic Indonesia and (2) PT Arpeni Pratama Ocean Line TBK [2016] EWHC 82 (Comm) The Commercial Court has recently considered whether notices of arbitration referring to “claims” and “all disputes” were effective to interrupt the running of time for a counterclaim. The Court held that, where both claims and counterclaims arose from a single set of facts and gave rise to a balance of accounts, then notices of arbitration referring to “claims” and “all disputes” are effective notices for the purposes of interrupting the running of time for a counterclaim.

16-02-2016 / Maritime

In October 2015, the 1946 and 1993 versions of the New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) form, which is the norm for time chartering dry bulk vessels, were substantially revised. The new version comprises 57 clauses and a detailed vessel description, to bring the form in line with current industry practices and recent legal changes. The key revisions are addressed below.

16-02-2016 / Maritime

Polaris Shipping Co. Ltd v. Sinoriches Enterprises Co. Ltd (Ocean Virgo) [2015] EWHC 3405 (Comm) The English High Court has issued useful guidance for underperformance disputes, which are commonplace these days under time charters for dry bulk carrier vessels.

02-11-2015 / Maritime

Hellenic Petroleum Cyprus Limited v. Premier Maritime Limited (Navigas 1) [2015] EWHC 1894 (Comm) Parties should be very careful when negotiating an agreement to ensure that there are no misunderstandings as to whether a contract has been concluded or not. In this case, it was not clear whether the parties had concluded a long-term charter and therefore, it was not clear whether there was a valid arbitration agreement. That confusion meant that time and costs were wasted seeking an arbitration award only to have it set aside by the English Court.

25-06-2015 / Maritime

Seaglance Maritime v. Casillo Commodities Italia SpA (M/V Proikonissos) [2015] EWHC 1369 (Comm) A tripartite agreement reached between the Owners, the Shippers and the Receivers provided that demurrage be paid to the Owners in the event that the Owners were found not liable for cargo contamination by an arbitration tribunal. The tripartite agreement was not specific as to which arbitration involving which parties would trigger the obligation for demurrage to be paid. The Court held that a party’s obligations under the tripartite agreement could not be triggered by an arbitration when that party was not part of the arbitration reference. The circumstances and the judgment highlight the importance of specificity when drafting settlement agreements. This is especially the case where there are contingencies for future events and where more than two parties are involved.

22-04-2015 / Maritime

Speed read The commercial understanding of the phrases “as is” or “as is where is” has always been that a buyer must take a yacht in the condition in which she is found at the time defined in the contract, all faults included, without any warranties by the seller as to quality or condition. This understanding has previously been questioned but has now been endorsed again in the English 2014 case of Michael Hirtenstein & Others v. Hill Dickinson LLP.

22-04-2015 / Maritime

Welcome to the first edition of the Ince & Co online Yachting Newsletter, which we shall be sending out on a regular basis to our valued yachting clients and contacts. In each Newsletter, we shall be reviewing relevant cases and regulatory developments that will be of interest to you and may impact on your business. Our focus will be on international legal and regulatory developments relating to yachtbuilding, sale and purchase, insurance and operational matters. We hope you enjoy the newsletter! Please let us know if you have any questions or comments about the articles, if you are interested in a particular topic or if you have any feedback or suggestions on the newsletter itself.

29-01-2015 / Maritime

Transgrain Shipping BV v. Deiulemar Shipping SpA & Another (Eleni P) [2014] EWHC 4202 (Comm) Parties should be very careful to ensure that no competing dispute resolution clauses are contained in the same contract. In this case, two competing arbitration clauses meant that it was unclear whether a time bar provision applied to a claim under the charterparty. The parties had to go to court to establish which arbitration clause applied.

28-01-2015 / Maritime

London Arbitration 18/14 – LMLN, 16 October 2014 If the vessel’s hull is fouled during a charter and there is no opportunity to clean it before delivery under the follow-on charter to the same charterer, is the owner liable for the underperformance during the second charter? According to the Tribunal in London Arbitration 18/14, on the facts of that case, the Owners were indeed liable.

20-10-2014 / Maritime

Michael Hirtenstein & Others v. Hill Dickinson LLP [2014] EWHC 2711 (Comm) It will be recalled that in the case of Dalmare SPA v. Union Maritime Ltd (Union Power) [2012] EWHC 3537 (Comm), the Commercial Court, albeit in obiter comments, expressed the surprising and contentious view that the words “as is where is” were likely not sufficient to exclude from a sale contract the implied terms of satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose under s.14 Sale of Goods Act 1979 (“SGA”).

20-10-2014 / Maritime

Viscous Global Investments Ltd. v. Palladium Navigation Corporation (Quest) [2014] EWHC 2654 In the context of cargo claims brought under four bills of lading, the Commercial Court has recently considered whether an arbitration provision in a Club Letter of Undertaking (LOU) had entirely replaced the arbitration agreement in the bills of lading. If it had not, the Cargo Interests may have been faced with a time bar argument in respect of some of their claims. Luckily for them, the Court found in their favour.

22-07-2014 / Maritime

Geden Operations Ltd v. Drybulk Handy Holdings Inc (Bulk Uruguay) [2014] EWHC 855 (Comm) The Commercial Court recently considered the principles applicable to anticipatory breach of contract in a charterparty dispute that came before the Court on appeal from a London arbitration award.

22-07-2014 / Maritime

Sun United Maritime Ltd v. Kasteli Marine Inc (IMME) [2014] EWHC 1476 (Comm) In this recent case, the Commercial Court has affirmed the jurisdiction of the appointed arbitrators to rule on whether the parties reached a binding agreement regarding the recoverable costs of the arbitration.

24-06-2014 / Maritime

London Arbitration 12/14, LMLN, 29 May 2014 This award is the latest of a number of court decisions and LMAA arbitration awards dealing with issues that frequently arise in time charterparty underperformance disputes.

20-01-2014 / Maritime

E.D.& F.Man Sugar Ltd. v. Unicargo Transportgesellschaft GmbH (Ladytramp) [2013] EWCA Civ 1449 This was a dispute as to whether destruction by fire was a “mechanical breakdown” under Clause 28 (laytime exclusion clause) of the charter. The Tribunal and the Commercial Court applied a narrow construction of the laytime exclusion clause and concluded that fire was not “mechanical breakdown”. The Court of Appeal upheld both the Tribunal's award and the Commercial Court's decision and, once again, ruled in favour of the Owners and found that they were entitled to demurrage.