London Arbitration 14/23

Under a T/C, delays in berthing followed the Vessel’s grounding at her Mississippi River anchorage.  With no berthing prospects in sight, and fearing another grounding, (but against advice of the local Pilots association), the Master shifted the Vessel to a 2nd anchorage where, as warned against, the Vessel swung 360◦ requiring her anchors to be disentangled with tug and pilot assistance. The Tribunal found (i) that although the first anchorage was safe for the Vessel, Charterers were nonetheless in breach of their ‘always afloat’ warranty and (ii) the Master’s choice was not unreasonable but the 2nd anchorage was unsafe, placing Charterers in breach of their warranty.  Owners’ claims for the costs of re-floating, shifting, re-anchoring and disentangling the anchors succeeded, as did their claim for withheld hire during the delayed berthing (even that part of the delay caused by the Master’s late action to disentangle anchors).

Previous
Previous

The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments Ltd [2023] EWHC 2638 – 23 October 2023 (Knowles J CBE)

Next
Next

JOL & Anor v JPM [2023] EWHC 2486 – 9 October 2023 (Foxton J)