voyage charter case study

In case of emergency, Members and Correspondents are encouraged to contact the Claims Team direct whenever possible. A duty officer (by rota) is contactable on mobile phone number +44 7795 116602 to deal with any urgent matters if Members or Correspondents are unable to contact the appropriate Claims Team.

If there is a significant event preventing contact with Club personnel at their office, please call your usual contact on his/her mobile or our Emergency number:

Emergency no: +44 7795 116602

• Vessel search
• Correspondents
• Emergency contact

A time charter chain in a rising market

A case study in common time charter issues including: calculating the redelivery date and final hire due, withdrawal of the vessel from charter and the effect of withdrawal down the charter chain. 

• Download PDF

This news publication was put together with the assistance of Lewis Moore from Hill Dickinson who was instructed by Members in the case.

A recent Defence case for one of West’s charterer Members in the middle of a time charter party chain highlights a number of “core” charter party issues, with some surprising results.

The charter party:

West’s member was the time charterer in the middle of the charter chain. Both the head and sub charters provided:

• Redelivery of the vessel was to be latest 16 May plus any offhire periods, as long as charterers (in each case) gave notice at least 30 days before the charter party’s original redelivery date.
• On redelivery, charterers (in each case) had the right to deduct the value of redelivery bunkers (the bunker prices were agreed in the charters) “ from the last sufficient hire payments” . The value of bunkers on delivery at the agreed charter party prices amounted to more than US$400,000 which was equivalent to more than two full hire instalments at the sub charter hire rate and just over three full hire instalments at the (lower) head charter hire rate.
• There was a right of withdrawal of the vessel from charter with a grace period of three clear banking days.

Events leading to the dispute:

Whilst owners and sub charterers continued to dispute the issue, on 13 March sub charterers sub-fixed the vessel “on subjects” to perform a final voyage to the Persian Gulf. The vessel was fixed “firm” on 15 March.

Owners withdraw the vessel from charter:

This dispute came to a head on 15 March when hire instalments were due under both charters but no payment was made by charterers nor sub charterers, each maintaining that they were entitled to deduct the value of the redelivery bunkers from hire due up to the anticipated 20 April redelivery date.

Owners served an anti-technicality notice on Members on 16 March for a stated amount of unpaid hire and Members served an anti-technicality notice on sub charterers (stating a different amount of unpaid hire) on the same day. This was followed by a notice of withdrawal on Sunday 25 March sent by owners to Members and sub charterers which Members also forwarded to sub charterers on 25 March. Members served their own notice of withdrawal on sub charterers on Tuesday 27 March.

The vessel, which was unloading at the time, completed discharge on 29 March. 

Questions arising:

Charterers’ last voyage orders and the expected redelivery date under both charter parties:.

Q: What test does the tribunal apply and what evidence does the tribunal look at when assessing whether charterers’ last order was legitimate in that it would have enabled the vessel to be redelivered in time? The tribunal held that the appropriate test is whether the estimated redelivery date was one which “ could reasonably be held by any intelligent charterer ” ( The Mihalios Xilas [1978] ).

Q: What if sub charterers fix the vessel for a last (Pacific Gulf) voyage that owners are refusing to allow because owners calculate that the voyage will overrun the maximum charter party period – are owners entitled to argue that charterers’ estimate of the redelivery date should be based on this refused Pacific Gulf voyage? The tribunal held that, because owners were refusing to allow the vessel to perform a PG voyage as sub charterers had requested, owners were not then entitled to argue that a realistic redelivery date had to be based on the PG voyage. This was the case even though sub charterers had, in fact, fixed the vessel for a PG voyage.

Anti-technicality notices and withdrawal:

Because the tribunal held that the 20 April redelivery date that was given up the charter chain by sub charterers and Members was given in good faith and on reasonable grounds and that the amount of hire due was correctly calculated (based on this 20 April redelivery date), the tribunal held that there was no hire due but unpaid when owners served their anti-technicality notice on 20 March. Therefore, owners were themselves in repudiatory breach of the head charter and Members were in repudiatory breach of the sub charter by wrongly exercising the right to withdraw the vessel from charter for alleged non-payment of hire. Accordingly, the tribunal did not need to decide whether owners and Members had each exercised their right of withdrawal correctly or not. However, the award contains some useful (obiter) comments in this regard.

Q: What information needs to be included within an anti-technicality notice? In accordance with The Li Hai [2005], an anti-technicality notice “… will be sufficient as long as it states unambiguously, one way or another, that payment has not been received and gives the charterer  [X days/hours, ie the relevant charter party grace period] ultimatum to pay or lose the ship.”

Q: What if there is an error in the anti-technicality notice as regards the stated US$ amount owing – does this invalidate the notice?  The tribunal confirmed that an anti-technicality notice does not need to specify the amount of hire that is due. Instead, basis The Lutetian [1982], owners can leave it to charterers to calculate and pay the hire due. Therefore, since an anti-technicality notice does not need to specify the amount of hire that is due, the tribunal found that an anti-technicality notice that states the wrong amount does not, of itself, invalidate the anti-technicality notice.

Q : What if, after the anti-technicality is served, the charterer pays some of what owners says is overdue - do owners need to serve a fresh anti-technicality notice? No. The tribunal stated that this approach “ could lead to a string of anti-technicality notices while a charterer kept paying part only of the outstanding hire and retained the vessel in its service.”

Q: What if the grounds stated in the anti-technicality notice are wrong – does this invalidate the anti-technicality notice? The tribunal held that owners’ and Members’ statement that sub charterers were only entitled to deduct hire from the last hire payment (singular) was wrong as this contradicted the charter party which expressly provided that, on redelivery, charterers (in each case) had the right to deduct the value of redelivery bunkers “ from the last sufficient hire payments” (in the plural) and that this incorrect statement created a “genuine ambiguity ” for sub charterers. The tribunal held that owners’ and Members’ anti-technicality notices were therefore invalid.

Q: After serving an anti-technicality notice, how quickly do owners then need to withdraw the vessel before they are deemed to have waived their right to withdraw?  The tribunal referred to The Laconia [1977] where it was held that, where owners withdraw the vessel from charter, they must do so within “a reasonable time” and that   “What is a reasonable time - essentially a matter for arbitrators to find - depends on the circumstances. In some, and indeed many cases, it will be a short time - vis. the shortest time reasonably necessary to enable the shipowner to hear of a default and issue instructions”. Further, t he tribunal held that, in order to determine whether owners have waived the right to withdraw the vessel, the tribunal looks at whether or not owners have delayed in withdrawing the vessel, not at whether or not charterers have relied on the length of time taken before owners withdraw the vessel. In this case, owners and Members each served their anti-technicality notice on 16 March and the 3 clear banking days under the anti-technicality notices expired on 21 March. Members withdrew the vessel on 27 March. The tribunal commented that for Members to wait until 27 March to withdraw the vessel was, in their opinion, “ far longer than “reasonably necessary” in the circumstances of the case ”. Owners, on the other hand, purported to withdraw the vessel 2 days earlier than Members, namely on Sunday 25 March. The tribunal commented: “ This does of course make [owners’] position somewhat stronger than that of [Members ]”, although also noting that owners’ “ continued performance of the Charterparty for in excess of a further 2 days (both of which were working days) after the assumed right to withdraw arose could be taken as evidencing their election not to withdraw the Vessel from the Head Charter ”. Whilst the tribunal did not need to come to a conclusion one way or the other on this point, it can be seen from this that owners should exercise their right of withdrawal very promptly – probably within a maximum of 3 days in most cases – or owners will run the risk of being held to have waived their right of withdrawal.

The middle charterer’s position in a charter chain:

Q: What is charterers’ position vis a vis sub charterers where owners have withdrawn the ship from charter but charterers have not, either because charterers are not entitled to withdraw under the terms of their sub charter or because charterers have delayed and waived their right to withdraw? Whilst owners served their notice of withdrawal on Members and sub charterers on 25 March and Members forwarded this notice on to sub charterers on the same day, Members did not ask sub charterers to treat owners’ message as having come from Members. Accordingly, the tribunal found that the withdrawal of the vessel from the sub charter – had the withdrawal been valid – would only have taken place when Members served their own withdrawal notice on sub charterers on 27 March, not on 25 March (and see above). However, since the attempted/purported withdrawal of the vessel was invalid, the tribunal commented that it amounted to (an automatic) repudiatory breach of the sub-charter by Members.

The calculation of damages:

Q. Where owners have withdrawn the vessel from charter wrongfully, can charterers claim damages from owners for the actual loss of profit that charterers have suffered or are charterers limited to claiming the difference between the charter and (higher) prevailing market rate? After fixing the vessel “on subjects”, on 15 March sub charterers fixed firm the vessel to sub sub charterers (with a laycan of 1-9 April) for an intended PG voyage. When Members subsequently served their withdrawal notice on sub charterers, sub charterers nominated a substitute vessel. Unfortunately, however, this substitute vessel’s schedule subsequently slipped, causing her to miss her laycan and the fixture fell through. Both owners’ and sub charterers’ expert agreed that there was an available market when the charter party was terminated. In these circumstances, and even though sub charterers here had sub-fixed at a rate that was higher than the prevailing market rate, the tribunal held that sub charterers were not entitled to this (larger) damages claim and that sub charterers could only claim the “normal”, market loss measure of damages, namely the difference between the charter and (higher) market rate.

Q: For what period can charterers claim these market loss damages for? The tribunal held that the period over which damages should be payable was from 25 March (Members’ purported withdrawal of the vessel from charter) not up to 20 April or any of the likely actual redelivery dates (for either the Egyptian or PG voyages) but to 18 May, namely the maximum charter party period permitted to sub charterers, including added offhire periods. This, the tribunal found, was the correct period because this was the (maximum) charter period which sub charterers had lost by reason of the wrongful withdrawal from charter. Of course, if sub charterers had given an estimated redelivery date of 18 May, additional hire would have been due.

In this case, therefore, sub charterers were held to be entitled to have their cake and eat it: they were entitled to pay hire less estimated bunkers only up to their 20 April estimated redelivery date and yet were awarded damages up to the 18 May maximum charter party period (albeit “only” at the charter versus market rate).

Costs issues:

The arbitration was expensive for all parties, particularly for owners.

• There were three days of concurrent hearings, two witnesses of fact, two expert witnesses and a lot of law, giving rise to two awards with 57 pages of reasons. The Tribunal’s fee for the two awards was £130,000. Head owners paid both;
• Sub charterers recovered from Members £265,000 costs, of which, £248,000 was paid by head owners. Members recovered a further £100,000 in costs from head owners;
• Sub charterers’ claim against Members was for slightly over US$386,000. Members claimed against sub charterers a balance of account and an indemnity for the costs of discharge the cargo on board at the time of termination, totalling approx. US$350,00. Against this, sub charterers’ net recovery in damages against Members was US$110,000, most of which was probably swallowed by sub charterers’ own unrecovered costs. Members’ net position overall was that they were out of pocket by approx. US$62,000.

There was no real winner, but one massive loser.

Download brochure

SEE OUR LATEST CASES AND NEWS

OUR FIRM HAS EXCELLENT PROFESIONALS WITH EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN MARITIME LAW

WE PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE LEGAL ADVICE TO THE MARITIME TRANSPORT INDUSTRY

WE ANTICIPATE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS AND PROVIDE SOLUTIONS TO EXISTENT DISPUTES

WE ARE SPECIALIZED IN THE FIELD OF IN MARITIME AND TRANSPORT LAW

Allocation of Risk of Delay in Time and Voyage Charterparties

The impact of freedom of contract and new procedures in

international maritime transport (ISPS Code) [i]

By María B. Espiñeira

[email protected]

The purpose of this article is to develop the most relevant aspects involved in the liability system arising from delays in two major contracts of the maritime sector: the time and the voyage charterparties.

Within the usual context of maritime transport, it is quite frequent to find charterers who have been demanded to pay large amounts of money for having caused delays, and carriers facing huge economic losses for having their vessels detained in ports. As it will be evidenced throughout this article, the analysis and understanding of the liability system emerging from delays is arousing interest in all the parties somehow involved in maritime adventure. This is also a reason why I chose this as the subject matter of this article.

In view of providing an introduction to the issue and facilitating the understanding, you will find below the main themes to be addressed:

(1) differences between the two abovementioned contracts, so as to identify liabilities in cases of delay at each stage of execution;

(2) impact of freedom of contract on the allocation of liabilities;

(3) samples of tools that each party possess so as to transfer risks to each other;

(4) how progress in procedures of international transport, especially, after the entry into force of the ISPS Code [ii] , may alter the balance of liability in contracts if it is not considered when entering into an international contract of carriage.

Finally, the reader will find the author’s opinion.

I.- General Considerations

The core difference between the charterparties lies in their service conditions.

Under the voyage charter-party [iii] , a space in a vessel is provided by the shipowner to the charterer for the transport of cargo, without prejudice to time, in exchange of the payment of freight. Under the time charter-party, [iv] the shipowner places his vessel at the charterer’s disposal and commits himself to perform voyages during a specific period of time within the contract’s terms and conditions, in exchange of the payment of hire. [v]

In view of the above, and notwithstanding the clarifications I will provide on the next pages, it is understood that once the time charterers have the vessel at their disposal, they will try to engage her into new contracts of carriage so as to have her operative as much time as possible to make her economically effective and to avoid losses due to delays.

On the other hand, in voyage chartering, the charterer —or shipper— will usually place the cargo at the time and location agreed so that the shipowner —carrier— can transport it. The charterer will be liable for any delay occurring before or after the voyage while the shipowner will be liable for any delay occurring during the voyage. [vi]

In the following paragraphs, you will find the description of the various stages of execution of each charterparty. On the basis of this, I will set forth the allocation of risks of delay and the subsequent liabilities.

II.- Delays in Voyage Charterparty

It is evident from the above described that the voyage charterparty is a typical contract of carriage of goods, in which the freight rate depends on the service provided by the vessel and not on the time such service demands. Therefore, the loss of time at sea is borne by the party receiving the freight rate, i.e., the shipowner [vii] .

Both in the English Law and in the Argentine Navigation Act (article 271) [viii] the traditional allocation of liabilities during the loading and discharging operations is based on the alongside rule, by which liabilities involved during the transport, loading, and discharging operations rest with the carrier until the “cargo is placed alongside the ship.”

Traditionally, voyage charting has been divided in four stages during which, unless otherwise stipulated, the risk of delay has always been undertaken by the carrier.

Those four stages are the following:

1) preliminary voyage (from wherever the ship is, to the loading port) 2) loading operation (delivery of the cargo at the place of loading and its stowage on board) 3) carrying voyage (from loading port to discharging port) 4) discharging operation. [ix]

Notwithstanding, the Navigation Act gives the parties the possibility of deviating from this traditional rule. In fact, the usual procedures in maritime transport evidence that the parties prefer contracts on f.i.o.s. or f.i.o. [x] terms by virtue of which the charterer assumes the costs and liabilities for the loading/discharging operations on board and ashore. Under this contracting modality, in the absence of an express contrary provision [xi] , the general rule indicates that every delay occurring during the preliminary voyage (stage 1) and the carrying voyage (stage 3) falls upon the shipowner (carrier), while every delay occurring during the loading/discharging operations will be assumed by the charterer (shipper or consignee). [xii]

It is essential for the understanding of this article to accurately determine the limits of the abovementioned stages, since the conclusion of each defines the moment at which the risk is transferred.

Regarding the end of stages 1 and 3, the English case law sets forth:

a) When the ship arrives at port (“arrived ship”) [xiii] ,

b) When the Master issues a valid Notice of Readiness [xiv] to the consignee, and

c) When the vessel is in fact ready to be loaded/discharged. [xv]

In other words, only when these three requirements are fulfilled, the risk of delay is transferred from shipowner to charterer, who starts being responsible for the delays taking place during the loading and discharging operations.

II.I. Laytime/ Demurrage

Building on the previous item, the conclusion of stages 1 and 2 not only determines the transfer of risk of delay on the charterer, but it also indicates the beginning of the laytime.

The laytime refers to the period of time, contractually agreed, during which the charterer is allowed to perform and complete, at the port of call [xvi] , cargo loading and discharging operations. This time is deemed to be included in the payment of freight and as long as it is not over, the vessel is considered to be at the charterer’s disposal [xvii] .

Once the laytime is over, those delays occurring during the loading/discharging operations will cause damages to the shipowner and they will be compensated by the charterer with damages for demurrage or detention. [xviii]

“Demurrage” is commonly defined by the English doctrine as “liquidated damages.” It is contractually agreed by the parties and it consists of a compensation which will be paid by the charterer (or consignee) to the shipowner in case the loading and discharging operations exceed the time agreed for their execution, i.e. when they exceed the laytime. [xix]

The Argentine legal system defines “demurrage” in a similar way, and it identifies its legal nature with that of a penalty clause; that is, an anticipated assessment of damages resulting from not having completed the loading/discharging operations within laytime and extending the stay of the vessel at port. [xx]

To receive this compensation, the shipowner does not need neither to comply with any additional requirement nor to prove the occurrence of any damage. Typically, this compensation includes the loss of freight caused by the delay.

Moreover, once the loading and discharging operations are completed, the risk of delay, for whatever reason, is transferred again to the shipowner unless expressly stated to the contrary in the contract or the cause of delay is attributable to the charterer (shipper). After the risk is transferred, the charterer can start a new voyage.

However, if the loading/discharging operations are not completed within the term provided for that, the risk of any damage which the vessel may suffer —either loss of time due to any reason (strikes, wars, etc.) or for other causes (damages, etc.)— will be continually borne by the charterer. [xxi]  If such damages occur, the charterer must compensate the shipowner (carrier).

This is grounded on the fact that if the ship had not been delayed beyond the agreed term, it would have been at open sea and it would not have suffered the damages which happened later. Exceptions will be accepted provided those were included in the contract by clear, accurate, and defining terms. [xxii] Ambiguous exception clauses will not be accepted in many jurisdictions (like the English one).

It is relevant to point out that the Argentine Navigation Act, in its article 248, [xxiii] regulates this matter in a subsidiary manner to what the parties agree. Therefore, according to the customary practices of the local and international transportation, this article is rarely applied, since the “standard” charterparties usually regulate the responsibility for delay, excluding the subsidiary application of this legal provision.

II.II. Voluntary Allocation of Risk of Delay: Exception Clauses

Based on the possibility that delay may be contractually agreed by the parties, [xxiv] the described system of responsibility could include exception clauses aimed at transferring risks of delay to the shipowner during the loading/discharging operations and to the charterer (shipper) before arriving at the port or berth.

For instance, it may occur that after having arrived at the port, the vessel is unable to get to the discharging berth for various reasons, like congestion, not having met the customs/port requirements, bad weather, strikes at the port/by port authorities, or others. Given these circumstances, since the ship is not ready (as per the sense of “arrived ship” and ready to discharge, mentioned above), the laytime would not start running, and the delay would still be borne by the shipowner and could not be transferred to the charterer.

However, one of the resources the shipowners have to avoid the situation described is to include in the contract a clause similar to the one stated below.

Demurrage Clause included in GENCON 1994:

“If the loading/discharging berth is not available on the Vessel’s arrival at or off the port of loading/discharging, the Vessel shall be entitled to give notice of readiness within ordinary office hours on arrival there, whether in free pratique or not, whether customs cleared or not. Laytime or time on demurrage shall then count as if she were in berth and in all respects ready for loading/ discharging provided that the Master warrants that she is in fact ready in all respects. Time used in moving from the place of waiting to the loading/ discharging berth shall not count as laytime.”

Through the insertion of this text in the contract, laytime would start counting and the risk would be transferred to the charterer (shipper) even before the beginning of the loading and discharging operations. As it can be seen, this clause grants great benefits to the carrier, particularly, in charterparties to berth.

Notwithstanding this, for the benefit of the shipper, it can be contractually provided that the laytime starts running only when the weather conditions allow the loading/discharging operations. Accordingly, GENCON 1994 says:

“The cargo shall be loaded within the number of running days/hours as indicated (…), weather permitting, Sundays and holidays excepted, unless used, in which event time used shall count.”

In order to counterbalance the effects of this clause, the shipowner should include the phrase “weather permitting or not”, or “as long as the conditions permit the discharge or not.” Then, laytime would start counting without prejudice to the weather conditions permitting the loading/discharging operations or not.

III.- De lays in Time Charterparties

Following the same study methodology used in the description of the voyage charterparty, I will divide the time charterparty into its different stages of execution so as to identify each party’s liabilities for delay emerging from each stage.

Thus, the time charterparty can be divided into three stages:

1) preliminary voyage (towards the discharging port as agreed) 2) free use of vessel (within the contract limits) 3) last voyage (towards the port of return).

The responsibility system works differently in this contract.

Based on the fact that the hire rate estimation is strictly related to the period of time during which the charterer controls the operation of the vessel and her holds, the risk of loss of time during all that period is placed on him. [xxv]

The shipowner will not be concerned about optimizing the use of the ship since he will only bear the losses arising from delays occurred while the ship is under his control, i.e., during the preliminary voyage (first stage). (28) [xxvi]

Once the charterer is in charge of the vessel’s exploitation (second stage), and pursuant to Argentine Navigation Act, art. 236, unless otherwise expressed, the hire shall be paid on a monthly basis and in advance, [xxvii]  giving the charterer the chance of exempting himself from the payment due to causes not attributable to him, when he is not able to use the ship, and especially, when the vessel has to be immobilised for more than 24 hours so that the shipowner can comply with his duties related with the conservation of the vessel seaworthiness conditions. [xxviii]

According to the English doctrine, the hire must be paid on a regular and uninterrupted basis and in advance, and the only way the charterer has to exempt himself from paying the rate for the delay of the vessel is by arguing and proving any of the factual situations stipulated in the off-hire clauses. Otherwise, the losses for delay shall be undertaken by him.

The off-hire clauses are usually found in time charterparties and they consist of exceptions of payment of the hire during certain periods when the vessel is partially or totally (as agreed) inoperative for the charterer due to accidents or problems in the ship which are not attributable to him. These clauses are triggered by the mere occurrence of the situations provided in them, without prejudice to the charterer’s fault. Whenever the vessel is included in off-hire clauses, the charterer will have the right to receive the adjustment of the hire rate. [xxix]

Moreover, during the third stage of the time charterparty, i.e. during the voyage of return, the greatest risk the charterer assumes is the late return of the vessel at the place agreed in the contract. [xxx]  This late return may cause considerable economic damages to the shipowner, and if these occur, the charterer will have to compensate them.

The rate of liquidated damages [xxxi] will be estimated by considering the current values in the international market [xxxii] . The charterer will only be released from his responsibility of returning the vessel in due form and time in case an express, clear, and accurate exception clause had been included in the contract. [xxxiii]

Various English Courts have decided that the risk of late return of the vessel is transferred to the party receiving her when the charterparty includes a “without guarantee clause”. [xxxiv] By virtue of this clause, the charterer will not be responsible for the late return when time provided for the conclusion of the contract and the return of the vessel were given in good faith. [xxxv]

III.I. Voluntary Allocation of Risk of Delay: Off-Hire Clause

As explained above, under this type of contract, the charterer bears the losses for delay of the vessel during the voyage, even when there is no fault from him and the cause of such delay is attributable to the same ship. The only exceptions to the shipowner’s right to receive the hire rate are provided by Argentine Navigation Act, article 237, or by an off-hire clause in the contract. [xxxvi]

It should be taken into account that off-hire clauses may contemplate various situations and that, usually, the parties change the standard clauses provided by international standard contracts.

There are two kinds of off-hire clauses: the net loss of time and the period off-hire clause. Under the first one, the right to receive the hire is interrupted when the vessel is delayed and the charterer cannot use it for the purpose he is expected to complete at that moment. Under the period off-hire clause, such right is interrupted when the vessel is detained, without prejudice to the real utility of the vessel for the charterer [xxxvii] .

The following are the most frequent situations causing delays in vessels and that are usually considered in off-hire clauses:

a) Flaws, cracks, faults, or failures in the vessel’s hull, machinery, or equipment.

b) Maintenance repairs and operations in the vessel, including dry dock.

c) Every non-compliance, defective compliance, or slow compliance by the vessel’s Master/Officers/Crewmembers of directions given by the charterer or to provide the services he requires.

d) Seizure or requisition,

e) Deviation,

f) Strikes and/or stoppages by port authorities or others,

g) Failure to comply with ISPS Code requirements.

h) The clause can also read “any other cause whatsoever” [xxxviii] , meaning any other cause giving rise to defective operation or the complete impossibility to operate the vessel.

By merely including off-hire clauses and proving the occurrence of any of the cases contemplated in them, the risk of delay is transferred to the shipowner, who will not receive the hire rate during the period when the vessel is delayed or not able to fully operate. [xxxix]

IV.- New Procedures in International Maritime Transport and the Risk of Delay [xl]

In view of the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, the international maritime community, made up of representatives from different sectors, fostered the enactment of the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code [xli] , aimed at providing the best possible security in vessels and at port facilities.

Those circumstances in which the ISPS Code rules are applicable usually result in delays at the vessel’s entry into and/or exit from the port. For example, if a ship does not count with ISPS Certificates, proving the vessel complies with the Code requirements [xlii] , she will not be allowed to enter the port, or at least, this situation will cause loss of time for all the interested parties in the maritime adventure.

This is the reason why these new procedures should be taken into consideration, and the international contracts of carriage should include clauses stipulating guidelines to balance the liabilities for delay at ISPS ports and to avoid the surprising occurrence of non-contemplated damages.

It is important to point out that even when the vessels have the mentioned ISPS certificates, the port authorities are entitled to perform controls which could also generate delays.

Regarding the voyage charterparty, the English case law holds that such controls are mere formalities which do not prevent the vessel from being ready for the Master to send the Notice of Readiness [xliii]  to the receiver of the cargo or to its legitimate representative. [xliv] At this moment, the responsibility for the delay may be transferred to the charterer although the ship has not passed the controls performed by the ISPS authority yet.

However, if the vessel does not have the documents required by the ISPS Code and she has not passed the controls, the loss of time inputted to such controls will not be considered mere formality and the resulting delay will be borne by the owner.

This conclusion arises from the assumption that the vessel was not in the seaworthy condition necessary to undertake the voyage and that the legal requirements to enter the port were not fulfilled.

In respect of time charterparty, since the charterer is obliged to nominate the port of destination and to make the proper inquiries so as to comply with the legal requirements of the nominated port, any delays which may occur at such port will be attributed to the charterer, unless that particular circumstance was expressly included in an off-hire clause.

In usual maritime practice at ISPS ports, it may occur that both charterers and owners bear losses for delay, even when they are not effectively responsible for them. In order to avoid such uneven situation, I suggest including terms regulating the contractual relationship between the parties under these circumstances.

An illustrative sample can be found in BIMCO ISPS/MTSA Clause for Voyage Charterparty, which says the carrier shall comply with the ISPS Code requirements and the charterer shall provide the owner with relevant documents/information necessary to meet such requirements. Loss, damages, expense or delay caused by failure on any party to comply with the requirements shall be for that party’s account, except as otherwise provided in the charterparty. It also sets forth that provided that the delay is not caused by the owners’ failure to comply with their obligations, notwithstanding anything to the contrary provided in the charterparty, the vessel shall be entitled to tender Notice of Readiness. Besides, any delay resulting from measures imposed by a port facility or by any relevant authority shall count as laytime, unless such measures result solely from the negligence of the owners, Master or crew or the previous trading of the vessel, the nationality of the crew or the identity of the owners’ managers.

In time charterparties, I suggest including a clearly expressed off-hire clauses involving cases of delay related to the Code provisions, since under certain legal systems, such as the English one, the mere addition of a generic exception clause is not enough to include, within the assumptions of that clause, the delay caused by controls of ISPS port authorities. [xlv]

Moreover, it is also highly recommended to include specific clauses, such as those provided in BIMCO ISPS/MTSA Time Charterparty (similar to what was above described), where the risk of delay is evenly allocated between the parties specifically breaching their contractual obligations.

V.- Conclusion s

It has been evidenced throughout this article that the delay is an aspect of the charterparties which the parties can administrate at their own will, and that the allocation of liabilities entirely depends on the contractual terms agreed by them.

Just as it was illustrated, it is interesting to highlight that the parties count with the possibility of including in their contracts specific clauses aimed at even out, as in a clock’s pendulum, the liabilities arising from delays. This means that a specific clause can shift the sphere of responsibility from one party to the other and vice versa.

This power of the parties to contractually decide on the terms of delay and the possible harmful consequences which could result from the fact of not including in the contracts situations as those described in this article make it essential to count with highly specialised legal counselling.

Finally, you may have noticed the last item in this article makes reference, by means of the example of the ISPS Code, to the influence of the constant evolution of the international rules in the regime of liabilities for delay. By virtue of this, it has also been proved that the nature of admiralty law —particularly, its dynamism and internationality— is still present in this aspect of the transport, making the continuous updating and adjustment of contracts essential needs in order to avoid the surprising occurrence of great economic losses.

(*)  Article published in the magazine Ateneo del Transporte, Revista de Estudios Marítimos,  No. 53, pages 82 to 94.

[i] The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code

[ii] Argentina is party to the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code.

[iii] Argentine Navigation Act, art. 241.

[iv] Argentine Navigation Act, art. 227.

[v] John F. Wilson, Carriage of Goods by Sea, Pearson Longman, Sixth Edition, 2007. Chapters 1, 3, and 4.

[vi] It should be pointed out that, in both cases, the shipowners retain the control over the equipment and the crew, and they agree to provide a transport service. However, the difference is in the allocation of costs and liabilities for delay in the voyage.

[vii] Martin Dockray, Cases and Materials on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, Cavendrich Publishing, Third Edition, Chapter 1.

[viii] Argentine Navigation Act, art. 271: The carrier shall proceed in an adequate and appropriate way to the loading, manipulation, stowage, carriage, custody, and discharge of the cargo. The party may agree that the loading and discharging operations, unless in their public law aspect, are in charge of the shipper and consignee. This shall be duly expressed in the Bill of Lading or in other documents replacing it.

[ix] Omisis

[x] F.i.o.s: Free in out stow. F.i.o: Free in out.

[xi] These exception clauses will be explained in detail in the following paragraphs.

[xii] The Johanna Oldendorff, House of Lords, 18 July 1972, [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285. Lord Dicplock at 304, reproduced by the sentence issued by the House of Lords in The Aello, making reference to a voyage charter.

[xiii] John F. Wilson, Carriage of Goods by Sea, Pearson Longman, Sixth Edition, 2007. Chapter 3 and The Johanna Oldendorff, House of Lords, 18 July 1973, [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285. Argentine case law considers the vessel arrived when she is at the geographical and legal surrounding area of the port, usually understood as that by the common sense of the users of the port. For example, the area assigned for the vessels to wait (note this is not the same in every jurisdictions)

[xiv] “Valid” means sent to the person allowed to receive the cargo or his/her legitimate representative, at due time and form as agreed in the contract. Some jurisdictions consider the ship is ready when the loading and discharging operations in fact start, even when a valid Notice of Readiness has not been sent to the shipper or consignee (“Transgrain Shipping B. C/ Global Transporte Oceanico S.A.” [the “Mexico 1”], Court of Appeal, 31 January 1990, 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 507, in this case, the Appeals Chamber applied the Doctrine of the Stoppel, which in Argentina is known as Doctrina de los Actos Propios).

[xv] “Ready” means qualified in three senses: physical conditions, customs requirements, and sanitary demands. Ready to start the loading or discharging operations as required without significant delays for the consignee.

[xvi]  Stowage time is considered part of the loading operations, and as long as stowage is not finished, the risk of delay is not transferred to the shipowner.

[xvii] Notwithstanding this, take into consideration that if the loading and discharging operations are completed before the end of laytime, the charterer is not entitled to retain the vessel for having her at his disposal. When the operations finish, the vessel is no longer at his disposal.

[xviii] Unless otherwise provided by the contract or the delay is caused by the vessel’s fault or interest.

[xix] John F. Wilson, Carriage of Goods by Sea , Pearson Longman, Sixth Edition, 2007. Chapter 3.

[xx] Luis Beltrán Montiel, Curso de Derecho de la Navegación , Astrea de Alfredo y Ricardo Depalma, 1976, page 248. And J. Domingo Ray, Contratos de utilización de buques y fletamento , 1962. They argue this is a contractual compensation.

[xxi] Note the parties can agree on deviating from the rule “once in demurrage, always in demurrage”.

[xxii] “Union of India c/ Compañía Naviera Aeolus S.A.”, House of Lords, October 8, 1962, [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 175, “If a strike occurs before the end of the laytime neither party can be blamed in any way. But if it occurs after demurrage has begun to accrue the owner might well say: true, your breach of contract in detaining my ship after the end of the laytime did not cause the strike, but if you had fulfilled your contract the strike would have caused no loss because my ship would have been on the high seas before it began.”

[xxiii] Argentine Navigation Act, art. 248: “In absence of express provision in charterparty, laytime solely comprise working days. The customary practice of the port shall determine the duration and the moment from which it start counting, as well as demurrage duration, amount, time and mode of payment. In case it does not exist customary practice, laytime shall be judicially determined and the duration of demurrage shall be half the working days corresponding to laytime and it shall be computed in running days.”

[xxiv] As for example, by hours or days, in relation to the amount of cargo loading or discharged by hour or day, or according to the customary practice of the place, or as fast as the vessel can be loaded/discharged. It can also be allocated in a proportion of 50/50 for each party, etc.

[xxv] “Torvald Klaveness A/S c/ Arni Maritime Corporation” (The “Gregos”), House of Lords, October 27, 1994, [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1.

[xxvi] Argentine Navigation Act, art. 230, provides the charterer with the right to rescind the contract, prior written notice, in cases when the shipowner does not place the vessel at his disposal in the time and form as agreed in the contract. It also sets forth that the compensation for damages shall be estimated in view of the circumstances of each case.

[xxvii] Argentine Navigation Act, art. 236: Unless otherwise stipulated, the hire rate shall be paid on a monthly basis and in advance, and in absence of said payment, the shipowner may terminate the contract, prior notice to the charterer, and withdraw the vessel from the charterer’s disposition with a simple order to the Master (…)”.

[xxviii] Argentine Navigation Act, art. 237: “The hire rate shall not be demandable when the charterer is not able to use the vessel, due to causes not attributable to him; especially, when she needs to be immobilized for more than 24 hours so that the shipowner can perform his duties relating to the conservation of the navigation conditions (…)”.

[xxix] The adjustment clause may be express or implied, provided that the adjustment is estimated in good faith and on reasonable grounds.

[xxx] The shipowner will be interested in recovering the vessel within the time agreed because most possibly, he has committed to enter into a new charterparty before the end of the one in course.

[xxxi] It will be estimated considering the values in the international market for the time chartering under similar terms.

[xxxii] In cases of late return, article 233 of Argentine Navigation Act says: “(…) For the days exceeding such date, the charterer shall pay a rate determined by the international market for this type of chartering, provided this is higher than the one stipulated in the contract.”

Furthermore, international case law indicates that the shipowner shall be compensated for the loss of hire he could not receive plus the difference the market may demand and the loss of profit caused by the late return (e.g. cancelation of other charterparty). For more information, see the English leading case “Transfield Shipping Inc. c/ Mercator Shipping Inc.” (The Achilles), [2008] UKHL 48: 9 July 2008.

In case of anticipated return, the compensation shall be the payment of the complete hire rate, plus all the expenses (e.g. fuel) incurred by the shipowner during that charter period less the amount he saved for not having the vessel in operation. Both solutions seem to be accepted by our courts to the extent the Navigation Act sets forth the damages shall be defined as per the circumstances of the case (following the opinion of Luis Beltrán Montiel in his book Curso de Derecho de la Navegación ).

[xxxiii] Example, Clause 18 from Shelltime 3: “Notwithstanding the provisions of clause 3 hereof, should the vessel be upon a voyage at the expiry of the period of this charter, Charterers shall have the use of the vessel at the same rate and conditions for such extended time as may be necessary for the completion of the round voyage on which she is engaged and her return to a port of redelivery as provided by the charter.”

[xxxiv] Example: “the vessel shall be redelivered to owners at «X» Port, 70/80 days from the delivery date, without guarantee”.

[xxxv] Besides, take into account that adding the word “about” in the contract term clause in considered, in some jurisdictions, an implicit acceptance of reasonable tolerance.

[xxxvi]  Martin Dockray, Cases and Materials on the Carriage of Goods by Sea , Cavendich Publishing, Third Edition, Chapter 15.

[xxxvii] For instance, if the vessel cannot navigate for a technical flaw in the motor, and it is detained at port while the cargo loading operations are taking place, although the vessel is immobilized, it is not for the charterer’s purposes since the corresponding operations can be performed without suffering loss of time.

[xxxviii] In some jurisdictions, especially those under the Common Law, the use generic terms should be avoided, since they may be restrictively interpreted.

[xxxix] If the Navigation Act were applicable, its article 237 determines that the charterer cannot be exempted from the payment when the immobilization was caused by a forced arrival prompted by perils of the sea, groundings, damages suffered by the cargo or acts from national or foreign authorities. The payment shall be owed during all the period of immobilization, discounting the expenses for repairs or costs saved by the shipowner as a consequence of the immobilization.

[xl] Baris Soyer and Richard Williams: “Potential legal ramifications of the International Ship and Port Facilities Security (ISPS) Code on Maritime Lay, Lloyd’s Maritime and commercial Lay Quarterly”, [2005] L.M.C.L.Q. 515.

[xli] International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. This code is binding for 148 countries which are parties to the SOLAS Convention and it imposes obligations on shipowners, operators, contracting states, and port facilities. It also provides rules which shall be met in the operations on board and ashore.

[xlii] IMO Web Page, www.imo.org. If vessels which must comply with ISPS Code requirements do comply with them, they shall be granted by an ISPS Certificate and a Ship Security Certificate (after July 2004), which shall allow them to enter certain ports and make them subject to specific controls performed by ISPS port authorities from every country which have adopted the Code in its legal system. If a vessel does not count with these certificates, she may be either prevented from entering or expelled from a port. She may also be detained until the documents are finally granted.

[xliii] “Cobelfret NV c/ Cyclades Shipping Co Ltd” (The Linardos), The Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court), 25 May 1993, [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 28.

[xliv] Baris Soyer and Richard Williams: “Potential legal ramifications of the International Ship and Port Facilities Security (ISPS) Code on Maritime Lay, Lloyd’s Maritime and commercial Lay Quarterly”, [2005] L.M.C.L.Q. 515.

[xlv] “Andre et Cie S.A. c/ Orient Shipping (Rotterdam) BV (The Laconian Confidence)”, The Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court) held on 9 October 1996, [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 139.

IT&L Legal Consultants continues being the exclusive contributor to the new edition of the Chambers Global Practice Guides Shipping 2024 - Argentine Chapter.

January, 2024

Relevant measures adopted by the new Government for the reconstruction of the Argentine economy.

DECEMBER, 2023

Our Senior Lawyer, Maria Soledad Radicchi participated in the 2023 "ARNECKE SIBETH DABELSTEIN Shipping Law and Marine Insurance Scholarship Program" in Hamburg.

December, 2023

Dr. Espiñiera attended the Transport Law Seminar organized by AIJA

IT&L continues to be the exclusive contributor of the Argentine Chapter in The Legal 500 Country Comparative Guides on Shipping, 2024

October, 2023

Dr. Espiñeira moderated the session "Trading in Latin America: Moving Ahead" at the WISTA INTERNATIONAL AGM & Conference 2023.

Modifications to the "Regulations for the Entry of Cruise Ships to the Port of Buenos Aires"

PROJECT FOR A NEW ROUTE OF THE MAIN NAVIGATION CHANNEL IN THE PARANA RIVER

Summary of a judicial case regarding the lack of legitimacy of insurance agents to be sued, the third parties that are summoned to the process, and the applicable exchange rate when a judicial decision orders to pay sums in foreign currency.

DR. MARIA BELEN ESPIÑEIRA SPEAKS AT THE SEMINAR "CONTRIBUTIONS FOR A MERCHANT MARINE ´S LAW REFORM PROJECT" ORGANIZED BY TRANSPORT & CARGO FROM EL CRONISTA NEWSPAPER.

April, 2023

ARGENTINE GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES THE OPENING OF THE NATIONAL PUBLIC BIDDING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MAGDALENA CANAL

MARCH, 2023

NEW SPEED REGULATION IN PASAJE TALAVERA RIVER

March, 2023

IT&L Legal Consultants continues being the exclusive contributor to the Chambers Global Practice Guides Shipping 2023 - Argentine Chapter.

IT&L Legal Consultants contributes to “The Legal 500 Country Comparative Shipping Guides 2022” - Argentine Chapter.

CYBERSECURITY: WARNING ABOUT THE INCREASING OF "MAN-IN-THE-MIDDLE" ATTACKS

August, 2022

COVID-19: Argentine Authorities relaxed sanitary requirements to enter the country

November, 2022

NEW System for Holds Inspection

October, 2022

AIJA – IBA – CHARTERING THE TWENTIES: A PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PERSPECTIVE. VALENCIA, SPAIN, SEPTEMBER 2022

FORCE MAJEURE: CURRENT ISSUES IN ARGENTINA.

Octubre, 2022

IT&L Legal Consultants attended the INTERNATIONAL GROUP CORRESPONDENTS CONFERENCE in London.

April, 2022

IT&L Legal Consultants contributes to the Chambers Global Practice Guides Shipping 2022 - Argentine Chapter.

IT&L Legal Consultants contributes to “The Legal 500 Country Comparative Shipping Guides 2021” - Argentine Chapter.

October, 2021

Port Authority grants Toll Rate Discount for International Tourism Cruise Ships sailing through Paraná-Río de la Plata Waterway

Impacts of Historical Low Water Levels of Paraná River

June 10th, 2021

ARGENTINA FORMALLY ACCEDES TO MARPOL ANNEX VI

March, 2021

UK Supreme Court provides clarity over COLREGs

Paraguay-Paraná Waterway: New Procedure for Registering and Tracking Electronic MIC/DTA

Act on the "Development of the Argentine Merchant Fleet and Regional Fluvial Integration"

February, 2021

Our Founding Partner, Maria Belén Espiñeira, included in the Top Women in Shipping for 2020 by Allaboutshipping.co.uk

December, 2020

Cyber risk in Shipping and Marine Insurance: Challenges and Perspectives

November 25th, 2020

Prefectura Naval Argentina´s Recommendations for Maritime Cyber Risk Management

New Argentine Acts applying to Continental Shelf Extension and Hydrocarbon Regime.

October 2nd, 2020

MARPOL ANNEX VI: Suspension of Validity of Argentine Regulation Banning Discharge of Wash Waters from Open Loop Scrubbers into National Waters

Aug 10, 2020

MARPOL ANNEX IV: Argentine Maritime Authority Prohibits Discharge of Washwater from open loop Scrubbers into National Waters

May, 1st 2020

EXPORT RESTRICTIONS ON MEDICAL SUPPLIES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE VESSEL´S SUPPLIES LIST

April 17th, 2020

COMMITTEE OF CRISIS AND PREVENTION OF COVID-19 ISSUES ANNEX TO FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION PROTOCOL

March 23rd, 2020

Health Emergency: Prefectura Naval Argentina implements extensions and remote procedures

November, 2019

A new legal regime for Maritime, River and Lake Navigation (REGINAVE) entered into force in Argentina

October, 2019

New INCOTERMS® 2020: What you need to know

September, 2019

Dr. María Belén Espiñeira’s Speech in the “IMO World Maritime Day Parallel Event 2019”

Dr. María Belén Espiñeira speaks at the Second WMU Regional Conference for the Americas: Maritime Transport and Ocean Policies: Regional Perspectives for the Americas

New Exemption for Port-Pilotage Service

April, 2019

Easing of Under-Keel Clearance in Inland Waterway Transport

Seminar on Fishing in the Sea

February 2019

Operative Advantages of Martín García Canal due to New Depth Limits

January, 2019

Modernization Plan for the Port of Buenos Aires

November 16, 2018

Offshore Industry in the Argentine Sea

November 5, 2018

Prefectura Naval Argentina updates rules on safety in navigation

September, 2018

JORNADAS PREPARATORIAS - JORNADA NACIONAL DE DERECHO AERONÁUTICO

ALL ABOUT SHIPPING

MUNDO MARÍTIMO

WISTA AMERICAS 2018

PRESIDENTA DE WISTA ARGENTINA: "La industria naviera va por buen camino"

December, 2017

Voyage Charter vs Time Charter

Ships, boats and other recreational vessels are owned by a large number of individuals who often purchase them as assets. They do not use these vessels for shipping goods or for ferrying passengers.

Instead, they often lend them out to third party organizations who use them for a variety of purposes. In maritime legal terms, this lending process is known as chartering. Chartering is an important concept of the global maritime trade sector, and is of different types.

This article will delve into the differences between two specific categories of charters – the voyage charter and the time charter.

What is a Charter?

A charter is an agreement between two or more groups known as charter parties, regarding the leasing of a vessel for a fixed set of conditions. The terms and conditions stipulated in the charter are binding on all the parties in the agreement and covers a wide variety of clauses and possible scenarios that may arise. It is considered to be an official document in legal aspects and is required by Admiralty Law to be drawn up in case of any form of vessel hiring or leasing.

A shipowner is the first party in the charter agreement who owns the vessel under consideration. The charterer is an individual or organization who is in need of a ship.

The charterer may have cargo that he wishes to transport, or may further lease out the vessel to third parties.

The shipbroker is a link between ship owners and charterers, and aids in finalizing the terms of the agreement. The terms of the agreement include the duration of leasing, fees, payment instalments, regulations on usage, and detailed surveyor reports on the condition of the ship.

Payment is termed as a freight rate and is remitted to the shipowner at fixed intervals decided in the agreement.

Surveyor reports are important in chartering, as they ensure that the vessel is seaworthy prior to being chartered. Similarly, on completion of a charter agreement, and before final payment formalities, another survey report is conducted to ensure that the vessel has sustained no damage during the lease period.

The charter agreement lays down the responsibilities of each group and stipulates the condition in which the vessel is to be maintained.

There are three main types of charters – voyage charter, time charter, and demise charter.

The demise charter is often known as a bareboat charter, and grants ownership or possession of the vessel to the charterer subject to certain time-bound conditions.

Terms and Features of a Voyage Charter

A voyage charter is a type of charter in which a vessel is leased out for a particular voyage. The charter agreement lists the ports of call, destination, and restrictions on cargo, if any.

Most voyage charters are undertaken by charterers who have cargo that needs to be shipped. For this, they contact ship owners through brokers and arrange a ship for a particular voyage.

Payment of voyage charters can be done in two methods – on a per-ton basis, or on a lump-sum basis .

The per-ton basis involves paying the owner for every ton of cargo or freight transported on the vessel. This is preferred when the cargo tonnage is considerably lower than the gross maximum cargo tonnage of the vessel.

On the other hand, when a higher weight of the cargo is carried, it is advisable to pay on a lump-sum basis . The shipowner must ensure that the tonnage carried on board the vessel is within the acceptable limits of the ship. This includes checking the tonnage of on-deck cargo, and the various load lines of the vessel.

There are some important terms used in a contract agreement, that lays out the time-based rules to be followed for the duration of the contract.

Laytime refers to the time that a charterer is allowed to complete the loading and unloading process at a port of call. Since the owner pays duties and berthing charges at the port, they expect the charterer to hasten the process.

In case the charterer exceeds the laytime laid out in the contract, he is obliged to pay a penalty known as demurrage . This covers the extra costs incurred by the shipowner owing to the delay by the charterer.

On the other hand, if the ship is able to complete the loading and unloading operations before the stipulated time, the charterer can claim payment of a despatch from the owner. This is often seen as an incentive for charterers to complete the port operations as soon as possible.

In voyage chartering, the shipowner undertakes payment of fuel, operation, and employment-related costs. It is their responsibility to hire the officers and other crew members for the voyage either from a pool of individuals working for them, or using brokers as middlemen to source mariners and seafarers.

In addition, the owner must also pay costs such as berthing and loading operations. Any equipment used must also be paid for by the owners.

To recoup these costs, the owners charge a higher rate from the charterer. In general, charterers transporting a one-off consignment prefer voyage charters despite the high cost. This is because they are not tied down to the contract for a long period of time.

Simply put, a voyage charter involves a charterer hiring a vessel for the purpose of a single voyage, in which the route and ports have been pre-determined. The responsibility of duty and other payments along with recruitment is handled completely by the shipowner, while the cargo is the sole responsibility of the charterer.

Terms and Features of a Time Charter

A time charter is a time-bound agreement, as opposed to a voyage charter. The shipowner leases a vessel to a charterer for a fixed period of time, and they are free to sail to any port and transport any cargo, subject to legal regulations.

Although the charterer controls the ship, the maintenance of the vessel still falls under the purview of the owner. They are responsible for ensuring that the vessel meets internationally accepted maritime standards, throughout the course of the agreement. They regularly employ marine surveyors to prepare reports on the seaworthiness of the vessel and make repairs as and when required. The owner will face legal action in case the vessel is found to have some major problem.

The time charter agreement can span anywhere from a few days to a few years. This is a long-term agreement that works on a single rate of payment known as the freight rate.

Payment is to be remitted every quarter and does not fluctuate under ordinary circumstances.

In time chartering, the charterer is responsible for selecting a crew, paying charges that arise during the voyages, and arranging for provisions to ensure smooth operations at every port of call. They must intimate the planned route to the owners in advance. The payment is calculated on a per-day basis, with penalties added at a later time. The cost of fuel, provisions etc. are to be covered by the charterer, while the owner will handle all maintenance-related costs.

The charterer often does not sail on the vessel and provide instructions to the master of the vessel in their stead. This includes permissible cargo, route and ports, required charter speed etc.

Unlike voyage charters that use a rigid payment calculation, there are several provisions for unforeseen delays in time charters.

Since payment is on a daily basis, the charterer may be delayed for a certain reason, and these are covered in the agreement.

Time not included in the final payment is known as off-hire hours . For instance, if a vessel is slowed down because of poor weather that could not have been predicted, the extra time spent is not included in the final time count.

Similarly, if some form of damage occurs and repairs need to be carried out, the duration is considered to be off-hire . Certain clauses can be inserted in the agreement, that allows for a fixed number of off-hire hours. Beyond this, the charterer is charged for delays.

Briefly put, a time charter involves leasing a vessel for a fixed period, on a per-day rate, where the charterer is free to use the vessel. The owner only looks after maintenance-related cost.

Clauses are inserted to protect the charterer from having to pay for hours that were spent due to events that could not have been foreseen.

How to Choose a Charter Type

Voyage and time charters are very different, in their intended use and service conditions. Knowing when to choose each type of charter can go a long way in meeting expectations of the charterer and shipowner.

A voyage charter is preferred in cases where the charterer only needs the vessel for specific voyages that may arise for different reasons. This could be the case when there is an occasional cargo to transfer.

An occasional cargo commonly springs up during sudden surges in demand, when the supply services are down. Thus, companies that may deal in other commodities may enter the cargo industry for that period of time, in order to make a profit.

This can also happen when the charterer has already pressed into service their own fleet of vessels, which forces them to hire a ship from a third party so that they may undertake a single voyage.

Voyage chartering can be tricky for inexperienced charterers, since the matter of the crew and equipment must be handled correctly.

Most owners make arrangements to look after these requirements, but it is mostly based on goodwill. Having a shipbroker negotiate the terms can be very helpful in ensuring that the occasional charterer is not inconvenienced by having a ship without a crew to man it.

A time charter is more commonly used by more experienced chartering firms when there is a long-term requirement for a vessel. Instead of having to specify the ports and routes undertaken by the vessel in the charter agreement, the charterer simply hires the boat for a fixed period of time and takes complete control over the vessel in all but name.

As they are free to sail to any destination with any group of crew and officers, it is beneficial to companies that already deal in shipping. For instance, if a ship is decommissioned or is sent in for repairs, the company needs to be able to procure a vessel for the duration of that period.

Instead of having to book a ship every time they wish to undertake a voyage, they use time charters. Thus, for the duration of the agreement, they will have possession of the vessel and are free to use it, within the purview of the law. This is especially useful since such a charterer will often already have a crew ready to take over the hired vessel.

Another major factor that sways the decision to pick either a voyage or time charter is the finances of the shipping industry. Voyage chartering is considered to be a volatile market since there is no assurance of leasing a boat on completion of an existing contract. Since it is only applicable for a single voyage, the overall volatility of the voyage charter is high.

However, charterers prefer voyage charters for the reason that they can always get a more competent rate from other ship owners. In other words, the owners are at the mercy of the chartering sector.

So, most ship owners prefer time charters, as it guarantees financial returns for a fixed period of time, at a fixed rate. This offers some protection against rapid fluctuation of the chartering rates. However, charterers do not prefer this contract, as it ties them down at a single rate for an extended period.

A one-off charterer always goes for a voyage charter, while a regular charterer prefers time charters. Shipowners are often directly approached by charterers, instead of having marine brokers. Thus, one must have an overall look at various factors influencing the shipping sector, prior to choosing between a voyage and time charter.

Overall Comparison

Table of responsibilities.

You may also like to read –

• 8 Main Factors that Affect Ocean Freight Rates
• What is the Difference between Lay days and Lay time?

Disclaimer:  The authors’ views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Marine Insight.  Data and charts, if used, in the article have been sourced from available information and have not been authenticated by any statutory authority. The author and Marine Insight do not claim it to be accurate nor accept any responsibility for the same. The views constitute only the opinions and do not constitute any guidelines or recommendation on any course of action to be followed by the reader.

The article or images cannot be reproduced, copied, shared or used in any form without the permission of the author and Marine Insight.

Do you have info to share with us ? Suggest a correction

About Author

Ajay Menon is a graduate of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, with an integrated major in Ocean Engineering and Naval Architecture. Besides writing, he balances chess and works out tunes on his keyboard during his free time.

Latest Maritime law Articles You Would Like :

What is the Purpose of DG Shipping?

What are Logistics Risks?

How Port and Terminal Operators Can Control Emissions?

Minimum Quantity Commitment (MQC) and Liquidated Damages in Container Shipping: Concept and Relevance

MARPOL (The International Convention for Prevention of Marine Pollution For Ships): The Ultimate Guide

The Ultimate Shipping Container Dimensions Guide

Latest News

Subscribe To Our Newsletters

By subscribing, you agree to our  Privacy Policy  and may receive occasional deal communications; you can unsubscribe anytime.

Great article that provides lots of fundamental knowledge! Kudos to the author, thank you!

@Edward: Glad you liked it 👍

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Marine Insight Daily Newsletter

" * " indicates required fields

Marine Engineering

Marine Engine Air Compressor Marine Boiler Oily Water Separator Marine Electrical Ship Generator Ship Stabilizer

Nautical Science

Mooring Bridge Watchkeeping Ship Manoeuvring Nautical Charts  Anchoring Nautical Equipment Shipboard Guidelines

Explore 

Free Maritime eBooks Premium Maritime eBooks Marine Safety Financial Planning Marine Careers Maritime Law Ship Dry Dock

Shipping News Maritime Reports Videos Maritime Piracy Offshore Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) MARPOL

Charter Market Case Studies: Real-World Applications

In the dynamic world of maritime commerce, the charter market plays a pivotal role in facilitating the transportation of goods across the globe. The complexities of chartering agreements, freight rates, and market dynamics often require industry professionals to draw insights from real-world case studies. In this article, we will explore some notable charter market case studies, offering a glimpse into the practical applications of chartering concepts and strategies.

Charter Market Case Studies

1. the iron ore charter.

Scenario: A mining company in Australia had a substantial shipment of iron ore to export to China. They sought a charterer to transport the cargo efficiently.

Solution: The mining company decided to enter into a voyage charter agreement. They selected a Capesize vessel suitable for bulk cargo like iron ore. The charter party specified laytime, demurrage terms, and payment schedules.

Outcome: The vessel was loaded with iron ore at an Australian port and safely delivered it to a Chinese port. The efficient cargo handling and adherence to laytime terms ensured no demurrage charges were incurred. The success of this charter helped the mining company secure similar agreements for future shipments.

2. The LNG Time Charter

Scenario: A liquefied natural gas (LNG) producer in the United States had a fleet of LNG carriers and sought to optimize their vessel utilization.

Solution: The LNG producer entered into a series of time charter agreements with various charterers worldwide. These agreements allowed charterers to use the vessels for specific periods, while the LNG producer received fixed daily hire rates.

Outcome: The time charter agreements provided steady income for the LNG producer and allowed charterers to access LNG carriers without the commitment of vessel ownership. This flexible arrangement proved successful for both parties, contributing to the growth of LNG transportation.

3. The Container Voyage Charter

Scenario: A global retailer needed to transport a large quantity of consumer goods from Asia to Europe for the holiday season.

Solution: The retailer negotiated a voyage charter agreement with a container shipping line. The charter party included laytime terms, container specifications, and freight rates.

Outcome: The retailer’s goods were efficiently loaded into containers at Asian ports and transported to European destinations. The careful planning of cargo operations and adherence to laytime terms ensured timely delivery, helping the retailer meet high-demand holiday sales.

4. The Offshore Rig Bareboat Charter

Scenario: An offshore drilling company needed additional drilling rigs for an upcoming exploration project.

Solution: The drilling company entered into bareboat charter agreements with rig owners. These agreements allowed the drilling company to operate the rigs as if they were their own, including crewing and maintenance.

Outcome: The bareboat charter agreements provided the drilling company with the additional drilling capacity required for the project. The flexibility and potential ownership options offered in the charter agreements aligned with their operational needs.

5. The Crude Oil Time Charter

Scenario: An oil trading company required a fleet of crude oil tankers to transport oil from the Middle East to refineries in Asia.

Solution: The oil trading company entered into a series of time charter agreements with tanker owners. These agreements allowed them to access the required tanker capacity on a time-bound basis.

Outcome: The time charter agreements provided the oil trading company with the necessary fleet capacity to meet their contractual obligations. They could adapt their tanker fleet to changing market conditions and demand.

Key Takeaways:

These real-world case studies showcase the practical applications of chartering agreements in the maritime industry. The choice of charter type, laytime management, and clear contractual terms played vital roles in the success of these charter agreements. Whether it’s transporting iron ore, LNG, consumer goods, drilling rigs, or crude oil, chartering remains a flexible and indispensable tool for maritime professionals navigating the complexities of global trade and logistics.

Related Articles

How to Keep Yourself Fit and Healthy at Sea

Sea jobs demands complete fitness of your body. Reasons are many like, limited manpower and individual work responsibilities. So, you cannot take chance of being falling ill or not able to work properly. Since the manpower is limited, if you fall ill, then others have to do your work, which is nowhere good. Yes nobody will accuse by saying […]

oceanic maritime academy dehradun-all details

Oceanic Maritime Academy stands as a distinctive institution in Uttarakhand, offering an exclusive six-month GP Rating Course for aspiring seafarers. Nestled in the vibrant and welcoming city of Dehradun, Uttarakhand, it is surrounded by a plethora of prestigious educational institutions, creating an ideal atmosphere for learning. Dehradun is renowned for hosting institutions such as The […]

Read: How To Plan Your Sail With Your Sailor

All the women who are married to sailors can understand the anxiety of staying apart and are always looking forward for a chance to sail with them. But sometimes there are certain inhibitions like a job or a family. Well, where there is a will there always can be a way. For sailors, it’s their […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Voyage Charter : Definition & Full Guide

• By MascotMaritime
• April 22, 2022
• 3 mins read

Table of Contents

What is a voyage charter.

Voyage charter definition : The voyage charter is a contract (voyage charter party) between the shipowner and the charterer wherein the shipowner agrees to transport a given quantity of a shipment, using a pre-nominated vessel for a single voyage from a nominated port (say X) to a nominated port (say Y), within a given time period.

Who is a voyage charterer? What is the freight & voyage charter party? 

The person who charters the vessel is called the voyage charterer , the payment is called freight & the contract is called the voyage charter party. The freight rate is calculated as $/tonne of shipment. 

What is the most significant part of a voyage charter party?

The most significant parts are the description of the voyage, size & capacity of the vessel, cargo, the allocation of duties and costs in connection with loading and discharging, the specification of the freight, and the payment of the freight, the laytime rules, the allocation of the liability for the cargo and the allocation of other costs and risks.

Depending on the circumstances, other questions and clauses can be very important in the negotiations between the owners and the charterers.

In this type of charter, the vessel must be in the position that the owner specified when the charter was concluded & the vessel must, without undue delay, be directed to the port of loading.

At the port of loading, the charterer must deliver the agreed cargo. 

The cargo must not be dangerous cargo unless otherwise agreed. The cargo must be brought alongside the ship at the loading port & must be collected from the ship side at the port of discharge.

Mainly with the bulk cargoes, the charterer often undertakes to pay to load and discharge & often clauses of f.i.o or f.o.b are met. Very often parties agree on f.i.o.s or f.i.o.s.t terms.

In voyage charter, the discharge port need not be nominated in the charter party & in such cases, the charterer must have the right later to direct the vessel within a certain range to a specific port of discharge.

In a voyage charter where the charterer carries out loading &(or) discharging, it is generally agreed that the charterer will have a certain period of time at his disposal for loading & discharging of the vessel & it is called laytime .

If the charterer fails to load and(or) discharge the cargo from the vessel within the laytime, then he has to pay compensation for the extra time used called demurrage . Once in demurrage always in demurrage.

In other cases, if the charterer loads &(or) discharges the cargo from the vessel more quickly than the agreed laytime time, then he is entitled to claim compensation (only if agreed earlier) called despatch money.

In voyage charter, unless lumpsum freight is paid, the owner may claim freight compensation if less cargo is delivered, or cargo is delivered in such a way that ship’s capacity cannot be utilized due to broken stowage . This freight compensation is called deadfreight .

Voyage charter party agreement example:

Click here to see the example of a voyage charter party (NORGRAIN 73).

What are the factors which influence the freight rate in a voyage charter market?

In the voyage charter market, rates are influenced by cargo the charterer must deliver the agreed cargo size, commodity, port dues, and canal transit fees, as well as delivery and redelivery regions.

In general, a larger cargo size is quoted at a lower rate per tonne than a smaller cargo size. Routes with costly ports or canals generally command higher rates than routes with low port dues and no canals to transit.

Voyages with a load port within a region that includes ports where vessels usually discharge cargo or a discharge port within a region with ports where vessels load cargo also are generally quoted at lower rates because such voyages generally increase vessel utilization by reducing the unloaded portion (or ballast leg) that is included in the calculation of the return charter to a loading area.

What are the costs paid by the shipowner & charterer in a voyage charter?

In a voyage charter, the shipowner retains the operational control of the vessel and pays all the operating costs (crew, fuel, freshwater, lubes, port charges, extra insurances, taxes, etc.), with the possible exclusion of the loading/unloading expenses. 

The charterer’s costs are usually costs & charges relating to the cargo.

What are the types of voyage charter?

It can be of the following types:

• Immediate  –  which is carried out within weeks of the contract agreement and the agreed freight rate is called the spot rate.
• Forward –  which is scheduled & fulfilled at the agreed time in the future, for example in say three months.
• Consecutive – which refers to several same consecutive voyages.

Related Popular Articles

Women in shipping – pros and cons.

  Women currently make up only 1.2% of the maritime workforce. This presents an incredible opportunity for growth, diversity, and empowerment within the maritime industry

Passive income streams for mariners

Passive income streams for mariners can vary depending on individual circumstances, skills, and interests. Most mariners focus on honing their skills in navigation, safety, operating

Seafarers happiness on board – Key factors

Seafarers lead a challenging life, navigating the seas for extended periods, enduring isolation, facing unpredictable weather, and maintaining vessels. Their resilience and commitment ensure global

6 Responses

• Pingback: INCOTERMS 2020 : A MUST READ FOR SHIPPING, CUSTOM & LOGISTIC PROFESSIONALS! - MascotMaritime

Thanks a bunch for sharing this with all folks you actually know what you’re talking approximately! Bookmarked. Kindly also talk over with my site =).

We may have a link alternate arrangement between us

I cοuldn’t refrain from commenting. Exceptionally well written!

I’m gone to inform my little brother, that he should also visit this web site on regular basis to get updated from newest news update.

Hi there every one, here every person is sharing these kinds of familiarity, therefore it’s pleasant to read this website, and I used to pay a quick visit this web site daily.

First off I want to say excellent blog! I had a quick question that I’d like to ask if you don’t mind. I was curious to know how you center yourself and clear your head prior to writing. I have had trouble clearing my thoughts in getting my ideas out.

I do enjoy writing however it just seems like the first 10 to 15 minutes are usually lost just trying to figure out how to begin. Any recommendations or tips? Kudos!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer

World Clock ×

A Layman’s Guide to Laytime, Charter party Agreement and Voyage Charter

The word “Charterer” is probably as old as the word “Ship” itself.

Do you keep hearing this word so regularly?

Well, who doesn’t?

From seafarer’s point of view, it is so much important to understand these terms.

From commercial point of view, it is the moral responsibility of the seafarers to ensure that the ship owner profits from the ship operation.

And for this reason, we must understand when and where our loyalties lies.

But sometimes it becomes difficult to get a hang of all of it.

Not anymore.

In this blog, we will discuss about the terms charterer and charter party agreement.

Concept of Charter party agreement

It is all business.

And like in all kind of business, there are at least two parties involved, one of which provide a service or product to the other for a price.

With respect to carrying the cargo onboard the ships, these two parties are,

1) Ship owner who has the ship and provide the space on the ship to carry the cargo.

2) Shipper who has the cargo and wants a ship to transport the cargo

Then where does the term charterer fits into this?

Charterer is the party that has chartered (think of simple word “hired”) the ship.

If the shipper has chartered the entire ship then shipper will also be the charterer.

In most of the cases, charterer is a kind of middle man between shipper(s) and shipowners

This is particularly the case if there are more than one shipper.

For example, if the vessel is to load 50000 tons of cargo, there could be 10 shipper, say each of them with 5000 tons of cargo.

Alone none of the shippers would want to hire the entire vessel of 50000 tons capacity for their 5000 tons of cargo.

So they contact a charterer for transporting their cargo.

The charterer’s job is to find a vessel for the cargoes they have from different shippers and maximazing the space on ship they plan to hire.

Charterers may not be the only person involved in filling the gap between shipowner and shipper.

Sometime there are some other companies or persons who help shipper, charterer and shipowner to connect with each other for a fees.

They are called “Brokers”.

So the shipper’s broker is the person or company that help shipper find a charterer for a fees called brokerage.

And charterer’s broker is the person that help charterer find a ship to hire.

The charterer may even have brokers for different purpose. For example charterer may have a broker to find a cargo for the ship they want to hire and they may have another broker to find a ship for the cargo they have in hand.

Broker or no broker, the charterer and shipowner would agree on the terms and conditions which would form “ Charter party agreement “.

Charter party agreement is a detailed document which, apart from various clauses, has informations such as

• When and where the vessel is required to be
• the freight agreed
• If the broker was used, who need to pay the brokerage fee and how much

Even though shipowners is primarily dealing with the charterer, it does not mean that the shipowner would have no relation with the shipper.

Shipper and shipowner are connected by the “carriage of cargo at sea act”, also called COGSA .

And one of the main point of it is that shipowner is required to issue bill of lading to the shipper for the cargo loaded onboard.

And with that each of the shipper have entered into an agreement with the ship owner which is called “Contract of  carriage”.

While the “charter party agreement” is a formal agreement, the contract of carriage is governed by various laws and regulations such as Hague-Visby rule .

Charter party agreement supplement the contract of carriage.

Usually you would find a mention of the charter party agreement in the bill of lading. The wording in the bill of lading could be something like this.

This shipment is carried pursuant to charter party agreement between “ Charterer’s name ” and “ Carrier’s name ” and all the terms, clauses, conditions, liberties and exceptions whatsoever contained therein are incorporated into this bill of lading.

But do the shipowners and charterers do this exercise of negotiating the format of the charter party agreement each time they do the business together.

Absolutely not. Hell, it would take a lot of time.

Instead they use pre-defined forms. These forms are developed by Independent International stakeholders such as BIMCO and INTERTANKO and are widely used in the shipping business.

There are different forms for different trades.

For example there is form  SHELLVOY 6 for use in tanker trade and then there is form AMWELSH 93 for coal dry cargo chartering.

Also if a charterer and ship owner have done the business before, they use the same charter party agreement for the future shipments too.

For this reason, many a times even for a voyage in 2019, you may find the mention of charter party dated in 2016 or even before. In the bill of lading issued even in 2019 , it may read something like,

The shipment is carried pursuant to charter party agreement between “ Charterer’s name ” and “ Carrier’s name ” dated 01 January 2016…..

Now that we understand the concept of chartering, let us understand the different ways in which the ships can be chartered.

Voyage Charter, Time charter, Demise charter

There are different ways in which a charterer can charter (Hire) the vessel.

Charterer can charter the vessel for one voyage (Voyage charter), for a particular time period (time charter) or they can hire and run the vessel as if they are the owner of the vessel (Demise or bareboat charter).

In each type of charter, charterers and shipowners have different area of responsibilities.

Each type of charter is a subject in itself. So in this blog we will explore the voyage charter.

Voyage Charter

It should be clear from the name.

Under the voyage charter, the ship is hired from the ship owner for one voyage.

One voyage could consists of multiple load ports and multiple discharge port.

The best analogy to the term voyage charter is that with hiring an Uber for a ride from one place to the other, sometimes with multiple stops in between.

So when we hire an Uber, we hire just the cab. The cab driver is still under the instructions of Uber.

Similarly, under the voyage charter, the charterer has hired the ship’s cargo space. But the Master and crew still remains under the disposal and instructions of ship owner and  ship managers.

When we hire a cab for a ride, we just pay the hire (pre-agreed or by the meter). We do not pay for or are not concerned about the fuel costs or the amount of fuel consumed.

Similarly, under the voyage charter, charterer is not concerned about the fuel consumption. The fuel costs are for the ship owners.

And when we hire an Uber, we do not pay for maintenance of the cab.

Similarly, under the voyage charter it is the ship owner who pays for the maintenance of the ship.

Whenever we have any doubt about anything under voyage charter, just think of this analogy of hiring the cab.

Most likely you will get the answer.

Laytime, Demurrage and despatch

Lord Diplock during one of the leading cases on Laytime described the voyage charter party comprising of four stages .

• Stage 1 is the loading voyage: The voyage from wherever the ship is to the loading port specified in the voyage charter party
• Stage 2 is the Loading operation: The loading of the cargo at the port of loading
• Stage 3 is the carrying voyage: The voyage from load port to the discharge port specified in the voyage charter party.
• Stage 4 is the discharging operation: The discharging of the cargo from the ship to the port of discharging as specified in the voyage charter party.

In the first and third stage, it is only the ship owner that need to perform. For example. ship owner is required to adjust the speed of the ship to arrive at the loading port within the agreed dates (Laycan).

And in the third stage, the ship owner is required to instruct the vessel to maintain the charter party speed.

However it is the second and fourth stage where most of the disputes take place.

Because in these two stages it is mutual reponsibility of the two parties to ensure that cargo loading and discharging is done without any delays.

In case of delays, each one can accuse the other for delays.

It is definately not commercially profiting for the shipowner if the voyage is extended beyond their expectations.

For example, what if the loading of the cargo took 15 days in comparison to just 2 days that shipowner had expected?

Or what if the ship could not berth at load port or discharge port for many days because of other ships ahead in line up?

Too many uncertainties.

But ship owner’s freight (and profits) cannot depend upon so many uncertainties.

So the shipowner and charterers agree on the factors like allowed number of days for loading and discharging.

In chartering terms this is called “Laydays” or “Laytime”.

The laydays is mentioned in the voyage charter party agreement between ship owner and charterer.

It could be mentioned as number of days and hours or as tons per hours or per day.

If the charterer uses more time for loading and discharging than the allowed laydays as per charter party agreement, then charterer is supposed to pay for extra time used.

The chartering term for this additional payment is “Demurrage”.

So we can say that if charterer uses more time for loading/discharging than laydays, they need to pay demurrage to the ship owner.

But if the charterer uses less time than laydays then ship owner need to pay the charterer for the time saved.

The chartering term for this is “despatch”.

Usually the agreed amount of despatch is about half of the agreed amount for demurrage.

Finally at the end of the voyage, a statement is made to shows the time saved and/or extra time taken at different ports.

Below is the simplified version of the laytime summary calculated at the end of the voyage.

This statement would also show the final amount due and to whom it is due. Means if the final amount is demurrage or despatch and how much.

Notice of readiness and statement of facts

For calculation of laytime, it is important to know when the laytime counting and calculation would start.

This information is also provided in the charter party agreement.

In most of the cases, the laytime would commence to start when the vessel has arrived at the port. In chartering term, this is called “ Arrived Ship “.

Legally, a ship is considered as an ‘Arrived Ship” only when

• Ship has arrived at the port of loading or discharging (port voyage charter) or at the designated berth (Berth Voyage charter).
• Ship is ready in all respects to commence loading (or discharging) or the cargo, and
• Master has sent the notice of readiness to the all parties concerned

The charter party agreement contains the information if the voyage charter is a port voyage charter or a berth voyage charter.

Irrespective if it is port or berth voyage charter, from the ship’s point of view it is important that the master of the vessel send the notice of readiness.

Notice of readiness need to  state that the vessel has arrived and she is ready in all respect to commence loading (or discharging ) of the cargo.

The laytime would start to commence at this time or sometimes few hours later if specifically mentioned in the charter party agreement.

Since one of the condition for the laytime to start is for the master to send the notice of readiness, it makes it so much of an important aspect.

Statement of Facts

The vessel and the master of the ship are the owner’s representative at the action site (loading port or discharging port).

Ship Owner would know only know the information that we provide them. They would use this information for calculation of any demurrage due to the charterers.

But for the correct demurrage calculation, the information we provide must be correct and we must not miss any important information such as any delays.

That make the statement of facts (commonly called SOF) an important document.

At the least, statement of facts must include

• any delays from shore side or from ship’s side and reason of delay
• any delays because of weather conditions
• Timings for the movement of the ship (such as times for anchoring, anchor aweigh, pilot onboard, NOR Tendered etc)
• Timings related to cargo operations (Commenced cargo operation and completed cargo operation

Master’s actions during voyage charter

Master and ship staff may not see the actual charter party agreement between the charterer and the ship owner.

And it is for their own benefit too.

Because there would be so many things in that which we seafarers are not concerned about.

But when the  ship is fixed for the voyage charter, master will receive “Voyage instructions” from the charterer through the ship owner’s commercial team.

The voyage instructions contains the information from the charter party agreement that requires master’s attenstion and subsequent actions.

Master must not miss the points in the voyage orders that requires his actions.

One of the way to do it is to highlight the text of the voyage instructions that require his attention for easy follow up.

Once Master reads the voyage instructions, he may come across insufficient information that need more information or clarification.

Like this one in one of the voyage orders.

Clarification must be sought from the ship operator for any of such information in the voyage orders.

After all it just takes a simple email to get everything in place.

And once everything is clear and in place, it is just about following that.

There are may be only a handful of shipowners that do not rely on the charterer to find the cargo for their vessel.

Having the vessel on charter is so common.

And vessel can be chartered in different ways. Vessel can be on a voyage charter, time charter or demise/bareboat charter.

With respect to voyage charter, master and ship staff must understand few thing

First, when is the laycan for the vessel. This is period in which vessel must arrive at the load port.

If master thinks that vessel may not be able to make it to the loadport in laycan period, the commercial operator must be informed who can then try to extend the laycan.

Second, when the notice of readiness need to be tendered.

If the voyage charter is a port charter, NOR can only be tendered when vessel is at least within the port limits. Usually in this case NOR is tendered when pilot boards the vessel.

If the voyage charter is berth charter, the NOR can only be tendered when the vessel is alongside the designated berth.

Wrong tendering of NOR can make the Notice of readiness null and void and shipowner may loose tons of money.

Lastly, the ship staff need to be make sure that a correct record of statement of facts is kept. This is the document that is used for laytime calculations .

If the charterer uses more time than agreed for loading or discharging the cargo, the ship owner is supposed to get a pre-agreed compensation called demurrage.

Share this:

Related blogs, follow us today on our social network.

About Capt Rajeev Jassal

Capt. Rajeev Jassal has sailed for over 24 years mainly on crude oil, product and chemical tankers. He holds MBA in shipping & Logistics degree from London. He has done extensive research on quantitatively measuring Safety culture onboard and safety climate ashore which he believes is the most important element for safer shipping.

Search Blog

70 comments.

How i wish that our exam books were written so precisely yet so easy to understand .Thanx for all the pain you take .No amount of words would do justice to match the level of you efforts.

Thanks Alok...The readers liking it make all the hardwork worthwhile...

its amazing how you describe anything sir

what if the vessel is about to tender NOR and shipper cancels the order. what would be the penalty

Great article to understand the business with ease as an ASM candidate

Many thanks for writing such articles with such an ease of understanding sir...

Glad you liked it Sukhchain...

Another good read. Thank you for taking time to write articles. All Seafarers must understand the commercial aspects of ships. All the best and I cant wait to read the next one.

Glad you liked it Marlon...

what if the ship could not berth at load port or discharge port for many days because of other ships ahead in line up?Too many uncertainties.But ship owner’s freight (and profits) cannot depend upon so many uncertainties.So the shipowner and charterers agree on the factors like allowed number of days for loading and discharging.In chartering terms this is called “Laydays” or “Laytime” ??? Laydays refer to the time when a ship must present itself to the charter.If the vessel arrives after the laydays ,than contract can be cancelled. -Laycan. Laytime is the amount of time allowed (in hours and days)in a voyage charter for the loading and unloading of cargo.

Thanks for your input Zibi...

Laydays or "Laycan "I think is the correct term not Laytime. :)

Thanks for such simplified explanations. Sir could you please tell the few famous ship brokers names in india and worldwide.

Interocean is one of them...

Thank Captain for simple & detailed explanation. Information is really worthy .

Glad you found it useful Sajjad...

Thanks Capt. Rajeev for this good information in simple way.

Glad you liked it Dharmdeep...

Very well written capt., pls continue the good work

Thanks Capt Pereira...

This is a scholarly article Great job Captain!

Glad you liked it Tunde...

Good job, Capt. Jassal! These mandatory intricacies of ship's business & chartering are excellently presented. Organized and laid out as you have, this blog subject does a great service to anyone who longs to learn more about it & be more familiar with the clauses, details & positions (which is probably everyone, right?) -- including this marine cargo surveyor!

Glad you liked it Capt Edward...

Many thanks

Thanks Rafik...

sir plz explain magnetic compass

I will do that in a different blog...

Once again thank you very much.

Thanks Raju...

Informative Awaiting next one regarding time charterers

Will write on Time chartering too...

many thanks for this jobs cap

How easy way for explain this matter ,really very good job captain I appreciate your good effort waiting more and more

Thanks Ahmed...

sir waiting for your blog on purging and gas freeing cargo tanks

Very nicely explained and written good effort

Very nice explanation capt,

Generally the CP agreement is never sent to ship..and hence for tendering NOR what criteria(LOCATION) shall be followed as Master will not be aware if the C/P is voyage or Port C/P .These days Master tender NOR on arrival and then they keep re tendering every 24 hrs or at important events like POB, or All Fast.What is the logic behind following this and how we can ensure the NOR tendering doesn't becomes null and void. really APPRECIATE YOUR GREAT EFFORTS

if the vessel arrived at the agreed laycan and gave a valid NOR tendered and waited for almost 5 days before berthing, then while berthing the vessel had an accident and the owner requsted a new laycan, the question here is, does cancelling the old laycan result in canceling the demurrage fees caused by it?

When a vessel suffers breakdown typically NOR becomes invalid as the vessel was not in all respects ready to load her cargo.

U don't see such priceless articles often.. Good work cap. Let's make the world a better place to sail????????

To the writer of this blog- what made you write this? IT IS FANTASTIC. Well done. Also your MBA, was it the distant learning one from Middlesex?

On the Laytime Summary calculation, wouldn't it be correct to say that on the loading it was lost 0d-12h-24 min instead of 1d-00-24m?

Captain sahab, if I ever get a chance, I'll surely shake hand and say thank you, for all your efforts in simplifying the topics

can you advise for the following : in case a vessel is on Voyage Charter, and during loading or discharging alongside berth, there is a rainy period, so the daytime for this period should be NOT TO COUNT, correct??? cause there is the terms "weather permitting".

Great article sir......waiting for more.....

Hi. How does the shipbroker locate a suitable ship to transport the cargo?

Good day! You have mentioned different stages of voyage charter. May I ask what are the different stages of Time Charter and Bareboat Charter? Thank you in advance.

Nice blog...pleasure to read

I love your write up. Please, keep exposing our mind to the rudiments of shipping business.

Sir, in voyage charter party at what time and place charter party agreement will start? After ship arriving on laycan days or after giving notice of readiness? And notice readiness when we can give? Is there any specific time only we can give NOR?

I have a question, How to calculate the freight for a Multiport voyage. for example, there is a Cargo loaded from the country (C) and need to discharge its half portion in other countries multiple ports (A) & (B). For single port discharge, the cost is 8$ in port A and in Port B 11$, but the agent says he could fulfill this in 10$ for both ports. Now my question is how is he calculating the freight 10$ for Multiple port ?

Thank you sir for this great effort helping a lot for phase2 law preparation

Hi Sir! I am so pleased to have found your blog, it is absolutely helpful. if it is not too much to ask, do you have a quote sample for time and voyage charter? and the stardard terms and conditions? sorry if I am asking too much. thank you

Excellent blog about chartering service. This blog cleared my doubt about chartering service for ship

could you please advise that how long a shipowner should wait cargo to load on board (if cargo not ready) and no any specific clause written on voyage cp

Hi, Capt Jassal, I find every write up on any marine subject is excellent and easy to understand for students. I highly appreciate the contents of your blog. Regards Capt MK Srivastava , Ex-DPA, The SCI Ltd.

Wonderfully explained

While the blockchains themselves are secure, the applications running on the blockchain may not be. These applications interact with the blockchain through smart contracts, but just like any other software, bugs in the code can lead to security vulnerabilities. For this, we need to involve the auditors who conduct security audits on the smart contract. Smart Contract Audit helps you find hidden exploits and eventually reduce the risk and provide you an extra layer of security. Bug-free code is nice to have in other types of software, in blockchain applications, it is essential.

Dear Capt Rajeev Jassal, with interest i have seen your blog however the title struck me a bit - A Layman's Guide to Laytime - this sounds very familiar, if not accurate, with the dissertation i wrote for the ICS, Institute of Charterers Shipbrokers London, who hold copyright on this. Kindly amend the title of your blog to avoid confusion in the industry as to whom the readers take their information from. With best regards, Erwin de Zwarte, FICS

sir will you pls write on paramount clause , new jasson clause , cesser clause and both to blame collision clause

Such a great explanation! Thank you so much!

This article is a big help for those individuals that are trying to expound their knowledge in shipping. I much appreciated because at present i am taking my master's degree in ship management. Thank you...

Wow, so clearly written that I didn't have to read it twice to understand! Why don't our text books/ Oral notes be like this?! Thank you so much Capt. Jassal.

It’s a great and useful piece of info. I’m happy that you just shared this useful info with us. Please stay informed like this. Thank you for sharing. Here’s another informative content on Common Law Separation Agreement , may find more details here.

thanks alot of info keren bgt

Sir u r the best , undoubtedly . The confidence which i gain every time when ever I read your blog is just unspeakable and it sharpens my knowledge every single time. A teacher like you is what this shipping industry needs and I am glad to find the perfect one . Every time when ever I am in doubt I refer to your blogs and it works miracle .....thanks a ton to you sir .....simply great.

Leave Comment

More things to do on myseatime.

MySeaTime Blogs

Learn the difficult concepts of sailing described in a easy and story-telling way. These detailed and well researched articles provides value reading for all ranks.

Seafarers Question Answers

Ask or answer a question on this forum. Knowledge dies if it remains in our head. Share your knowledge by writing answers to the question

MySeaTime Podcast

This podcast on the maritime matters will provide value to the listeners. Short, crisp and full of value. Stay tuned for this section.

• Contracts and clauses
• BIMCO clauses

Paramount Clause General 1997

• Voyage charter
• Time charter

BIMCO Paramount Clause General 1997

The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading signed at Brussels on 25 August 1924 ("the Hague Rules") as amended by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 February 1968 ("the Hague-Visby Rules") and as enacted in the country of shipment shall apply to this Contract. When the Hague-Visby Rules are not enacted in the country of shipment, the corresponding legislation of the country of destination shall apply, irrespective of whether such legislation may only regulate outbound shipments. When there is no enactment of the Hague-Visby Rules in either the country of shipment or in the country of destination, the Hague-Visby Rules shall apply to this Contract save where the Hague Rules as enacted in the country of shipment or if no such enactment is in place, the Hague Rules as enacted in the country of destination apply compulsorily to this Contract. The Protocol signed at Brussels on 21 December 1979 ("the SDR Protocol 1979") shall apply where the Hague-Visby Rules apply, whether mandatorily or by this Contract. The Carrier shall in no case be responsible for loss of or damage to cargo arising prior to loading, after discharging, or while the cargo is in the charge of another carrier, or with respect to deck cargo and live animals."

Explanatory notes

The greater adherence on a worldwide basis to the Hague-Visby Rules prompted BIMCO's Documentary Committee in 1996 to initiate a review of its General Clause Paramount as applied to a number of bills of lading, waybills and voyage charter parties issued by BIMCO.

The actual drafting work was entrusted to a small sub-committee composed of experts in the maritime legal field. The new edition of the General Clause Paramount endorsed by the International Group of P & I Clubs was officially adopted by BIMCO's Documentary Committee in June 1997.

The General Clause Paramount has been revised bearing in mind that the Hague-Visby Rules shall be the recognised liability regime covering the particular contract of carriage. The Paramount Clause has the following main components:

1) The Hague-Visby Rules as enacted in the country of shipment shall apply to the contract of carriage. If no such shipments is in place the corresponding legalisation of the country of destination shall apply.

2) However, in those trades where the Hague-Visby Rules are not applicable mandatorily or otherwise, the Hague Rules (when compulsorily applicable in the country of shipment or destination) shall apply.

3) In all other trades, i.e. where neither the Hague-Visby Rules nor the Hague Rules apply compulsorily, the terms of the Hague-Visby Rules shall apply.

4) The SDR Protocol 1979 which replaces the old limitation amount of Frcs. 10,000 per package or unit, or Frcs. 30 kilo as provided in the Hague-Visby Rules by 666.67 SDR's per package or 2 SDR's per kilo shall apply to the contract of carriage to the extent possible.

Thus, the first paragraph of the General Clause Paramount refers to the Hague-Visby Rules as the governing liability regime providing a clear choice of laws as rewards which jurisdiction's Hague-Visby Rules shall apply in trades between two Hague-Visby Rules countries. The wording " irrespective of whether such legalisation may only regulate outbound shipments " at the very end of this paragraph is meant to make sure that, in a voyage from a non-Hague-Visby Rules state to a jurisdiction which only applies the Hague-Visby Rules to outward shipments, such rules will still apply. 

The second paragraph includes a fall back provision in line with 3) above effectively providing that in the trades here the Hague-Visby Rules are neither applicable in the country of shipment nor in the country of destination the terms of the Hague-Visby Rules apply. The only exception to this general rule is, however, where the Hague Rules are compulsorily applicable in either the country of shipment or destination, in which case the Hague Rules prevail. Accordingly, due respect has been paid to those states still signatories to the Hague Rules. In the event of clean Hague Rules trades the choice of law provision provides which jurisdiction's Hague Rules shall apply.

The third paragraph takes care of another of the key components as mentioned under 4) which is that the SDR Protocol 1979 shall also apply to those trades where they are not applicable. It is to be realised, however, that this states which are signatories to the Hague-Visby Rules but not the SDR Protocol 1979 may, irrespective of what is provided in the Clause, apply the old limitation rules.

The fourth paragraph expressly exonerates the carrier from all liability from loss or damage to the cargo before loading and after discharge and to deck cargo and live animals. It is realised that this provision may not be upheld in all jurisdictions applying the Hague- or Hague-Visby Rules. Thus, for instance, it will be considered invalid under the Scandinavian maritime codes which contain rules compulsorily applicable when the cargo is in the custody of the carrier in the port, i.e. outside the "tackle-to-tackle" period and for deck cargo and live animals.

The revised General Clause Paramount will be incorporated in BIMCO's standard bills of lading, waybills and voyage charter parties where appropriate upon the development or revision of such documents.

Originally published in BIMCO Special Circular No. 4, 29 October 1997 - BIMCO General Clause Paramount - revised.

Related Help & Advice

Bills of lading advice, time charter advice, voyage charter advice, booking notes, general average, miscellaneous, create or edit a contract.

The one-stop digital shop for all the standard maritime contracts and clauses you’ll ever need.

Related publication

Check before fixing.

Related training

Summer shipping school.

• Vaerloese, Denmark
• 24 June, 2024

Latest Related News

Bimco adopts portfolio of four ets clauses.

The shipping industry is facing an increase in new regulations from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the European Union (EU) and an increase in the urgency to decarbonise. To support the industry, BIMCO has developed a portfolio of new emission trading scheme (ETS) clauses.

• Press release
• Priority news

BIMCO adopts new CII clause for Voyage Charter Parties

The shipping industry is facing an increase in new regulations from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the European Union (EU) and an increase in the urgency to decarbonise. To support the industry, BIMCO has developed a new CII Clause for Voyage Charter Parties. The clause was adopted by BIMCO’s Documentary Committee on 11 October and is the latest addition to BIMCO’s portfolio of carbon clauses.

BIMCO’s CII clause adopted

The BIMCO Documentary Committee has adopted a CII Operations Clause for Time Charter Parties which will help the industry commercially navigate the complexities of the new CII regulations from the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

BIMCO providing information and guidance relating to fumigation of cargoes that are shipped under the IMSBC Code, the Grain Code and the IMDG Code. 

• Information
• Regulations
• Cargo Transport Unit

Bottom fouling

From time to time, BIMCO is approached by members enquiring about responsibility for the cleaning of a ship’s underwater parts when it has been idle at a port for a long time pursuant to the orders of the time charterers.

ELSEWHERE ON BIMCO

Holiday calendar.

BIMCO's Holiday Calendar covers general holidays in over 150 countries, plus local holidays and working hours in more than 680 ports around the world.

Learn about your cargo

For general guidance and information on cargo-related queries.

• Contact us online
• Contact us by phone

Your message was sent successfully!

We will respond to your query shortly.

Please select a reason for contacting BIMCO from the list above to find the best contact number

Contact Switchboard on:

Lines are open Mon-Thurs 08:30-17:00 (CET) Fri 08:30-16:00 (CET)

Contact SmartCon support on:

Lines are open Monday - Friday

Contact Shipping KPI Support on:

Lines are open

Contact Membership on:

Lines are open 09:00-17:00 (CET)

Contact Athens Office on:

Contact Brussels Office on:

Contact Houston Office on:

Contact London Office on:

Contact Shanghai on:

Lines are open 09:00-17:00 CST

Contact Singapore Office on:

Contact Training on:

Contact Support & Advice on:

Contact IT support on:

Lines are open 09:00 until 17:00 (CET)

Contact Communications on:

Voyage Charter: Laytime and Demurrage

• First Online: 02 September 2021

Cite this chapter

• Arun Kasi 2  

726 Accesses

This chapter covers laytime and demurrage in voyage charterparties. The various laytime definitions such as weather working day, etc and the charterer’s obligations arising from the laytime clause are considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Box 16 and cl. 6(a) and (b).

E.g. Stolt Tankers v Landmark [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 786 (EW HC).

[1908] 1 KB 499 (EW CA).

[1963] AC 691 (UK HL).

Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1963] AC 691 (UK HL).

Dow Chemical (Nederland) BV v BP Tanker Co Ltd (The Vorras) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 579 (EW CA).

Margaronis Navigation Agency Ltd v Henry W Peabody & Co of London Ltd (The Vrontados) (HC) [1965] 1 QB 300, [1964] 2 All ER 296 (EW HC).

Another similar decision was reached in Total Transport Corporation v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd (The Eurus) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 408 (EW HC).

(1868) LR 2 QB 566 (EW HC), affirmed by the Court of Appeal in (1868) LR 3 QB 412 (EW CA).

[2015] SGCA 37, [2015] 5 SLR 178 (SG CA).

Houlder v General SN Co (1862) 3 F&F 170.

Christensen v Hindustan Steel [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 395 (EW HC).

Compania de Naviera Nedelka SA v Tradax International SA of Panama City RP (The Tres Flores) [1974] QB 264, [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 247, [1973] 3 All ER 967, [1973] 3 WLR 545 (EW CA).

Cobelfret NV v Cyclades Shipping Co Ltd (The Linardos) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 28 (EW HC).

Surrey Shipping Co Ltd v Compagnie Continentale (France) SA (The Shackleford) [1978] 1 WLR 1080, [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 154 (EW CA).

Transgrain Shipping BV v Global Transporte Oceanico SA (The Mexico 1) (CA) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 507 (EW CA).

Ocean Pride Maritime Ltd Partnership v Qingdao Ocean Shipping Co (The Northgate) [2007] EWHC 2796 (Comm), [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 330 (EW HC).

Sofial SA v Ove Skou Rederi (The Helle Skou) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 205 (EW HC).

Glencore Grain Ltd v Flacker Shipping Ltd (The Happy Day) [2002] EWCA Civ 1068, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 896, [2002] All ER (D) 219 (Jul), [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 487 (EW CA).

E.g. Pteroti Cia Nav SA v National Coal Board [1958] 1 QB 469 (EW HC); Glencore Grain Ltd v Goldbeam Shipping Inc; Goldbeam Shipping Inc v Navios International Inc (The Mass Glory) [2002] EWHC 27 (Comm), [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 244 (EW HC).

It is not compulsory that the destination point stipulated in the charterparty is a port or berth. It can also be other places like a sea mooring buoy or customary anchorage.

Cl. 6(c) (para 2).

Novologistics SARL v Five Ocean Corp (The Merida) [2009] EWHC 3046 (Comm), [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 274 (EW HC).

Bulk Transport Group Shipping Co Ltd v Seacrystal Shipping Ltd (The Kyzikos ) [1989] AC 1264, [1988] 3 All ER 745, [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 (UK HL).

[1950] 2 KB 194 (EW CA).

Oldendorff (E L) & Co GmbH v Tradax Export SA (The Johanna Oldendorff) [1974] AC 479, [1973] 3 All ER 148 (UK HL).

Federal Commerce and Navigation Co Ltd v Tradax Export SA (The Maratha Envoy) [1978] AC 1, [1977] 2 All ER 849 (UK HL).

See also Federal Commerce and Navigation Co Ltd v Tradax Export SA (The Maratha Envoy) [1978] AC 1, [1977] 2 All ER 849 (UK HL).

Navalmar UK Ltd v Kale Maden Hammaddeler Sanayi Ve Ticart AS (The Arundel Castle) [2017] EWHC 116 (Comm), [2017] 2 All ER (Comm) 1033, [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 370 (EW HC).

There are a few LMAA awards that recognise this proposition. See Feoso (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Faith Maritime Co Ltd (The Daphne L) [2003] SGCA 34, [2003] SLR 556 (SG CA).

Bulk Transport Group Shipping Co Ltd v Seacrystal Shipping Ltd (The Kyzikos) [1989] AC 1264, [1988] 3 All ER 745, [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 (UK HL).

[2011] EWHC 1361 (Comm), [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 278 (EW HC).

North River Freighters Ltd v HE President of India (North River) [1956] 1 QB 333 (EW CA); Ionian Navigation Company Inc v Atlantic Shipping Company SA (The Loucas N) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215 (EW CA); Aldebaran Compania Maritime SA, Panama v Aussenhandel AG Zurich (The Darrah) [1977] AC 157, [1976] 2 All ER 963 (UK HL); Freight Connect (S) Pte Ltd v Paragon Shipping Pte Ltd [2015] SGCA 37, [2015] 5 SLR 178 (SG CA).

Agios Stylianous Compania Naviera SA v Maritime Associates International Ltd Lagos (The Agios Stylianos) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 426 (EW HC).

Government of Ceylon v Societe Franco-Tunisienne D’armement-Tunis (The Massalia) (No. 2) [1960] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 352 (EW HC).

[2011] EWHC 1165 (Comm), [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 177 (EW HC).

Aldebaran Compania Maritime SA, Panama v Aussenhandel AG Zurich (The Darrah) [1977] AC 157, [1976] 2 All ER 963 (UK HL).

The House of Lords overruled The Radnor [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 668 (EW CA). The Radnor treated ‘time lost’ that did not admit laytime definition and exceptions when dealing with ‘time lost’ clauses.

Huyton SA v Inter Operators SA (The Stainless Emperor) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 298 (EW HC).

Moerland (Arnt J) K/S v Kuwait Petroleum Corpn (The Fjordaas) [1988] 2 All ER 714, [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 336 (EW HC).

Seatrade Group NV v Hakan Agro DMCC (The Aconcagua Bay) [2018] EWHC 654 (Comm), [2018] 2 All ER (Comm) 843 (EW HC).

Inca Compania Naviera SA and Commercial and Maritime Enterprises Evanghelos P Nomikos SA v Mofinol Inc (The President Brand) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 338 (EW HC); Nereide SpA di Navigazione v Bulk Oil International (The Laura Prima) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 (UK HL).

Shipping Developments Corpn v v/o Sojuzneftexport (The Delian Spirit) [1972] 1 QB 103, [1971] 2 WLR 1434, [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 506 (EW CA).

Inca Compania Naviera SA and Commercial and Maritime Enterprises Evanghelos P Nomikos SA v Mofinol Inc (The President Brand) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 338 (EW HC).

Oldendorff (E L) & Co GmbH v Tradax Export SA (The Johanna Oldendorff) [1974] AC 479, [1973] 3 All ER 148 (UK HL). See Chapter  14.4.2.1 for a discussion of this case.

Nereide SpA di Navigazione v Bulk Oil International (The Laura Prima) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 (UK HL).

The compensation payable by the charter, rightly, will be damages for detention, which may most of the time be same as the demurrage, unless the market rates have differed since the charterparty was entered into.

Sunbeam Shipping Co Ltd v President of India (The Atlantic Sunbeam) [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 482 (EW HC): the charterer had a duty to secure ‘jetty challan’ for the ship to enter the port, where that was a requirement of the port authority.

Sociedad Financiera De Bienes Raices Sa v Agrimpex Hungarian Trading Company for Agricultural Products [Appeal in The Aello] [1961] AC 135, [1960] 3 WLR 145 (UK HL).

It follows that the ship could not issue notice of readiness.

Malaysian Contracts Act 1950.

Section 68 of the Malaysian Contracts Act 1950 identically provides.

See Chapter  12.6.1 .

Cl. 6(3) (para 2).

Tidebrook Maritime Corp v Vitol SA of Geneva (The Front Commander) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 251 (EW CA), speech of Rix JL: where the charterer requires early notice of readiness, the charter sanctions early commencement of laytime.

TA Shipping Ltd v Comet Shipping Ltd (The Agamemnon) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 675 (EW HC).

Galaxy Energy International Ltd v Novorossiysk Shipping Co (The Petr Schmidt) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 284 (EW HC), affirmed by the Court of Appeal in [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 (EW CA).

See Tidebrook Maritime Corp v Vitol SA of Geneva (The Front Commander) [2006] EWCA Civ 944, [2006] 2 All ER (Comm) 813, [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 251 (EW CA); Total Transport Corporation v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd (The Eurus) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 408 (EW HC).

[2010] EWCA Civ 713, [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 257 (EW CA).

See Trafigura Beheer BV v Ravennavi SpA (The Port Russel) [2013] EWHC 490 (Comm), [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 57 (EW HC).

Cl. 16 of Gencon 1994 form has detailed provision dealing with strikes.

Grant & Co v Coverdale, Todd & Co (1884) 9 App Cas 470, 53 LJQB 462 (UK HL).

Navrom v Callitsis Ship Management SA (The Radauti) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 416 (EW CA).

Cl. 6(c) (para 2): “… Time used in moving from the place of waiting to the loading/ discharging berth shall not count as laytime. …”

[1925] AC 799, [1925] All ER Rep 607 (UK HL).

Gem Shipping Co of Monrovia v Babanaft (Lebanon) SARL (The Fontevivo) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 339 (EW HC).

Blue Anchor Line Ltd v Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH (The Union Amsterdam) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 432 (EW HC).

Overseas Transportation Co v Mineralimportexport (The Sinoe) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 514 (EW HC), affirmed by the Court of Appeal in [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201 (EW CA).

[1920] AC 88 (UK HL).

[2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 786 (EW HC).

[1927] 1 KB 879 (EW CA).

[1905] 2 QB 267 (EW HC).

Universal Cargo Carriers Corp v Citati [1957] 2 QB 401 (EW HC).

Inverkip SS Co v Bunge [1917] 2 KB 193 (EW CA).

Wilson & Coventry Ltd v Otto Thoresen Linie [1910] 2 KB 405 (EW HC).

See Chapter  13.7 .

[2003] SGCA 34 (SG CA).

Dias Cia Naviera SA v Louis Dreyfus Corpn (The Dias) [1978] 1 All ER 724, [1978] 1 WLR 261 (UK HL).

Dias Cia Naviera SA v Louis Dreyfus Corpn (The Dias) [1978] 1 All ER 724; Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Marocaine de L’Industrie du Raffinage (The Tsukuba Maru) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 459.

Rich (Marc) & Co Ltd v Tourloti Cia Naviera SA (The Kalliopi A) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 101 (UK CA).

DGC Commodities Corp v Sea Metropolitan SA (The Andra) [2012] EWHC 1984 (Comm), [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 587 (EW HC).

Which is identical to Article IV(2) of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules.

K Line PTE Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd (The Eternal Bliss) [2020] EWHC 2373 (Comm), [2020] 9 WLUK 40 (EW HC).

Part II, cl. 15(c)

National Shipping Co of Saudi Arabia v BP Oil Supply Co (The Abqaiq) [2011] EWCA Civ 1127, [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18 (EW CA).

Waterfront Shipping Company Ltd V Trafigura AG (The Sabrewing) [2007] EWHC 2482 (Comm), [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 286 (EW HC).

The Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Fr8 Singapore Pte Ltd (The Eternity) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 107 (EW HC).

Emeraldian Ltd Partnership v Wellmix Shipping Ltd (The Vine) [2010] EWHC 1411 (Comm), [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 301 (EW HC).

Nolisement (Owners) v Bunge and Born [1916-17] All ER Rep 734, [1917] 1 KB 160 (EW CA).

Zim Israel Navigation Co Ltd v Tradax Export SA (The Timna) [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 91 (EW CA).

[1951] 1 KB 240, [1950] 1 All ER 768 (EW HC).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Arun Kasi & Co, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arun Kasi .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Kasi, A. (2021). Voyage Charter: Laytime and Demurrage. In: The Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6793-7_14

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6793-7_14

Published : 02 September 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-33-6792-0

Online ISBN : 978-981-33-6793-7

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

List of Case Studies

• 1. Zim Israel Navigation Company Ltd v Tradax Export S.A. (The “Timna”) [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 409; [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 91
• 2. Federal Commerce and Navigation Co Ltd v Tradax Export S.A. (The “Maratha Envoy”) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 223; [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 217; [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 301
• 3. Tapscott and others v Balfour and Another
• 4. Hudson’s Bay Company v Domingo Mumbru Sociedad Anonima [1921] 9 Ll.L Rep 196; [1922] 10 Ll.L Rep 476
• 5. Miguel De Larrinaga Steamship Co. Ltd v D L Flack & Son (1924] 20 Ll.l Rep 268;
• 6. United States Shipping Board v Frank C Strick & Co Limited (The “Hinckley”) [1924] 19 Ll.l Rep 412; [1925] 21 Ll.l Rep 173; [1926] 25 Ll.l Rep 73
• 7. Agrimpex Hungarian Trading Company for Agricultural Products v Sociedad Financiera De Bienes Raices, S.A. (The “Aello”) [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 423; [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 65; [1961] Lloyd’s Rep 623
• 8. The Cordelia [1909] P 27
• 9. Kokusai Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha V Flack & Son [1922] 10 Ll.L Rep 83; [1922] 10 Ll.L Rep 635
• 10. E.l. Oldendorff & Co. G.M.B.H v Tradax Export S.A. (The “Johanna Oldendorff”) [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 96; [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 292; [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 285
• 11. N.V. Reederij Amsterdam v President of India (The “Amstelmolen”) [1961] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 1
• 12. Seacrystal Shipping Limited v Bulk Transport Group Shipping Co. Ltd (The “Kyzikos”) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 48; [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 122; [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1
• 13. Nereide S.P.A. Di Navigazione v Bulk Oil International Ltd (The “Laura Prima”) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 466; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 24; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1
• 14. Inca Compania Naviera S.A. and Commercial and Maritime Enterprises Evanghelos P. Nomikos S.A v Mofinol Inc. (The “President Brand”) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 338
• 15. Shipping Developments Corporation S.A. v V/O Sojuzneftexport (The “Delian Spirit”) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 64; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 506
• 16. Government of Ceylon v Societe Franco-Tunisienne D’armement-Tunis (The “Massalia”) (No.2) [1960] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 352
• 17. Roland-Linie Schiffahrt G.M.B.H v Spillers Ltd and others (The “Werrastein”) [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 211
• 18. North River Freighters Ltd v President of India (The “Radnor”) [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 73; [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 668
• 19. Tharsis Sulphur and Copper Company Limited v Morel Brothers & Co and others [1891] 2 QB 647
• 20. Leonis Steamship Company Limited v Joseph Rank Limited No. (1) 96 LTR 458; [1907] 1 KB 344; [1908] 1 KB 499
• 21. Leonis Steamship Company Limited v Joseph Rank Limited (No.2) 99 LTR 513; 13 Com Cas 161; 13 Com Cas 295
• 22. Pyman Brothers v Dreyfus Brothers & Co. [1889] 24 QBD 152
• 23. Dahl v Nelson, Donkin & Co. [1881 – 1885] ALL ER Rep 572; 6 APP CAS 38
• 24. Sociedad Carga Oceanica S.A. v Idolinoele Vertriebsgesellschaft M.B.H. (The “Angelos Lusis”) [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 28
• 25. Surrey Shipping Co. Ltd v Compagnie Continentale (France) S.A. (The “Shackleford”) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 191; [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 154
• 26. Carga Del Sur Compania Naviera, S.A. v Ross T Smyth & Co Ltd (The “Seafort”) [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 147
• 27. Reardon Smith Line, Ltd v East Asiatic Company [1938] 62 Ll.l Rep. 23
• 28. Northfield Steamship Company v Compagnie L’union Des Gaz (The “Nessfield”) [1912] 1 KB 434
• 29. Glencore Grain Ltd v Flacker Shipping Ltd (The “Happy Day”) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 754; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 487
• 30. Pteroti Compania Naviera S.A. v National Coal Board [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 245
• 31. Bristol City Line of Steamships v (The “John Ena”) [1921] 6 LI.L.Rep 401; [1921] 8 Ll.L Rep 294
• 32. Tidebrook Maritime Corporation v Vitol Sa (The “Front Commander”) [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 353; [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 251
• 33. (The “Thames”) [1939] 65 Ll.L Rep 99
• 34. Ben Shipping Co. (PTE) Ltd v An-Board Bainne (The “C. Joyce”) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 285
• 35. A/S Hansen-Tangens Rederi III v Total Transport Corporation (The “Sagona”) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 194
• 36. Thomas v Louis Dreyfus & Co. [1936] 54 Ll.l Rep 167; [1936] 56 Ll.l Rep 44
• 37. Naviera Mogor S.A. v Société Metallurgique De Normandie (The “Nogar Marin”) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 456; [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 412
• 38. Elder Dempster & Co. v Dunn & Co. [1909] 101 LTR 578
• 39. Bosma v Larsen [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 22
• 40. Telfair Shipping Corporation v Inersea Carriers S.A. (“The Caroline P”) [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 466
• 41. Strathlorne Steamship Co Ltd v Andrew Weir & Co. (The “Strathlorne”) [1934] 49 Ll.l Rep 306; [1934] 50 Ll. l Rep 185
• 42. Actis Co. Ltd v The Sanko Steamship Co Ltd (The “Aquacharm”) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 237; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 7
• 43. Moel Tryvan Ship Co v Kruger and Co. [1906] 2 KB 792; [1907] 1 KB 809; [1907] 97 LTR 143
• 44. Dawson Line Ltd v Aktiengesellschaft “Adler” Fuer Chemische Industrie of Berlin (The “Lady Brenda”) 40 Ll.L Rep 237; (1931) 41 Li.L 75
• 45. Larrinaga Steamship Company Ltd v The Crown (The “Ramon de Larrinaga”) [1943] VOL 75 Ll.l. Rep 64
• 46. Pyrene Company Ltd v Scindia Steam Navigation Company, Ltd [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 321
• 47. Brandt & Co v The River Plate Steam Navigation Company Ltd [1923] 15 Ll.L.Rep.123 [1923] 17 Ll.L Rep 142
• 48. The “K H Enterprise” (The “Pioneer Container”) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 593
• 49. A M Collins & Co v Panama Railroad Company [1952] AMC 2054
• 50. (The “Mahkutai”) [1994] 1 H.K.L.R. 212; [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1
• 51. Salmond & Spraggon (Australia) (Pty) Ltd v Joint Cargo Services (Pty) Ltd & Another (The “New York Star”) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 445; [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 298; [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 317
• 52. A N Satterthwaite & Co Ltd v New Zealand Shipping Company Ltd (The “Eurymedon”) [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 399; [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 544; [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 534
• 53. Gilbert Stokes & Kerr Proprietary Limited v Dalgety & Co. Ltd [1947 / 48] Vol 81 Lll Rep 337
• 54. Waters Trading Company Ltd v Dalgety and Co Ltd [1951] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 385
• 55. Krawill Machinery Corporation and Others v Robert C. Herd and Co. Inc. [1959] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 305
• 56. Wilson v Darling Island Stevedoring And Lighterage Company Limited [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 346
• 57. Midland Silicones Ltd v Scruttons Ltd [1959] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 289; [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 571; [1962] 1 All ER 1
• 58. Adler v Dickinson and Another (The “Himalaya”) [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 122; [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 267; [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 315
• 59. Elder Dempster & Co and Others v Paterson, Zochonis & Co. Ltd [1922] 12 Ll.l Rep 69; [1922] 13 Ll.l Rep 513; [1924] 18 Ll.l Rep 319
• 60. Glynn v Margetson [1893] A.C. 351
• 61. M.B. Pyramid Sound N.V. v Briese Schiffahrts GMBH and Co. K.G. M.S. “The Sina” and Latvian Shipping Association Ltd (The “Ines”) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 144
• 62. Sunrise Maritime Inc. v Uvisco Ltd (“The Hector’) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 287
• 63. Homburg Houtimport B.V. v Agrosin Private Ltd and Others (The “Starsin”) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 85; [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 437; [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 571
• 64. Fetim B.V. and others v Oceanspeed Shipping Ltd (The “Flecha”) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 612
• 65. Leigh and Sullivan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co. Ltd (The “Aliakmon”) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 203; [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 199; [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1
• 66. Balli Trading Ltd v Afalona Shipping Co. Ltd (“The Coral”) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 158; [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1
• 67. Harrison v Huddersfield Steamship Company (Limited) 1903 TLR 386
• 68. Samuel, Samuel and Co. v West Hartlepool Steam Navigation Company [1906] Com.Cas. 115
• 69. Anderson’s (Pacific) Trading Co (Pty) Ltd v Karlander New Guinea Line Ltd (1980) 2 NSWLR 870
• 70. Universal Steam Navigation Company, Limited v James Mckelvie And Company [1923] AC 492
• 71. The Venezuela [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 393
• 72. Baumwoll Manufactur Von Carl Scheibler v Furness [1893] AC 8
• 73. The Manchester Trust, Limited v Furness, Withy & Co. Limited (The “Boston City”) [1895] 2 QB 282 and [1895] 2 QB 539
• 74. Wehner and Others v Dene Steam Shipping Company and Others (The “Ferndene”) [1905] 2 KB 92
• 75. Tillmanns & Co v SS Knutsford Limited [1908] 1 KB 185; [1908] 2 KB 385; [1908] AC 406
• 76. The “Okehampton” [1913] P 54; [1913] P 173
• 77. Rederiaktiebolaget Argonaut v Hani [1917] KB 247
• 78. Fred. Drughorn Ltd v Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic [1918 – 1919] ALL ER Rep 1122
• 79. Wilston S.S. Co. Ltd v Andrew Weir & Co Ltd [1925] 22 Lll Rep 521
• 80. O/y Wasa Steamship Company Ltd and N V Stoomschip Hannah (The “Elle”) v Newspaper Pulp and Wood Export Ltd [1948/49] Vol. 82 Lloyd’s l. Rep 936
• 81. Tudor Marine Ltd v Tradax Export SA (The “Virgo”) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 135
• 82. Pyxis Special Shipping Co Ltd v Dritsas & Kaglis Bros Ltd (The “Scaplake”) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 380.
• 83. Stinnes Interoil GMBH v A Halcoussis and Co (The “Yanxilas”) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 445
• 84. Asty Maritime Co. Ltd and Panagiotis Stravelakis v Rocco Giuseppe & Figli SNC and Others (The “Astyanax”) [1984] 22 Lloyd’s Rep. 459; [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 109
• 85. The Rewia [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 69; [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325
• 86. Seatrade Groningen BV v Geest Industries Ltd (The “Frost Express”) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 375
• 87. The “Berkshire” [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 185
• 88. Frenkel v Macandrews & Co. Ltd [1929] 33 Ll.l Rep 191
• 89. Northern Sales Ltd v The “Giancarlo Zeta” (The “Giancarlo Zeta”) [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 317
• 90. J Evans & Son (Portsmouth) Ltd v Andrea Merzario Ltd [1976] 2 All ER 930
• 91. Agip S.P.A. v Avigazione Alta Italia S.P.A. (The “Nai Genova” and “Nai Superba”) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 333; [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 353
• 92. Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Pacifica Navigacion S.A. (The “Ion”)[1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 245
• 93. Pacol Ltd & Others v Tradelines Ltd & R/I Sif Iv (The “Henrik Sif”) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 465
• 94. The “Stolt Loyalty” [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281
• 95. Taylor v Lewis Ltd [1927] 27 Ll.L Rep 25 (Court Of Session)
• 96. Furness Withy (Australia) (Pty) Ltd v Metal Distributors (UK) Ltd (The “Amazonia”) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 236
• 97. The owners and/or the persons entitled to sue in respect of cargo latterly laden onboard the ship or vessel “Yaoki” v Owners and/or demise charterers of the ship or vessel “Yaoki” and the ships or vessels listed in the schedule hereto. Case No.: HCAJ 134/2005
• 98. Transgrain Shipping B.V. v Global Transporte Oceanico S.A. (The “Mexico 1”) [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 149; [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 507
• 99. Sofial S.A. v Ove Skou Rederi (The “Helle Skou”) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 205
• 100. Gerani Compania Naviera S.A. v General Organisation for Supply Goods (The “Demosthenes V”)(No.1) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 275
• 101. Armement Adolf Deppe v John Robinson & Co Ltd [1916-1917] All ER Rep 1084
• 102. Aktiebolaget Nordiska Lloyd v J Brownlie & Co (Hull) Ltd [1925] 21 Ll.L Rep 128; [1925] 22 Ll.L 79
• 103. Christensen v Hindustan Steel Ltd [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 395
• 104. Compania De Naviera Nedelka S.A. v Tradax International S.A. (The “Tres Flores”) [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 384; [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 247
• 105. T.A Shipping Ltd v Comet Shipping Ltd (The “Agamemnon”) [1998] 1 Lloyds Rep 675
• 106. The “Mozart” [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 239
• 107. Galaxy Energy International Ltd v Novorossiysk Shipping Co (The “Petr Schmidt”) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 284; [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 1
• 108. Sarma Navigation SA v Sidermar S.P.A (The “Sea Pioneer”) [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 408; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 13
• 109. Transamerican Steamship Corporation v Tradax Export S.A. (The “Oriental Envoy”) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 266
• 110. Porteus and Others v Watney And Others 1878 QBD 223; 534
• 111. “Graigwen” (Owners) v Anglo-Canadian Shipping Company Ltd [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 260
• 112. Federal Commerce and Navigation Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc (The “Nanfri”, “Benfri” And “Lorfri”) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 581; [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 132; [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201
• 113. Turner and Another v Haji Goolam Mahomed Azam (“The Bombay”) [1904] AC 826
• 114. China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corporation v Eulogia Shipping Co, S.A. of Panama (The “Mihalios Xilas”) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 697; [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 397; [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 303
• 115. A/S A Wilco v Fulvia S.P.A. Di Navigazione (The “Chikuma”) [1979] 1 Lloyds Rep 367; [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 409; [1981] 1 Lloyds Rep 371
• 116. Mardorf Peach & Co Ltd v Attica Sea Carriers Corporation of Liberia (The “Laconia”) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 634; [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 395; [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 315
• 117. Tenax Steamship Co. Ltd v The Owners of the “Brimnes” [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 465; [1974] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 241
• 118. Empresa Cubana De Fletes v Lagonisi Shipping Company Ltd (The “Georgios C”) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 7
• 119. A/S Tankexpress v Compagnie Financiere Belge Des Petroles S/A [1945/46] 79 Ll.L Rep 451; [1946/47] 80 Ll.L Rep 365; [1948/49] 82 Ll.L Rep 43
• 120. Afovos Shipping Co. S.S. v R Pagnan and Filii (The “Afovos”) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 469; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 562; [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 335
• 121. Scandanavian Trading Tanker Co. A.B. v Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana (The “Scaptrade”) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 425; [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 146; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 253
• 122. Maredelanto Compania Naviera S.A. v Bergbau-Handel G M.B.H (The “Mihalis Angelos”) [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 118; [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 43
• 123. Tropwood A.G. of Zug v Jade Enterprises Ltd (The “Tropwind”) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 45; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 232
• 124. Tradax Export S.A. v Dorada Compania Naviera S.A. (The “Lutetian”) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 140
• 125. Astra Amo Compania Naviera S.A. v Elf Union S.A. and First National City Bank (The “Zographia M”) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 382
• 126. Telfair Shipping Corporation v Athos Shipping Co. S.S. Solidor Shipping Co. Ltd, Horizon Finance Corporation and A.N. Cominos (The “Athos”) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 74; [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 127;
• 127. Tropwood AG v Jade Enterprises Ltd (The “Tropwind”) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 397
• 128. Western Bulk Carriers K/S v Li Hai Maritime Inc (The “Li Hai”) [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 389
• 129. Oceanic Freighters Corporation v M.V. Libyaville Reederei Und Schiffahrts G.M.B. H. (The “Libyaville”) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 537
• 130. The Leon Corporation v Atlantic Lines and Navigation Co. Inc (The “Leon”) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 470
• 131. Aries Tanker Corporation v Total Transport Ltd (The “Aries”) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 256; [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 334
• 132. Henriksens Rederi A/S v T.H.Z. Rolimpex (The “Brede”) [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 511; [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 333
• 133. Colonial Bank v European Grain & Shipping Ltd (The “Dominique”) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 239; [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215; [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 431
• 134. Dakin v Oxley 15CB (NS) 647 (1864)
• 135. Overseas Transportation Company v Mineralimportexport (the “Sinoe”) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 514; [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201
• 136. Fidelitas Shipping Company, Ltd v V/O Exportchleb [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 246; [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 113
• 137. Action S.A. v Britannic Shipping Corporation Ltd. (The “Aegis Britannic”) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 481
• 138. Anglo-Oriental Navigation Company, Ltd v T & J Brocklebank, Ltd [1927] 27 Ll.l. Rep. 359; 455
• 139. Marvigor Compania Naviera S.A. v Romanoexport State Company for Foreign Trade (The “Corinthian Glory”) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 280
• 140. Clink v Radford & Co [1891] 1 QB 625
• 141. Hansen v Harrold Brothers [1894] 1 QB 612
• 142. Jenneson, Taylor & Co v Secretary of State for India in Council [1916] 2 KB 702
• 143. Gullischen v Stewart Brothers (1882 – 83) I.R. 11 Q.B.D; (1883-84) L.R. 13 Q.B.D
• 144. Gerani Compania Naviera S.A. v Alfred C Toepfer (The “Demosthenes V”) (No. 2) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 282
• 145. The “Don Francisco” 32 LAW J. ADM. 14
• 146. Hector Steamship Company v V.O. Sovfracht, Moscow (1945) 78 Ll.l Rep 275
• 147. London and Overseas Freighters Ltd v Timber Shipping Company S.A. (The “London Explorer”) [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 207
• 148. Alma Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v Mantovani (The “Dione”) [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 86; [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 115
• 149. Marbienes Compania Naviera S.A. v Ferrostaal A.G. (The “Democritos”) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 386; [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 149
• 150. Skibsaktieselskapet Snefonn, Skibaksjeselskapet Bergehus and Sig Bergesen D.Y. & Company v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (The “Berge Tasta”) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 422
• 151. Gulf Shipping Lines Ltd v Compania Naviera Alanje S.A. (The “Aspa Maria”) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 542; [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 643
• 152. Mareva Navigation Co Ltd v Canaria Armadora S.A. (The “Mareva A.S.”) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 368
• 153. Arta Shipping Co Ltd v Thai Europe Tapioca Service Ltd (The “Johnny”) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 257; [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1
• 154. Jadranska Slobodna Plovidba v Gulf Shipping Line Ltd (The “Matija Gubec”) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 24
• 155. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Gesuri Chartering Co Ltd (The “Peonia”) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100
• Chiswell Shipping Ltd and Liberian Jaguar Transports Inc v National Iranian Tanker Co. (the “World Symphony” and “World Renown”) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 251; [1992] 2 Lloyds Rep 115
• 157. Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corporation (The “Gregos”) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40; [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 335; [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1
• 158. Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The “Achilleas”) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 19; [2008] 3 WLR 345; [2009] 1 AC 61
• 159. David Duncan and Others v Daniel Augustus Köster (The “Teutonia”) (1871 - 1873) IR 4 P.C. 171
• 160. Limerick Steamship Company, Ltd v W.H. Stott & Co Ltd (The “Irishboffin”) (1920) 5 Ll.l Rep 190; (1921) 7 Ll.l Rep 69
• 161. Lensen Shipping Lltd v Anglo-Soviet Shipping Company Ltd (1934) 50 Ll. L. Rep 62; (1935) 52 Ll. L. Rep 141
• 162. The “Pass of Leny” (1936) 54 Ll. L Rep 288
• 163. West Ltd v Wrights (Colchester) Ltd (The “Olive May”) (1935) 51 Ll. L Rep 105
• 164. Palace Shipping Company Limited v Gans Steamship Line [1916] 1 K.B. 138
• 165. G.W. Grace & Co v General Steam Navigation Company, Ltd (The “Sussex Oak”) (1949 – 50) 83 Ll. L Rep 297
• 166. Reardon Smith Line Ltd V Australian Wheat Board (The “Houston City”) [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 131; [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 148
• 167. Compania Naviera Maropan S.A. v Bowater’s Lloyd Pulp and Paper Mills, Ltd (The “Stork”) [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 397; [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 349
• 168. Leeds Shipping Company Ltd v Societe Francaise Bunge (The “Eastern City”) [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 153; [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127
• 169. Tage Berglund v Montoro Shipping Corporation Ltd (The “Dagmar”) [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 563
• 170. Vardinoyannis v The Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation (The “Evaggelos Th”) [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 200
• 171. Unitramp v Garnac Grain Co Inc (The “Hermine”) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 37; [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 212
• 172. Islander Shipping Enterprises S.A. v Empresa Maritima Del Estado S.A. (The “Khian Sea”) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 439; [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 545
• 173. Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v Cook Industries Inc. (The “Mary Lou”) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 272
• 174. Kodros Shipping Corporation v Empresa Cubana De Fletes (The “Evia” 2) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 613; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 334; [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 307
• 175. Uni-Ocean Lines PTE Ltd v C-Trade S.A. (The “Lucille”) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 387’ [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 244
• 176. K/S Penta Shipping A/S v Ethiopian Shipping Lines Corporation (The “Saga Cob”) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 398; [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 545
• 177. D/S A/S Idaho v Colossus Maritime S.A. (The “Concordia Fjord”) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 385
• 178. Atkins International H.A. v Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (The “A.P.J. Priti”) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 37
• 179. Pearl Carriers Inc v Japan Line Ltd (The “Chemical Venture”) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 508
• 180. Mediolanum Shipping Co v Japan Lines Ltd (The “Mediolanum”) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 47; [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 136
• 181. Kristiandsands Tankrederi A/S and Others v Standard Tankers (Bahamas) Ltd (The “Polyglory”) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 353
• 182. Axel Brostrom & Son v Dreyfus & Co (1932) 44 L.l.l. Rep 136
• 183. Prekookeanska Plovidba v Felstar Shipping Corporation and Setramar SRL and STC Scantrade A.B. (Third Party), (The “Carnival”) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 449; [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 14
• 184. Independent Petroleum Group Limited v Seacarriers Count PTE Limited (The “Count”) [2007] 1 ALL E.R. (Comm) 882
• 185. Stx Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Ugland Bulk Transport As (The “Livanita”) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 86
• 186. St Vincent Shipping Co Ltd v Bock, Godeffroy & Co (The “Helen Miller”) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 95
• 187. Serraino & Sons v Campbell and Others (1890) L.R. 25 Q.B.D. 501; [1891] 1 Q.B. 283
• 188. Hogarth Shipping Company Limited, v. Blyth, Greene, Jourdain and Co Limited [1917] 2 K.B. 534
• 189. Fort Shipping Company Ltd v Pederson & Co (1924) 19 Ll. L. Rep. 26
• 190. The Northumbria [1906] P.292
• 191. The “Merak” [1964] 2 Lloyds’ Rep. 283; [1964] 2 Lloyds’ Rep. 527
• 192. The “Njegos” (1935) 53 Ll.l. Rep 286
• 193. The “Annefield” [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 252; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1
• 194. Atlas Levante-Linie Aktiengesellschaft v Gesellschaft Fuer Getreidehandel A.G. and Becher, (The “Phonizien”) [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 150
• 195. The “Rena K” [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 545
• 196. Astro Valiente Compania Naviera S.A. v The Government of Pakistan Ministry of Food and Agriculture (The “Emmanuel Colocotronis”) (No. 2) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 286
• 197. Skips A/S Nordheim & Others v Syrian Petroleum Co Ltd and Petrofina S.A. (The “Varenna”) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 416; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 592
• 198. Federal Bulk Carriers Inc v C. Itoh & Co. Ltd and Others (The “Federal Bulker”) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 103
• 199. Daval Aciers D’usinor Et De Sacilor And Others V Armare Srl (The “Nerano”) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 50; [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1
• 200. Miramar Maritime Corporation v Holborn Oil Trading Ltd (The “Miramar”) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 319; [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 142; [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 129
• 201. TW Thomas and Co. Limited v The Portsea Steamship Company, Limited (The “Portsmouth”) [1910] P.293; [1911] P.55; [1912] A.C. 1
• 202. Navigazione Alta Italia Spa V Svenska Petroleum Ab (The “Nai Matteini”) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 452
• 203. Gray v Carr and Another (1870 – 71) l.R. 6 Q.B. 522
• 204. Crossfield & Co v Kyle Shipping Company Limited (The “Kylestrome”) [1916] 2 K.B. 885
• 205. Allen and Another v Coltart & Co and Others (1883) QBD 782
• 206. Diederichsen v Farquharson Brothers ([1898] QBD 150
• 207. Siboti K/S v Bp France Sa [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 364
• 208. Ogden v Graham and Another 1 B&S 772
• 209. Fornyade Rederiaktiebolaget Commercial v Blake & Co and Others (The “Varing”) (1931) 39 Ll. L. Rep. 205
• 210. Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [and 4 Other Cases] [1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 229; [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 385; [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 12
• 211. Carlton Steampship Company v Castle Mail Packets Company [1898] AC 486
• 212. Franco – British Steamship Company Ltd v Watson and Youell (1921) 9 L.L.L Rep 282
• 213. Ocean Pride Maritime Limited Partnership v Qingdao Ocean Shipping Co (The “Northgate”) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 511
• 214. Tradigrain S.A. and Others v King Diamond Shipping S.A. (The “Spiros C”) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 91; [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 319
• 215. India Steamship Co v Louis Dreyfus Sugar Ltd (The “Indian Reliance”) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 52
• 216. Tagart, Beaton & Co v James Fisher & Sons, West Hartlepool Steam Navigation Company, Limited, Third Parties (The “Askehall”)[1903] 1 K.B. 391
• 217. Molthes Rederi A/S v Ellerman’s Wilson Line, Ltd [1926] 26 L.l. L Rep 259
• 218. Seagate Shipping Ltd v Glencore International A.G. (The “Silver Constellation”) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 69
• 219. Alfred C. Toepfer Schiffahrtsgesellschaft G.M.B.H v Tossa Marine Co. Ltd (The “Derby”) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 635; [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 325
• 220. Partenreederei M.S. Karen Oltmann v Scarsdale Shipping Co. Ltd (The “Karen Oltmann”) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 708
• 221. Inverkip Steamship Company Limited v Bunge & Co [1917] 1 K.B. 31; [1917] 2 K.B. 193
• 222. Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd (1926) 25 L.l.L. Rep. 30; (1926) 25 L.l.L Rep 513
• 223. “Snia” Societa Di Navigazione Industria E Commercia v Suzuki & Co and Teikoku Kisen Kaisha (1924) 18 L.L.L Rep 333
• 224. Erg Raffinerie Mediterranee S.P.A v Chevron Usa Inc (The “Luxmar”) [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 542
• 225. Siderurgica Mendes Junior S.A. and Mitsui & Co (Canada) Ltd v In the Ship “Ice Pearl” [1996] 6 W.W.R 411
• 226. Steamship Calcutta Company Ltd v Andrew Weir & Co [1910] 1 KB 759
• 227. Love and Stewart, Limited v Rowtor Steamship Company Limited (The “Glamorgan”) 1915 S.L.T 205; 1916 SC 223; [1916] 2 AC 527
• 228. Temperley Steam Shipping Company v Smyth & Co (The “Woodbridge”) [1905] 2 K.B. 791
• 229. Small and Others v Moates 131 E.R. 729 (1833) 9 BING. 574
• 230. GLEDSTANES v ALLEN (1852) 12 C.B. 202
• 231. Howard & Others v Tucker & Others (1831) 1 B & AD 712
• 232. Burdick v Sewell and Nephew (1882 – 83) lR 10 QBD 363; (1883 – 84) lR 13 QBD 159; (1884 – 85) lR 10 APP.CAS. 74
• 233. Lickbarrow v Mason (1787) 2 T.R. 63 (KB); (1790) H. BI 357 (EC); (1793) IV Brown 57 (HL)
• 234. Rodoconachi, Sons & Co v Milburn Brothers (The “Redesdale”) (1887) l.R. 18 Q.B.D. 67
• 235. Turner and Another v Haji Goolam Mohamed Azam [1904] AC 826
• 236. President of India v Metcalfe Shipping Co Ltd (the "Dunelmia")[1969] 1 All ER 861; [1969] All ER 1549
• 237. Colvin v Newberry [1832] 1 Cl & F 283
• 238. Meyerstein v Barber and Others (1866 – 67) lR 2 CP 38; (1866 -67) lR 2 CP 661; (1869 – 70) IR 4 HL 317;
• 239. Wright v Campbell 1 Black W 628; 4 Burr. 2046
• 240. Hibbert and Others v Carter (1787) 1 TR 746
• 241. Caldwell v Ball (The “Tyger”) (1786) 1 TR 205
• 242. Mediterranean Salvage and Towage Ltd v Seamar Trading And Commerce Inc (The “Reborn”) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 628; [2009] EWCA CIV 531
• 243. Aldebaran Compania Maritima SA v Aussenhandel A.G. (The “Darrah”) [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 285; [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 359
• 244. Action Navigation Inc v Bottiglieri Di Navigazione S.P.A (The “Kitsa”) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 432
• 245. Santa Martha Baay Scheepvaart & Handelsmaatschappij NV v Scanbulk A/S (The “Rijn”) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 267
• 246. Cosmos Bulk Transport Inc v China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corporation (The “Apollonius”) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 53
• 247. Tor Line AB v Alltrans Group Of Canada Ltd (The “TFL Prosperity”) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 617; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 18; [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 123
• 248. Losinjska Plovidba Brodarstovo DB v Valfracht Maritime Co Ltd & Another (The “Lipa”) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 17
• 249. Continental Pacific Shipping Ltd v Deemand Shipping Co Ltd (The “Lendoudis Evangelos II”) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 404
• 250. Hongkong Fir Shipping Company Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd "the Hong Kong Fir" [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 159; [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 478
• 251. Triad Shipping Co v Stellar Chartering & Brokerage Inc., (The "Island Archon") [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 227
• 252. New A Line v Erechthion Shipping Co. S.A (The "Erechthion") Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [1987] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 180
• 253. Paros Shipping Corporation v. Nafta (GB) Ltd, (The “Paros”) [1987] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 269
• 254. Garbis Maritime Corporation v. Philippine National Oil Co (The “Garbis") [1982] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 283)
• 255. The “Athanasia Comninos” and The “Georges CHR.Lemos” [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.277: [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 107[ Note ]
• 256. The Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd V FR8 Singapore PTE Ltd (The “Eternity”) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 107
• 257. Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisa (The “Golden Victory”) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep .443: [2005] Lloyds Rep 747: [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 164
• 258. Total Transport Corporation v Arcadia Petroleum Ltd (The “Eurus”) [1996] 2 Lloyds Rep 408: [1998] 1 Lloyds Rep 351
• 259. Italian State Railways v Mavrogordatos and Another [1919] 2 KB 305 (The “Antonios M Mavrogordatos”)
• 260. Royal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (The “Ann Strathatos”) (1949-50) 83 Ll.L.Rep 228
• 261. Italmare Shipping Co v Ocean Tanker Co Inc (The “Rio Sun”) [1982] 1 Lloyds Rep 404
• 262. Budd and Co Ltd v Johnson, Englehart & Co Ltd (The “Spind”) (1920) 2 Ll.L.Rep 27
• 263. Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha v Bantham Steamship Company Ltd (The “Nailsea Meadow”) (1938) 60 Ll.L Rep. 70; (1938) 61 Ll.L Rep.331
• 264. Steelwood Carriers Inc of Monrovia, Liberia v Evimeria Compania Naviera SA of Panama (The “Agios Giorgis”) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 192
• 265. Aegnoussiotis Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v A/S Kristian Jebsens Rederi of Bergen, (The “Aegnoussiotis”) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 268
• 266. ENE Kos Ltd v Petroleo Brasileiro SA (The “Kos”) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87; [2010] EWCA CIV 713; [2012] UKSC 17
• 267. Hyundai Merchant Marine v Furnace Withy (the "Doric Pride") [2006] 2 Lloyds Rep 175
• 268. Whistler International Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (“The Hill Harmony”)
• 269. Novologistics Sarl v Five Ocean Corporation (The “Merida”) [2010] 1 Lloyds Rep 274
• 270. Ocean Tramp Tankers Corp v V/O Sovfracht (The “Eugenia”) [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 318
• 271. Stag Line v Board of Trade (The “Cydonia”) (1949 – 1950) 83 Ll.L. Rep 356; (1950) 84 Ll.L. Rep 1
• 272. Compania Argentina De Navegacion De Ultramar v Tradax Export SA (The “Puerto Rocca”) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 252
• 273. Itex Itagrani Export SA v Care Shipping Corp (The “Cebu”) (No.2) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 316
• 274. Cosmar Compania Naviera v Total Transport Corp (The “Isabelle”) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 81; [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 366
• 275. Compania Naviera Termar SA v Tradax Export SA (The “Ante Topic”) [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 198; [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 79; [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 566
• 276. Sanders v Jenkins (The”Albireo”) [1897] 1 QB 93
• 277. Welex AG v Rosa Maritime Ltd (The “Epsilon Rosa”) (No.2) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 81; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 701; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509
• 278. Transworld Oil Ltd v North Bay Shipping Corporation (The “Rio Claro”) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 173
• 279. The Parana (1876) 1.P.D. 452; (1877) 2.P.D 118 (CA)
• 280. Dunn v Bucknall Bros [1902] 2 K.B.614 (“The Mashona”)
• 281. Monarch Steamship Co Ltd v A/B Karlshamns Oljefabriker (The “British Monarch”) 1947 S.C 179; 1949 S.C.(HL) 1
• 282. C.Czarnikow LTD v Koufos (The “Heron II”) [1966] 1 Lloyds Rep 259; [1966] 2 Q.B. 695; [1969] 1 A.C. 350
• 283. British Columbia Saw Mill Co Ltd v Nettleship (The “Kent”) (1867-68) L.R.3 C P.499 (Court Of Common Pleas)
• 284. Satef-Huttenes Albertus S.P.A. v Paloma Tercera Shipping Co SA (The “Pegase”) [1981] 1 Lloyds Rep 175
• 285. R & H Hall Ltd v W H Pim Junior & Co Ltd (The “Indianic”) 27 Ll.L.Rep.253; 30 Ll.L.Rep.159
• 286. Sylvia Shipping Co Ltd v Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd (The “Sylvia”) [2010] EWHC 542 (Comm)
• 287. Aet Inc Limited V Arcadia Petroleum Limited (The “Eagle Valencia”) [2009] EWHC 2337 (Comm); [2010] EWCA CIV 713
• 288. Adamastos Shipping Co Ltd v Anglo Saxon Petroleum Co Ltd (The “Saxon Star”) [1957] 2 WLR 509; [1957] 2 QB 233; [1959] AC 133
• 289. Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co (The “Mamola Challenger”) [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm)
• 290. The Soufflet Negoce S.A. v Bunge S.A. (The “Lady Hind”) [2009] EWHC 2454 (Comm); [2010] EWCA CIV 1102
• 291. Pagnan S.P.A. v Tradax Ocean Transportation S.A. (The “Kervan”) [1986] 2 Lloyds Rep 646; [1987] 2 Lloyds Rep 342
• 292. Bayoil SA v Seawind Tankers Corp (The “Leonidas”) [2001] 1 Lloyds Rep 533
• 293. Cobelfret Bulk Carriers N.V v Swissmarine Services SA (The “Lowlands Orchid”) [2009] EWHC 2883 (Comm)
• 294. Dalwood Marine Co v Nordana Line A/S (The “Elbrus”) [2009] EWHC 3394 (Comm)
• 295. Int Shipping and Chartering GMBH v Chansung Shipping Company Limited (The “Zenovia”) [2009] EWHC 739 (Comm)
• 296. Onego Shipping and Chartering BV v JSC Arcadia Shipping (The “Socol 3”) [2010] EWHC 777 (Comm)
• 297. Dolphin Tanker Srl v Westport Petroleum Inc (The “Savina Caylyn”) [2010] EWHC 2617 (Comm)
• 298. Ap Moller – Maersk v Sonaec Villas [2010] EWHC 355 (Comm)
• 299. Angara Maritime Limited v Oceanconnect UK Limited (the “Fesco Angara”) [2010] EWHC 619; [2010] EWCA Civ 1050
• 300. Forsythe International (UK) Ltd v Silver Shipping Co Ltd & Others (The “Saetta”) [1994] 1 WLR 1334
• 301. Cosco Bulk Carriers Co Ltd v Team- Up Owning Co Ltd (The “Saldanha”) [2010] EWHC 1340 (Comm)
• 302. Ispat Industries Ltd v Western Bulk PTE Ltd (The “Sabrina 1”) [2011] Ewhc 93 (Comm)
• 303. Emeraldian Limited Partnership v Wellmix Shipping Ltd and Another (The “Vine”) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 301
• 304. Owneast Shipping Ltd v Qatar Navigation Qsc (The “Qatar Star”) [2011] Lloyd’s Rep 350
• 305. Venizelos A.N.E of Athens v Societe Commerciale De Cereales Et Financiere S.A of Zurich (The “Prometheus”) [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 350
• 306. Owners of Steamship “Matheos” v Louis Dreyfus & Co [1925] A.C.654
• 307. Anglo-Danubian Transport Co Ltd v Ministry of Food (The “Shelley”) [1949] 2 A E R 1068
• 308. Milan Nigeria Limited v Angeliki B Maritime Company (The “Angeliki B”) 2011 EWHC 892 (Comm)
• 309. Andrew Weir & Co v Dobell & Co (The “Kensington”) [1916] 1 K.B. 722
• 310. Glory Wealth Shipping (PTE) Ltd v North China Shipping Ltd (The “North Prince”) [2011] 1 Lloyds Law Reports Plus 19
• 311. Koch Marine Inc v D’ Amico Societa Di Navigazione A.R.L (The “Elena D’ Amico”) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 75
• 312. Pace Shipping Co Ltd v Churchgate Nigeria Ltd (The “Pace”) (No.2) [2010] EWHC 2828 (Comm)
• 313. Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (The ‘Kildare”) [2010] EWHC 903 (Comm)
• 314. TTMI Sarl v Statoil ASA (The “Sibohelle”) [2011] EWHC 1150 (Comm)
• 315. Suek AG v Glencore International AG (The “Hang Ta”) [2011] EWHC 1361 (Comm)
• 316. Front Carriers Ltd v Atlantic and Orient Shipping Corporation (The “Double Happiness”) [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 131
• 317. Great Eastern Company Limited v Far East Chartering Limited and another (The “Jag Ravi”) [2011] EWHC 1372 (Comm); [2012] EWCA Civ 180
• 318. Rhodian River Shipping Co SA and Rhodian Sailor Shipping Co SA v Halla Maritime Corporation (The “Rhodian River” and “Rhodian Sailor”) [1984] 1 Lloyds Rep 373
• 319. X v Y [2011] 1 Lloyds Rep 694
• 320. Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Limited v Korea Line Corporation (The “M.V Wren”) [2011] EWHC 1819 (Comm)
• 321. Agro Company of Canada Ltd v Richmond Shipping Ltd (The “Simonburn”) [1972] 2 Lloyds Rep 355; [1973] 1 Lloyds Rep 392
• 322. Waterfront Shipping Company Ltd v Trafigura AG (The “Sabrewing”) [2008] 1 Lloyds Rep 286
• 323. Central Argentine Railway, Ltd v Marwood (the “Goathland”) [1915] A.C. 981
• 324. Carboex SA v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA (the “Co-op Phoenix” and three other vessels) [2011] EWHC 1165 (Comm); [2012] EWCA Civ 838
• 325. Transpetrol and Maritime Services Ltd v SJB (Marine Energy) BV (the “Rowan”) [2011] 1 Lloyds Rep Plus 64; [2012] EWCA Civ 198
• 326. National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia v BP Oil Supply Company (The “Abqaiq”) [2010] EWHC 3043 (Comm);[2011] EWCA Civ 1127
• 327. Babanaft International Co. SA v Avant Petroleum Inc. (the “Oltenia”) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s rep 448
• 328. Gas Natural Aprovisionamientos SDG SA v Methane Services Ltd (the “Khannur” and the “Gimi”) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 610.
• 329. Cargill UK LTD v Continental UK LTD (the “Cobetas” and the “Finnbeaver”)
• 330. Bunge Corporation v Tradax Export S.A. [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep 1; [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 294; [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 477; 1981 WLR 711
• 331. Thai Maparn Trading Co Ltd v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia PTE LTD (the “Med Salvador” and the “Goa”) [2011] EWHC 2494 (Comm)
• 332. Pacific Basin IHX Ltd v Bulkhandling Handymax AS (the “Triton Lark”) [2011] EWHC 2862 (Comm); [2012] EWHC 70 (Comm)
• 333. Parbulk II A/S v Heritage Maritime Ltd SA (the “Mahakam”) [2011] EWHC 2917 (Comm)
• 334. Houlder Brothers & Co v The Commissioner of Public Works [1908] AC 276
• 335. Suzuki and Co. v Companhia Mercantile Internacional (the “Ataka Maru”) [1921] Vol.8 Ll.L.REP. 174 ; [1921] Vol.9 Ll.L.REP. 171
• 336. Mallozzi v Carapelli Spa (“the Italmotor”) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s rep 229 ; [1976] 1 Lloyd’s rep 407
• 337. R. Pagnan and Fratelli v Finagrain Compagnie Commerciale Agricole et Financiere S.A (the “Adolf Leonhardt”) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 395
• 338. Etablissements Soules et cie v Intertradex S.A (the “Handy Mariner”) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s rep 378
• 339. Gill and Duffus S.A v Rionda Futures Ltd (the “Opal Islands”) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 67
• 340. O K Petroleum A.B v Vitol Energy S.A (the “Chemical Venture” and the “Jade”) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 160
• 341. Fal Oil Co. Ltd and Another v Petronas Trading Corporation SDN BHD (the “Devon”) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 9; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 282
• 342. Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Sonol Israel Ltd (the “Team Anmaj”) [2011] EWHC 2756 (Comm)
• 343. Eitzen Bulk A/S v TTMI SARL (the “Bonnie Smithwick”) [2012] EWHC 202 (Comm)
• 344. Hyundai Merchant Marine Company Limited v Trafigura Beheer B.V. (the “Gaz Energy ” 1) [2011] EWHC 3108 (Comm)
• 345. Progress Bulk Carriers Limited v Tube City IMS LLC (the “Cenk Kaptanoglu”) [2012] EWHC 273 (Comm)
• 346. Sideridraulic Systems SpA v BBC Chartering and Logistic GmbH (the “BBC Greenland”) [2011] EWHC 3106 (Comm)
• 347. M.H. Progress Lines SA v Orient Shipping Rotterdam BV (the “Genius Star 1”) [2011] EWHC 3083 (Comm)
• 348. ED&F Man Sugar Limited v Belmont Shipping Limited (the “Amplify”) [2011] EWHC 2992 (Comm)
• 349. Osmium Shipping Corporation v Cargill International SA (the “Captain Stefanos”) [2012] EWHC 571 (Comm)
• 350. Metall Market 000 v Vitoria Shipping Company Limited (the “Lehmann Timber”) [2012] EWHC 844 (Comm); [2013] EWCA Civ 650
• 351. Finmoon Limited v Baltic Reefers Management Ltd and Others (the “Baltic Navigator” and 11 Other Vessels) [2012] EWHC 920 (Comm)
• 352. Isabella Shipowner SA v Shagang Shipping Co Ltd (the “Aquafaith”) [2012] EWHC 1077 (Comm)
• 353. BP Oil International Limited v Target Shipping Limited (the “Target”) [2012] EWHC 1590 (Comm); [2013] EWCA Civ 196
• 354. Glebe Island Terminals (Pty) Ltd v Continental Seagram (Pty) Ltd and another (the “Antwerpen”) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 213
• 355. John Carter (Fine Worsteds) Ltd v Hanson Haulage (Leeds) Ltd [1965] 2 QB 495
• 356. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v V. Daelim Corporation (the “Gaz Energy ” 2) [2012] EWHC 1686 (Comm)
• 357. Shaw v The Great Western Railway Company [1894] 1 QB 373
• 358. Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd v Rambler Cycle Co Ltd (the “SS Glengarry”) [1959] AC 576
• 359. Taokas Navigation SA v Komrowski Bulk Shipping KG (GmbH & Co); Kent Line International Ltd v Solym Carriers Ltd (the “Paiwan Wisdom”) [2012] EWHC 1888 (Comm)
• 360. Motis Export Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 Aktieselskab and Aktieselskabet Dampskibsselskabet Svendborg (Maersk Line) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 837; [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 211
• 361. Center Optical (Hong Kong) Ltd v Jardine Transport Services (China) Ltd and Pronto Cargo Corporation (Third Party) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 678
• 362. DGM Commodities Corp v Sea Metropolitan SA (the “MV Andra”) [2012] EWHC 1984 [Comm]
• 363. Adelfamar S.A. v Silos E Mangimi Martini S.p.A (the “Adelfa”) [1998] 2 Lloyds Rep 466
• 364. Dry Bulk Handy Holding Inc., Compania Americana de Vapores SA v Fayette International Holdings Limited, Metinvest International SA (the “Bulk Chile”) [2012] EWHC 2107 (Comm); [2013] EWCA Civ 184
• 365. Global Maritime Investments Limited v STX Pan Ocean Co. Limited (the “Dimitris L”) [2012] EWHC 2339 (Comm)
• 366. VTC v PVC [2012] EWHC 1100 (Comm)
• 367. ED & F Man Sugar Ltd v Unicargo Transportgesellschaft GmbH (“the Ladytramp”) [2012] EWHC 2879 (Comm); [2013] EWCA Civ 1449
• 368. Great Elephant Corporation v Trafigura Beheer BV (The “Crudesky”) [2012] EWHC 1745 (Comm); [2013] EWCA Civ 905
• 369. Bulk Ship Union SA v Clipper Bulk Shipping Ltd (the "Pearl C”) [2012] EWHC 2595 (COMM)
• 370. Breffka and Hehnke GMBH and Co KG & Others v Navire Shipping Co Ltd & Others (The “Saga Explorer”) [2012] EWHC 3124 (Comm)
• 371. Western Bulk Shipowning III A/S v Carbofer Maritime Trading APS and others (the “Western Moscow”) [2012] EWHC 1224 (Comm)
• 372. Greatship (India) Limited v Oceanografia SA de CV (the “Greatship Dhriti”) [2012] EWHC 3468 (Comm)
• 373. Minerva Navigation Inc v Oceana Shipping AG (“the Athena”) [2012] EWHC 3608 (Comm); [2013] EWCA Civ 1723
• 374. Falkonera Shipping Company v Arcadia Energy Pte Ltd (“the Falkonera”) [2012] EWHC 3678 (Comm); [2014] EWCA Civ 713
• 375. Bunge S.A v Nidera B.V [2013] EWHC 84 (Comm); [2013] EWCA Civ 1628; [2015] UKSC 43
• 376. NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v Cargill International SA (the “Global Santosh”) [2013] EWHC 30 (Comm); [2014] EWCA Civ 403, [2016] UKSC 20
• 377. Rainy Sky S.A. v Kookmin Bank [2009] EWHC 2624 [Comm]; [2010] EWCA Civ 582; [2011] UKSC 50
• 378. Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd V West Bromwich Building Society [1997] C.L.C 348; [1998] W.L.R 896
• 379. Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] A.C. 749
• 380. Prenn v Simmonds [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1381
• 381. Antaios Compania Naviera S.A. v Salen Rederierna A.B (the "Antaios”) [1985] A.C. 191
• 382. River Wear Commissioners v Adamson & others (the “Natalian”) (1876) 1 Q.B.D. 546; 2 App Cas 743
• 383. Profindo Pte Ltd v Abani Trading Pte Ltd (the MV “Athens”) [2013] SGHC 10
• 384. Bunge SA v Kyla Shipping Co Limited (the “Kyla “) [2012] EWHC 3522 (Comm)
• 385. Griffon Shipping LLC v Firodi Shipping Limited (the “MV Griffon”) [2013] EWHC 593 (Comm); [2013] EWCA Civ 1567
• 386. Kuwait Rocks Co v AMN Bulkcarriers Inc (the mv “Astra”) [2013] EWHC 865 (Comm)
• 387. Seagrain LLC v Glencore Grain BV [2013] EWHC 1189 (Comm); [2013] EWCA Civ 1627
• 388. White Rosebay Shipping SA v Hong Kong Chain Glory Shipping Limited (MV “Fortune Plum”) [2013] EWHC 1355 (Comm)
• 389. Novasen SA v Alimenta SA [2013] EWHC 345 (Comm)
• 390. Trafigura Beheer BV v Ravennavi SPA (the “Port Russel”) [2013] EWHC 490 (Comm)
• 391. Prest v Petrodel Resources Limited [2013] UKSC 34
• 392. Smeed v Foord (1859) 1 Ellis and Ellis 602
• 393. Siordet v Hall (1828) 4 Bingham New Cases 607
• 394. Lumley v Gye (1853) 2 Ellis and Blackburn
• 395. Kudos Catering Ltd v Manchester Central Convention Complex Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 38
• 396. Lisnave Estaleiros Navais SA v Chemikalien Seetransport GMBH [2013] EWHC 338 (Comm)
• 397. De Vaux v Salvador (the “La Valeur“) (1836) 4 Adolphus and Ellis 420
• 398. Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd & others (the “Ocean Victory”) [2013] EWHC 2199 (Comm) ;[2015] EWCA Civ 16; [2017] UKSC 35
• 399. Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 457; [1969] 3 All ER 1496; [1972] AC 441
• 400. Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex. 341
• 401. Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex 850
• 402. H. Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham and Co. [1978] QB 791
• 403. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] AC 85
• 404. Aruna Mills Ltd v Dhanrajmal Gobindram (the “Leipzig”) [1968] 1 QB 655
• 405. Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association [1964] 2 Lloyds Rep 227; [1966] 1 Lloyds Rep 197; [1968] 1 Lloyd Rep 547
• 406. Victoria laundry (Windsor) LD v Newman Industries LD [1949] 2 KB 528
• 407. South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd [1995] CLC 410; [1997] AC 191
• 408. Proton Energy Group SA v Orlen Lietuva [2013] EWHC 2872 (Comm)
• 409. Caresse Navigation Ltd v Office National de L’Electricite & others (the “Channel Ranger”) [2013] EWHC 3081 (Comm) ; [2014] EWCA Civ 1366
• 410. Sig. Bergesen DY v Mobil Shipping and Transportation Co. (the “Berge Sund”) [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 453
• 411. Royal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (the “Illissos”) [1948/49] 82 Ll.l Rep 196
• 412. Hogarth v Miller (“The Westfalia”) [1891] AC 48
• 413. Tynedale Steamship Co v Anglo-Soviet Shipping Co (the “Horden”) [1935] 52 Ll.L Rep 282; [1936] 54 Ll.L Rep 341
• 414. Vogemann v Zanzibar Steamship Company Limited (the “Zanzibar”) 1901 6 Com. Cas. 253; 1902 7 Com. Cas. 255
• 415. Western Sealanes Corporation v Unimarine SA (the “Pythia”) [1982] 2 Lloyds Rep 160
• 416. Canadian Pacific (Bermuda) Ltd v Canadian Transport Co Ltd (the “H.R.Macmillan”) [1973] 1 Lloyds Rep 27; [1974] 1 Lloyds Rep 311
• 417. Eastern Mediterranean Maritime (“Liechtenstein”) Ltd v Unimarine SA (the "Marika M”) [1981] 2 Lloyds Rep 62
• 418. Ocean Glory Compania Naviera SA v A/S P.V Christensen (the “Ioanna”) [1985] 2 Lloyds Rep 164
• 419. Forestships International Ltd v Armonia Shipping & Finance Corporation (the “Ira”) [1995] 1 Lloyds Rep 103
• 420. TS Lines Ltd v Delphis NV (the “TS Singapore”) [2009] 2 Lloyds Rep 54
• 421. Sidermar SpA v Apollo Corporation (the “Apollo”) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 200
• 422. Court Line Ltd v Dant & Russell Inc. (the “Errington Court”) [1939] 64 Ll.L. Rep 212
• 423. Portolana Compania Naviera Ltd v Vitol SA Inc. (the “Afrapearl”) [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 304
• 424. Fercometal SARL v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. SA (the “Simona”) [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 171; [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 236; [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 199
• 425. Flame SA v Glory Wealth Shipping PTE Ltd [2013] EWHC 3153 (Comm)
• 426. Gill & Duffus SA v Berger & Co. [1982] 1 Lloyds Rep 101; [1983] 1 Lloyds Rep 622; [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 227
• 427. Alfred C. Toepfer v Continental Grain Co [1974] 1 Lloyds Rep 11
• 428. Braithwaite v Foreign Hardwood Company [1905] 2 KB 543
• 429. British & Benington’s Ltd v North - Western Cachar Tea Company & others [1922] 13 Ll.L.Rep 607
• 430. Trafigura Beheer BV v Navigazione Montanari SpA (the “Valle di Cordoba”) [2014] EWHC 129 (Comm); [2015] EWCA Civ 91
• 431. DS-Rendite- Fonds Nr 106 VLCC Titan Glory GmbH co Tankschiff KG v Titan Maritime SA [2013] EWHC 3492 (Comm)
• 432. Chartbrook Ltd V Persimmon Homes Ltd [2007] EWHC 409 (Ch); [2008] EWCA Civ 183; [2009] UKHL 38
• 433. Cottonex Anstalt v Patriot Spinning Mills Ltd [2013] EWHC 236 (Comm)
• 434. Re Sigma Finance Corp [2009] UKSC 2
• 435. BMA Special Opportunity Hub Fund Ltd v African Minerals Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 416
• 436. Jackson v Dear & another [2012] EWHC 2060 (Ch)
• 437. James Finlay and Co v NV Kwik Hoo Tong Handel Maatschappij [1928] 2 KB 604; [1929] 1 KB 400
• 438. Geden Operations Ltd v Dry Bulk Handy Holdings Inc. (M/V”Bulk Uruguay”) [2014] EWHC 885 (Comm)
• 439. Universal Cargo Carriers Corporation v Citati (the “Catherine D Goulandris”) [1957] 2 QB 401; [1957] 1 WLR 979; [1958] 2 QB 254
• 440. Yemgas FZCO v Superior Pescadores SA Panama (the ”Superior Pescadores”) [2014] EWHC 971 (Comm)
• 441. Parsons Corporation and others v C.V. Scheepvaartonderneming Happy Ranger and others (the “Happy Ranger”) [2002] EWCA Civ 694
• 442. Owners of Cargo on Board the Morviken v Owners of the Hollandia [1983] 1 A.C. 565
• 443. Hellenic Steel Co. (2) C. Itoh & Co. GmbH (3) Ciocca Lamiere SpA (4) Seaway Srl (5) Forsidera SpA v (1) Svolamar Shipping Company Limited (the “Komninos S”) 1990 WL 754825
• 444. Trafigura Beheer BV v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (the “MSC Amsterdam”) [2007] 2 CLC 379
• 445. Compania Portorafti Commerciale S.A. v Ultramar Panama Inc. Philbro Energy AG BP Oil International Limited (the “Captain Gregos”) [1990] WL 10631052
• 446. American Overseas Marine Corporation v Golar Commodities Ltd (the “LNG Gemini”) [2014] EWHC 1347 (Comm)
• 447. Fulton Shipping Inc v Globalia Business Travel S.A.U. (the “New Flamenco”) [2014] EWHC 1547 (Comm); [2015] EWCA Civ 1299
• 448. Terminal Contenitori Porto di Genova SpA v China Shipping Container Lines Ltd (the “XIN XIA MEN”) [2014] EWHC 1629 (Comm)
• 449. Nea Agrex SA v Baltic Shipping Co Ltd (the “Aghios Lazaros”) [1976] QB 933
• 450. Martrade Shipping and Transport GmbH v United Enterprises Corporation (the “MV Wisdom C”) [2014] EWHC 1884 (Comm)
• 451. Soufflet Negoce SA v Fedcominvest Europe SARL [2014] EWHC 2405 (Comm)
• 452. Viscous Global Investment Ltd v Palladium Navigation Corporation (the “Quest”) [2014] EWHC 2654 (Comm)
• 453. Nicolene LD v Simmonds [1953] 1QB 543
• 454. Easybiz Investments v Sinograin & another (the “Biz”) [2010] EWHC 2565 (Comm)
• 455. Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd [1932] 43 Ll.L. Rep 359
• 456. Courtney and Fairbairn Ltd v Tolaini Brothers [1975] 1 WLR 297
• 457. Nidera BV v Venus International Free Zone for Trading and Marine Services SAE [2014] EWHC 2013 (Comm)
• 458. Starlight Shipping Company v Allianz Marine & Aviation Versicherungs AG & others (“the Alexandros T”) [2014] EWHC 3068 (Comm)
• 459. Sugarman & Others v CJS Investments LLP & Others [2014] EWCA Civ 1239
• 460. Golden Endurance Shipping SA v RMA Watanya SA and Others (the “Golden Endurance” no 1) [2014] EWHC 3917 (Comm)
• 461. Maestro Bulk Ltd v Cosco Bulk Carrier Co Ltd (“the Great Creation”) [2014] EWHC 3978 (Comm)
• 462. Carlos Soto SAU v A P Møller – Maersk AS (“the SFL Hawk”) [2015] EWHC 458 (Comm)
• 463. Shagang South-Asia (Hong Kong) Trading Co Ltd v Daewoo Logistics (the “Nicolaos A”) [2015] EWHC 194 (Comm)
• 464. Kassiopi Maritime Co Ltd v Fal Shipping Co Ltd (the “Adventure”) [2015] EWHC 318 (Comm)
• 465. HBC Hamburg Bulk Carriers GMBH & Co KG and Huyton Inc (the “Glory Sanye”) [2014] EWHC 4176 (Comm)
• 466. Lorand Shipping Limited v Davof Trading (Africa) BV (the “Ocean Glory”) [2014] EWHC 3521 (Comm)
• 467. Transgrain Shipping BV v Deiulemar Shipping SpA (in liquidation) & another (the “Eleni P”) [2014] EWHC 4202 (Comm)
• 468. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Cottonex Anstalt [2015] EWHC 283 (Comm); [2016] EWCA Civ 789
• 469. Aston FFI (Suisse) SA v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA (the “Mega Hope”) [2015] EWHC 80 (Comm)
• 470. Impala Warehousing & Logistics (Shanghai) Co Ltd v Wanxiang Resources (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2015] EWHC 811 (Comm)
• 471. Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co Ltd (the “Spar Capella, Spar Vega and Spar Draco”) [2015] EWHC 715 (Comm); [2016] EWCA Civ 982
• 472. Lakeport Navigation Company Panama SA v Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA (the “Olympic Brilliance”) [1982] 2 Lloyds Rep 205
• 473. Belfry Marine Ltd v Palm Base Maritime SDN BHD (the “Heavy Metal”) 1999 (3) SA 1083 (SCA)
• 474. President of India v Lips Maritime Corporation (the “Lips”) [1987] 2 Lloyds Rep 311
• 475. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd v Karander Maritime Inc (the “Niizuru”) [1996] 2 Lloyds Rep 66
• 476. Pacific Molasses Co & Another v Entre Rios Compania Naviera SA (the “San Nicholas”) [1976] 1 Lloyds Rep 8
• 477. Atlantic Lines Navigation Co. Inc v Didymi Corporation & Leon Corporation (the “Didymi” and the “Leon”) [1984] 1 Lloyds Rep 583
• 478. Cehave MV v Bremer Handelgesellschaft mbH (the “Hansa Nord”) [1975] 2 Lloyds Rep 445
• 479. Gardano & Giampieri v Greek Petroleum George Mamidakis & Co (the “Stamura”) [1961] 2 Lloyds Rep 259
• 480. Rheinoel GMBH v Huron Liberian Co (the “Concordia C”) [1985] 2 Lloyds Rep 55
• 481. Hin-Pro International Logistics Limited v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA [2015] EWCA Civ 401
• 482. Greenwich Marine Inc v Federal Commerce and Navigation Co Ltd (the “Mavro Vetranic”) [1985] 1 Lloyds Rep 580
• 483. Bentsen v Taylor & Sons & Co (2) (the “Folkvang”) [1893] 2 QB 274
• 484. ST Shipping & Transport Inc v Kriti Filoxenia Shipping Co. SA (the “Kriti Filoxenia”) [2015] EWHC 997 (Comm)
• 485. The Shipping Corporation of India Limited v Naviera Letasa SA [1976] 1 Lloyds Rep 132
• 486. Georgian Maritime Corp v Sealand Industries (Bermuda) Ltd (the “North Sea”) [1997] 2 Lloyds Rep 324; [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 21
• 487. Bulk Shipping AG v Ipco Trading SA (the “Jasmine B”) [1992] 2 Lloyds Rep 39
• 488. Johs. Thode v VDA. de Gimeno Y Cia. S.L (the “Steendiek”) [1960] 2 Lloyds Rep 298; [1961] 2 Lloyds Rep 138
• 489. Mansel Oil Ltd & Another v Troon Storage Tankers SA (the “Ailsa Craig”) [2008] 2 Lloyds Rep 384; [2009] 2 Lloyds Rep 371
• 490. Jindal Iron & Steel Co. Limited v Islamic Solidarity Shipping Company (“the Jordan II”) [2004] UKHL 49
• 491. G H Renton & Co Ltd v Palmyra Trading Corporation (the “Caspiana”) [1955] 2 Lloyds Rep 301; [1955] 2 Lloyds Rep 722; [1956] 2 Lloyds Rep 379
• 492. Societe de Distributions de Toutes Merchandises En Cote D’Ivoire trading as “SDTM-CI” v Continental Lines NV (the “Sea Miror”) [2015] EWHC 1747 (Comm)
• 493. PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC v OW Bunker Malta Limited (the “Res Cogitans”) [2015] EWHC 2022 (Comm) ; [2015] EWCA Civ 1058; [2016] UKSC 23
• 494. Glencore International AG v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA (the “MSC Katrina”) [2015] EWHC 1989 (Comm)
• 495. Bank Line Limited v Arthur Capel and Co (the “Quito”) [1919] AC 435
• 496. Cheikh Boutros Selim El-Khoury v Ceylon Shipping Lines Ltd (the “Madeleine”) [1967] 2 Lloyds Rep 224
• 497. Anders Utkilens Rederi A/S v Compagnie Tunisienne De Navigation of Tunis (the “Golfstraum”) [1976] 2 Lloyds Rep 97
• 498. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA v MT Maritime Management BV (“MTM Hong Kong”) [2015] EWHC 2505 Comm
• 499. SIB International SRL v Metallgesellschaft Corporation (the “Noel Bay”) [1989] 1 Lloyds Rep 361
• 500. Smith v M’Guire (the “Mahtoree”) (1858) 3 HURL. & N. 554
• 501. A.B. Marintrans v Comet Shipping Co Ltd (the “Shinjitsu Maru no.5”) [1985] 1 Lloyds Rep 568
• 502. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Alianca Bay Shipping Co Ltd (the “Argonaut”) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 216
• 503. Canadian Transport Company Limited v Court Line, Limited (the “Ovington Court”) [1940] AC 934
• 504. Polaris Shipping Co Ltd v Sinoriches Enterprises Co Ltd (the “Ocean Virgo”) [2015] EWHC 3405 (Comm)
• 505. Exmar NV v BP Shipping Ltd (the “Gas Enterprise”) [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 352
• 506. Didymi Corporation v Atlantic Lines and Navigation Co Inc (the “Didymi”) [1987] 2 Lloyds Rep 166; [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 108
• 507. Alexandros Shipping Co of Piraeus v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA of Geneva (the “Alexandros P”) [1986] 1 Lloyds Rep 421
• 508. Glory Wealth Shipping PTE Ltd v Flame SA (2) [2016] EWHC 293 (Comm)
• 509. Ramburs Inc v Agrifert SA [2015] EWHC 3548 (Comm)
• 510. Magellan Spirit ApS v Vitol SA [2016] EWHC 454 (Comm)
• 511. SBT Star Bulk and Tankers (Germany) GmbH and Co KG v Cosmotrade SA (“the Wehr Trave”) [2016] EWHC 583 (Comm)
• 512. Admiral Shipping Co Ltd v Weidner, Hopkins and Co. (“the Auldmuir”) [1916] 1 KB 429; [1917] KB 222
• 513. Vinergy International (PVT) Limited v Richmond Mercantile Limited FZC [2016] EWHC 525 (Comm)
• 514. Ullises Shipping Corporation v Fal Shipping Co. Ltd (“the Greek Fighter”) [2006] EWHC 1729 (Comm)
• 515. ST Shipping and Transport PTE Ltd v Space Shipping Ltd (the “CV Stealth”) [2016] EWHC 880 (Comm)
• 516. S v A and B [2016] EWHC 846 (Comm)
• 517. Segovia Compania Naviera SA of Panama v R Pagnan & Filli of Padova (the “Aragon”) [1975] 1 Lloyds Rep 628
• 518. Scottish Navigation Company v W A Souter and Co [1916] 1KB 675; [1917] KB 22
• 519. Shipowners’ Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) v Containerships Denizcilik Nakliyat VE Ticaret AS (the “Yusuf Cepnioglu”) [2015] EWHC 258 (Comm); [2016] EWCA Civ 386
• 520. Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore [2016] EWHC 1118 (Comm); [2017] EWCA Civ 1703
• 521. Anzen Ltd and Others v Hermes One Ltd (British Virgin Islands) [2016] UKPC 1
• 522. Exmek Pharmaceuticals SAC v Alkem Laboratories Ltd [2015] EWHC 3158 (Comm)
• 523. Egiazaryan and another v OJSC OEK Finance and another [2015] EWHC 3532 (Comm)
• 524. Marida Ltd and others v Oswal Steel and others (the “Bijela”) [1992] 1 Lloyds Rep 636; [1993] 1 Lloyds Rep 411; [1994] 2 Lloyds Rep 1
• 525. Mitsui & Co Ltd and others v Beteiligungsgesellschaft LPG Tankerflotte MBH & Co KG and another (the “Longchamp”) [2014] EWHC 3445 (Comm); [2016] EWCA Civ 708; [2017] UKSC 68
• 526. Firma C-Trade SA v Newcastle Protection and Indemnity Association (the “Fanti”) - Socony Mobil Oil Co Inc & others v West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association (London) Ltd (the “Padre Island”) (No.2) [1990] 2 Lloyds Rep 191
• 527. LvA [2016] EWHC 1789 (Comm)
• 528. Golden Endurance Shipping SA v RMA Watanya SA & others (the “Golden Endurance No.2”) [2016] EWHC 2110 (Comm)
• 529. The Albazero [1977] AC 774
• 530. Saga Cruises BDF Limited v Fincantieri SPA (formerly Fincantieri Cantieri Navali Italiani SPA) (the “Saga Sapphire”) 2016 [EWHC] 1875 [Comm]
• 531. Panamanian Oriental Steamship Corporation v Wright (the “Anita”) [1971]
• 532. Atlasnavios-Navegação, LDA v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd (the “B Atlantic”) [2012] 1 Lloyds Rep 629; [2015] 1 Lloyds Rep 117; [2016] EWCA Civ 808; [2018] UKSC 26
• 533. Cory v Burr (the “Rosslyn”) (1881 - 82) LR 8 QBD 313; (1882) 9 QBD 463; (1883) 8 App Cas 393
• 534. Vallejo v Wheeler (the “Thomas and Matthew”) 1 Cowp. 143
• 535. Vinnlustodin HF Vatryggingaffelag Islands HF v Sea-Tank Shipping AS (the “Aqasia”) [2016] EWHC 2514 (Comm); [2018] EWCA Civ 276
• 536. Effort Shipping Co Ltd v Linden Management SA (the “Giannis NK”) [1998] 1 Lloyds Rep 337
• 537. Geys v Société Générale, London Branch [2012] UKSC 63
• 538. Marks & Spencer PLC v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) [2015] UKSC 72
• 539. Volcafe Ltd v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA (trading as “CSAV”) [2016] EWCA Civ 1103; [2018] UKSC 61
• 540. Transgrain Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Yangtze Navigation (Hong Kong) Co Ltd (the “MV Yangtze Xing Hua”) [2016] EWHC 3132 (Comm)
• 541. Patel v Mirza [2016] UK SC 42
• 542. Navelmar UK Ltd v Kale Maden Hammaddeler Sanayi Ticaret AS (“the MV Arundel Castle”) [2017] EWHC 116 (Comm)
• 543. The River Gurara [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 225
• 544. Kyokuyo Ltd v AP Møller v Maersk A/S t/a “Maersk Line” (the "Maersk Tangier")[2017] EWHC 654 (Comm); [2018] EWCA Civ 778
• 545. El Greco (Australia) (Pty) Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (the “MSC Melbourne”) [2004] 2 Lloyds Rep 537
• 546. Teekay Tankers Ltd v STX Offshore And Shipbuilding Co. Ltd [2017] EWHC 253 (Comm)
• 547. CMA CGM SA v Classica Shipping Co. Ltd (the CMA Djakarta) [2004] 1 Lloyds Rep 460
• 548. Albacora SRL v Westcott & Laurance Line Ltd (the “Maltasian”) [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 53
• 549. Gard Shipping AS v Clearlake Shipping PTE LTD (the MT “Zaliv Baikal”) [2017] EWHC 1091 (Comm)
• 550. MSC Depots (Pty) Ltd v WK Construction (Pty) Ltd, Wynford’s Civil and Development CC 2011 (2) SA 417 (ECP); [2011] ZA SCA 115
• 551. MT Højgaard A/S v EON Climate and Renewables 2014 [EWHC] 1088 (TCC); 2015 [EWCA] Civ 407; 2017 [UKSC] 59
• 552. Monroe Brothers Ltd v Ryan (the “Wythburn”) [1935] KB 28 (CA)
• 553. Evera SA Comercial v North Shipping Company Ltd (the “North Anglia”) [1956] 2 Lloyds Rep 367
• 554. CSSA Chartering and Shipping Services SA v Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd (the “Pacific Voyager”) [2017] EWHC 2579 (Comm); [2018] EWCA Civ 2413
• 555. Louis Dreyfus and Co. v Lauro (the “Verbania”) [1938] 60 Ll.L. Rep 94
• 556. Geogas SA. v Trammo Gas Ltd (the “Beleares”) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 130; [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215
• 557. Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd [1931] 1 KB 557; [1932] AC 161
• 558. Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd (the “Great Peace”) [2001] EWHC 529; [2002] 2 Lloyds Rep 653
• 559. Lennard’s Carrying Company, Limited v. Asiatic Petroleum Company, Limited, the “Edward Dawson” [1915] A.C. 705; [1914] 1 K.B. 419
• 560. Glencore Energy UK Ltd v Freeport Holdings Ltd “ the Lady M” [2017] EWHC 3348 Comm; [2019] EWCA Civ 388
• 561. Laemthong International Lines Company Limited v Abdullah Mohammed Fahem & Co (the "Laemthong Glory") [2004] EWHC 2738 (Comm)
• 562. Farenco Shipping Co.ltd v Daebo Shipping Co.Ltd.(the "Bremen Max") [2008] EWHC 2755 (Comm)
• 563. Sea Powerful II Special Maritime Enterprises v Oldendorff GMBH & Co KG (the "Zagora") [2016] EWHC 3212 (Comm)
• 564. Songa Chemicals AS v Navig8 Chemicals Pool Inc (the "Songa Winds") [2018] EWHC 397 (Comm); [2018] EWCA Civ 1901
• 565. Northern Endeavour Shipping Pte Ltd v Owners of MV Nyk Isabel and another 2017 (1) SA 25 (SCA)
• 566. Owners of the MV Silver Star v Hilane Ltd 2015 (2) SA 331 (SCA)
• 567. Sevylor Shipping and Trading Corp v Altfadul Company for Foods, Fruits & Livestock and SIAT (Societa Italiana Assicurazioni e Reassicurazioni S.p.A. (the "Baltic Strait") [2018] EWHC 629 (Comm)
• 568. Bocimar NV v Kotor Overseas Shipping Ltd ( the "Crna Gora" and the "Kordun")1994 (2) SA 563 (A)
• 569. Seatrade Group N.V. v Hakan Agro DMCC (the "Aconcagua Bay") [2018] EWHC 654 (Comm)
• 570. Cargo laden and lately laden on board the MV Thalassini Avgi v MV Dimitris 1989 (3) SA 820 (A)
• 571. Tebtale Marine Inc v MS Mare Traveller Schiffahrts GMBH & Co KG (the "Mare Traveller" and the "Mount Meru") 2018 (2) SA 490 (WCC)
• 572. The Monica S.; Owners of Cargo Laden on Ship Monica Smith v Owners of Ship formerly "Monica Smith" now "Monica S" [1967] 3 All ER 740
• 573. The "Seaspan Grouse" 2018 (5) SA 284 (KZD); 2019 (4) 483 (SCA)
• 574. J I MacWilliam Company Inc v. Mediterranean Shipping Company SA (the "Rafaela S") [2005] UKHL
• 575. Agile Holdings Corporation v Essar Shipping Ltd (the "Maria") [2018] EWHC 1055 (Comm)
• 576. Rock Advertising Limited v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited [2018] UKSC 24
• 577. P v Q, Q v R, R v S, ("The Capetan Giorgis") [2018] EWHC 1399 (Comm)
• 578. Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm)
• 579. Onassis v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 403, 431
• 580. Sea Master Shipping Inc v Arab Bank (Switzerland) Ltd ("The Sea Master") [2018] EWHC 1902 (Comm)
• 581. Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau v South India Shipping Corporation [1981] 1 All ER 289
• 582. Classic Maritime Inc v Limbungan Makmur SDN BHD [2018] EWHC 2389 (Comm); [2019] EWCA Civ 1102
• 583. Triton Navigation v Vitol SA ("The Nikmary") [2003] EWCA Civ 1715
• 584. Warinco A.G. v Fritz Mauthner [1978] 1 Lloyds Rep 151
• 585. Silverburn Shipping v Ark Shipping Company (the “Arctic”) [2019] EWHC 376 (Comm); [2019] EWCA Civ 1161
• 586. Eleni Shipping Ltd v Transgrain Shipping B.V. (the “Eleni P”) [2019] EWHC 910 (Comm)
• 587. K v A [2019] EWHC 118 (Comm)
• 588. Boskalis Offshore Marine Contracting BV v Atlantic Marine and Aviation LLP (the “Atlantic Tonjer”)[2019] EWHC 1213 (Comm)
• 589. Rubicon Vantage International Pte Ltd v Krisenergy Ltd [2019] EWHC 2012 (Comm)
• 590. Bilgent Shipping PTE/ADM International SARL/ Oldendorff Carriers GmbH (the “Alpha Harmony”) [2019] EWHC 2522 (Comm)
• 591. Quiana Navigation SA v Pacific Gulf Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd (the “Caravos Liberty”) [2019] EWHC 3171 (Comm)
• 592. Tricon Energy Ltd v MTM Trading (the “MTM Hong Kong”) [2020] EWHC 700 (Comm)
• 593. Trafigura Maritime Logistics Pte Ltd v Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd (the “Miracle Hope”) [2020] EWHC 726 (Comm)
• 594. MVV Environment Devonport Ltd v NTO Shipping GMBH (the “MV Nortrader”) [2020] EWHC 1371 (Comm)
• 595. Nautica Marine Limited v Trafigura Trading LLC (the “Leonidas”) [2020] EWHC 1986 (Comm)
• 596. Richco International Ltd v Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH (the “Bonde”) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 136
• 597. Suisse Atlantique Societe D’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale (the “General Guisan”) [1967] 1 AC 361
• 598. Total Transport Corporation v Amoco Trading Co (“the Altus”) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 423
• 599. Adelfamar SA v Silos E Mangini Martini SpA (“the Adelfa”) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 466
• 600. Chandris v Isbrandtsen-Moller Co Inc (“the Eugenia Chandris”) [1951] KB 240
• 601. K Line Pte Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Ltd (“the Eternal Bliss”) [2020] EWHC 2373 (Comm); [2021] EWCA Civ 1712
• 602. A v B [2021] EWHC 793 (Comm)
• 603. The David Agmashenebeli [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92
• 604. Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (the Polar) [2020] EWHC 3318 (Comm); [2021] EWCA Civ 1828
• 605. Leif Hoegh & Co A/S v Petrolsea Inc (the World Era) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 45
• 606. Hyundai Merchant Marine Company Ltd v Americas Bulk Transport Ltd (the “Pacific Champ”) [2013] EWHC 470 (Comm)
•  S K Shipping Europe Limited v Capital VLCC Trading Corp  (“the C Challenger”)  [2020] EWHC 3448 (Comm); EWCA Civ 231">607.   S K Shipping Europe Limited v Capital VLCC Trading Corp  (“the C Challenger”)  [2020] EWHC 3448 (Comm); EWCA Civ 231

• Financial Markets

Time charters * last voyage and related issues

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer