
Case Summaries
Imperator I Maritime Company v Bunge SA [2016]
“In a case of underperformance due to a prolonged stay in tropical waters, it is not a defence for owners to say that underperformance resulted from compliance with charterers' orders, unless the cause was a risk which owners had not assumed in the contract.”
FSL-9 PTE Ltd & An or v Norwegian Hull Club [2016]
“In an LOU dispute between Owners and Charterers' P&I Club, the LOU's use of the words "liberty to apply" did not mean undersecured Owners could apply to the Court for an increase in the amount of the LOU. Any right to enforce an increase in the amount of security lay against Charterers and not against the P&I Club directly, and in the event security was inadequate, Owners were not prevented from arresting Charterers' assets.”
(1) Suez Fortune Investments Ltd (2) Piraeus Bank AE v Talbot Underwriting Ltd [2016]
“Court refuses to revisit "unless" order striking out owners' claim of a vessel CTL against underwriters, due to owners' failure to disclose full electronic archives.”
Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore & Anor [2016]
“Owners served notice of arbitration to the email of a person related to, but distinct from Charterers. That was not valid service on charterers, even if in practice the person was handling the entirety of the contract on behalf of charterers. Also, although Charterers later became aware of the award but failed to react, neither their silence nor their inaction could be considered ratification.”
Shagang Shipping Co Ltd v HNA Group Co Ltd [2016]
“Following repudiatory breach of charter by a charterer, its guarantor was unable to convince the Court that the charter was procured by bribery so as to render the guarantee unenforceable by the disponent owner beneficiary. The Court found that evidence was insufficient and confessions of bribery unreliable, as they may have been obtained by torture.”
ST Shipping and Transport PTE LTD v SpaceShipping Ltd [2016]
“Under a Shelltime 4 Charterparty, the Vessel was not off hire when detained by Venezuelan authorities following illegal voyage orders (provided via Charterers' agents); further Charterers were liable pursuant to clause 13 to Owners in respect of the continued detention of the Vessel following redelivery by Charterers on expiry of the Charter term. Permission to appeal was refused.”