Following an unpaid Judgment for damages for wrongful arrest of the vessel ‘Captain Silver’, the Claimants took enforcement steps, including an Asset Disclosure Order (ADO), which was disobeyed, resulting in a Contempt of Court ruling, a £100,000 fine on AGR (unpaid) and a 12-month Committal Order on its general manager, Mr AG. The latter applied to discharge the Committal Order on the grounds that whilst he was willing to comply with the ADO, he had no authority to do so because his co-signatories withheld consent. The Court declined: the Committal Order could not be discharged whilst the underlying Contempt remained and there were insufficient grounds to ‘purge’ the Contempt. Mr AG had failed to take adequate steps to obtain co-signatories’ support, and he could have at least partially complied with the ADO. Should he do so in future purging might be possible.

As part of a trade of shipping parcels of wheat from a Black Sea port to Turkey, Charterers engaged the subject Vessel. In repudiatory breach, Owners failed to perform the C/P. Charterers claimed (i) substitute vessel freight differential and (incongruously) (ii) storage charges for one less parcel shipped. Both claims were dismissed. The ‘substitute’ was in fact a vessel already chartered by and performing the trade for Charterers, having loaded and sailed before Owners’ repudiatory breach and before the subject Vessel would have arrived to load, so its freight rate was not reflective of a higher market rate at any material time. Storage charges, if ever incurred (this seemed unlikely as the ‘substitute’ - one of a stream of Charterers’ vessels - had carried the parcel) were equally irrecoverable as they pre-dated the repudiatory breach and could not have been caused by it.

Owners claimed a balance of T/C hire in an LMAA SCP arbitration. Charterers counterclaimed in respect of underperformance, but Owners argued that the counterclaim was not advanced within the mandatory time frame of Paragraph 5(g) of the SCP, obliging the Tribunal to shut it out. The Tribunal ruled that 5(g) was not a barring provision but nonetheless it could not adjudicate the counterclaim, as the T/C provided that in the event of a speed and consumption dispute, performance was to be analysed by “a mutually agreed weather routing company …whose findings will be final and binding” - which was absent. Owners were awarded their balance of hire claim (with some adjustments) and costs, but the Tribunal reserved jurisdiction to deal with Charterers’ counterclaim in the future, if advanced with a qualifying weather routing company analysis.

A T/C clause provided for underwater cleaning (necessitated by Charterers’ trading) to be done “at first workable opportunity and always at Charterers’ time and expense”. The Court on a s.69 appeal upheld the Tribunal’s ruling that post-redelivery cleaning time was reimbursable, and at the T/C rate (without Owners having to prove loss of time and damages suffered).

In the arbitration reported last week, Owners had alleged several breaches by Time Charterers and claimed USD160,000 resulting damages for a ‘lost fixture’, plus an alleged crew – war risk area – bonus.  The Tribunal had dismissed the latter and awarded damages only on the basis and in the (substantially smaller) amount admitted (and part-paid) by Charterers. Owners as ‘successful’ party sought 100% of their costs. The Tribunal took into account that Owners had failed to support claims promptly or at all; that Charterers correctly foresaw the outcome and made a WP offer accordingly, which indicated goodwill, although they failed to include interest or any costs.  The Tribunal ruled that Charterers bear their own costs and just 40% of Owners’ recoverable costs, from which the Tribunal excluded pre-action costs of general investigation not reflected in the arbitration claim.

Under an ongoing T/C trip Owners claimed and commenced arbitration for a USD3m balance of hire. Some 3 weeks later, the parties entered a T/C addendum resolving the disputes to date upon payment of USD1m by Charterers. Owners contended that the addendum was unenforceable for want of consideration. Charterers responded that the settlement of accrued disputes, including the relinquishment of their own claims, was the consideration. The Tribunal found that the addendum was valid and enforceable. Nevertheless, as Charterers failed to pay some US$200k subsequently accruing in respect of delay in berthing (as per invoice dated 4 weeks post addendum), the Tribunal agreed with Owners that such failure amounted to repudiatory breach of the addendum, which therefore fell away, leaving Owners’ rights those provided in the T/C, so their original claim succeed.