Supreme Court rules on owners’ rights of remuneration post-withdrawal under a time charter
In a judgment handed down on 2 May 2012, the UK Supreme Court has provided interesting clarification in relation to the scope of contractual indemnities in a time charter context and the rights and responsibilities arising out of a non-contractual bailment where a time charter has come to an end. In the present case, the Supreme Court held that the owners were entitled to compensation for the detention of the ship while the charterers' cargo remained onboard and for bunkers consumed after the ship was withdrawn.
The successful owners were represented by Michael Volikas, Jeremy Biggs and Catherine Earnshaw of Ince & Co LLP. For a more detailed review of this judgment, please see our article…
Commercial Court confirms principle in White and Carter applies to a time charterparty
In a judgment handed down on 27 April 2012, Mr Justice Cooke has held that, in circumstances where the time charterers were in repudiatory breach of charterparty in purporting to redeliver the vessel early, the owners were entitled to refuse early redelivery, affirm the charterparty and hold the charterers liable for hire for the balance of the minimum period of the charterparty. The judge rejected the argument that the owners were bound to accept early redelivery and sue instead for damages.
Iran Sanctions Update – May 2012
In this update we review the EU Council Regulation No. 267/2012, highlighting the most significant new provisions and exceptions and considering their implications for international trade and the shipping industry in particular.
Shipping E-brief (April 2012)
The shipping e-brief is a quarterly publication providing information on key legal decisions and developments in shipping and related business areas.
Some demurrage issues considered
The arbitration tribunal in this case considered a number of demurrage-related issues.
Claims consultants and surveyors: be careful what you ask for
A recent case in the Technology and Construction Court makes it clear that advice taken from claims consultants is not covered by legal professional privilege even where the advice comes from legally qualified personnel who are instructed by the claims consultants.