Menu
Shipping E-Brief October 2018

News / / Beijing, Dubai, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Shipping E-Brief October 2018, Shipping E-Brief October 2018, Piraeus, Shanghai, Singapore

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

Our October 2018 edition of the Shipping E-Brief is full of articles dealing with topical shipping issues.  


Download the PDF version  

Missed a previous edition? Read them here:

Shipping E-Brief June 2018

Shipping E-Brief March 2018

Shipping E-Brief January 2018

Related sectors:

Featured news & insights

News / Court concludes delivery made in accordance with terms of LOIs

02-10-2018 / Maritime

Navig8 Chemical Pool v. Songa Chemicals AS (Songa Winds) [2018] EWCA 1901 (Civ) In this case, the Commercial Court found that letters of indemnity (LOIs) issued by the parties to a sale contract chain were valid and enforceable. Consequently, if the bank that financed the trade was ultimately successful in its misdelivery claim against the shipowner, it would be indemnified under the LOIs. The subsequent appeal was limited to whether a time bar clause in the voyage charterparty between two parties in the charterparty chain was incorporated into the relevant LOI with the effect of barring a claim made under that LOI. The Court of Appeal found that it was not and that the claim was not time-barred.

Court concludes delivery made in accordance with terms of LOIs

News / Deviation and the right to rely on contractual time bars

02-10-2018 / Maritime

Dera Commercial Estate v. Derya Inc (MV Sur) [2018] EWHC 1673 (Comm) The English Court has recently handed down a judgment considering whether parties are able to rely on contractual time bars, such as Article III Rule 6 of the Hague Rules, in circumstances where owners have ordered the vessel to deviate without the agreement of charterers. The judgment also gives useful guidance on the principles applicable to s. 41(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”) and the power conferred on an arbitral tribunal to dismiss a claim (or counterclaim) for “inordinate” or “inexcusable” delay.

Deviation and the right to rely on contractual time bars

News / Beat the clock! Practical considerations in dealing with last minute claims

02-10-2018 / Maritime

P v. Q (Capetan Giorgis) [2018] EWHC 1399 (Comm)  The Commercial Court has recently issued helpful guidance on how parties can protect themselves from last minute incoming claims if they are in a back-to-back charter chain. Among other things, the Court considered how to ensure that any claims can still be passed up or down the charter chain and what to do if a contractual time bar is missed in those circumstances.

 Beat the clock! Practical considerations in dealing with last minute claims

News / Hague Rules time limit applies to misdelivery claims

02-10-2018 / Maritime

Deep Sea Maritime Ltd v Monjasa A/S (The Alhani) [2018] EWHC 1495 (Comm) The Court has held that a ship-owner, who had delivered the shipper’s cargo to a third party without production of the relevant bill of lading, could nonetheless rely on the one-year time limit in Article III Rule 6 of the Hague Rules to defeat the shipper’s claim for misdelivery.

Hague Rules time limit applies to misdelivery claims

News / Financing bank liable for demurrage as intermediate holder of bills of lading

02-10-2018 / Maritime

Sea Master Shipping Inc v. Arab Bank (Switzerland) Limited (Sea Master) [2018] EWHC 1902 In a recent decision that will be of interest to ship-owners and trade finance banks alike, the Court has held that a bank, which becomes the lawful holder of bills of lading to protect its security interest in the cargo, becomes subject to the rights and obligations contained in those bills, including the arbitration clause.

Financing bank liable for demurrage as intermediate holder of bills of lading

News / What constitutes a “similar amendment” under the Interclub Agreement?

02-10-2018 / Maritime

Agile Holdings Corporation v. Essar Shipping Ltd (M/V Maria) [2018] EWHC 1055 (Comm) On appeal from an arbitration award, the Court has construed the scope of the words “similar amendment” in the Interclub Agreement (“the ICA”) and found that, in this case, there was no such amendment making the Master responsible for cargo handling and restricting the Charterers’ liability to a 50% indemnity for a cargo claim.

What constitutes a “similar amendment” under the Interclub Agreement?

News / Court finds different charterparty arbitration provisions did not conflict

02-10-2018 / Maritime

A v. B [2018] EWHC 1370 (Comm) This case involved a charterparty with two different, and potentially conflicting, arbitration provisions. The Court held that the arbitral tribunal should not have concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. In doing so, the Court helpfully set out how it will construe ambiguous and potentially conflicting contractual clauses. Where possible, such clauses should be read together and in context to avoid any potential conflict.

Court finds different charterparty arbitration provisions did not conflict

News / The Seatrade verdict: has scrapping just got a lot more onerous?

02-10-2018 / Maritime

The judgment of the District Court of Rotterdam in the Seatrade case in March 2018, in which a company and its two directors were found guilty of violating EU Regulation No. 1013/2006 of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (“EWSR”), has potentially wide-reaching implications for ship-owners based in Europe and beyond who are considering scrapping their vess

The Seatrade verdict: has scrapping just got a lot more onerous?

News / Court of Appeal confirms: privilege rules!

24-09-2018 / Maritime

Director of the Serious Fraud Office v. Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd and the Law Society [2018] EWCA Civ 2006 In a much anticipated decision, the Court of Appeal has held that a multinational corporation that came under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”) was entitled to assert litigation privilege over various categories of documents that had been generated as part of its internal investigation into a whistle-blower’s allegations of corruption within its organisation. In doing so, the Court of Appeal rejected the High Court’s more restrictive approach to litigation privilege.

Court of Appeal confirms: privilege rules!

News / Singapore Court agrees: make up your mind when choosing law and jurisdiction

02-10-2018 / Maritime

Shanghai Turbo Enterprises v. Liu Ming [2018] SGHC 172 Parties should not contract on a “floating” governing law clause – i.e. a clause that provides for two or more governing laws and leaves the exercise of the choice until a later stage. The English courts have traditionally found that such clauses are unenforceable. In this recent decision, the Singapore High Court accepted that Singapore law adopts a similar position to English law. Having struck down the governing law clause, the Court ruled further that an inextricably linked “floating” jurisdiction clause was also unenforceable. Parties to international contracts should carefully consider and expressly set out their choice of law and forum at the outset. Losing an enforceable law and jurisdiction clause can result in ceding serious tactical advantages in litigation.

Singapore Court agrees: make up your mind when choosing law and jurisdiction