‘Properly due’ in General Average Guarantee. Guarantor’s reliance on Rule D of YAR 1974.

 

 

The BSLE Sunrise [2019] EWHC 2860 (Comm) involved a preliminary  issue as to whether the issuer of the GA guarantee can raise a defence under Rule D of YAR 1974 as to their liability under the GA guarantee.

Following a grounding off Valencia in 2012, owners incurred expenses in attempting to refloat vessel and in conducting temporary repairs. General Average Bonds and General Average Guarantees were issued. Each GA bond provided

“In consideration of the delivery to us or our order, on payment of the freight due, of the goods noted above we agree to pay the proper proportion of any … general average

… which may hereafter be ascertained to be properly and legally due from the goods or the shippers or owners thereof …”

Each of the GA guarantees, in the wording approved by the Association of Average Adjusters and the Institute of London Underwriters, provided:

“In consideration of the delivery in due course of the goods specified below to the consignees thereof without collection of a deposit, we the undersigned insurers, hereby undertake to pay to the ship owners … on behalf of the various parties to the adventure as their interest may appear any contributions to General Average … which may hereafter be ascertained to be properly due in respect of the said goods.

Cargo interests maintained that the grounding was due to owners’ breach of their obligation of seaworthiness under art III.1 of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules which were incorporated into each of the bills of lading, and accordingly under Rule D of YAR 1974 which was incorporated into those contracts, no general average was due from them.

Judge Pelling QC held that this defence also applied in respect of the general average guarantees. The wording in the bonds and the guarantees should be construed in the same word and that the word “due” when applied to a monetary obligation meant that it is legally owing or payable. No sum becomes legally due or payable “ … on behalf of the various parties to the adventure as their interest may appear …” by way of contribution to general average unless and until it has been decided whether the Rule D defence  succeeds or fails. The inclusion of the word “properly” served to put the point beyond doubt.

The Maersk Neuchâtel, [2014] EWHC1643 (Comm); [2014] 2 Lloyds Rep 377 on which owners relied contained different wording whereby the undertaking was to pay “ … on behalf of the various parties to the adventure as their interest may appear …” the GA “… which may hereafter be ascertained to be properly due in respect of the said goods”. This was construed as requiring the charterer to pay the sum ascertained to be due in the adjustment, with the omission of the words in the standard bond such as ‘is payable’ and ‘properly due’, making the contract akin to an on-demand guarantee, payment being due upon here certification.

Accordingly the Preliminary Issue was resolved in favour of the guarantors. Nothing was payable under the GA guarantees issued by them if the loss was caused by the owner’s actionable default or until that issue has been resolved.

Negotiating damages — maritime-style

Guest blogpost from James M Turner QC, Quadrant Chambers

In Priyanka Shipping Ltd v Glory Bulk Carriers Pte Limited (“The Lory”) [2019] EWHC 2804 (Comm), David Edwards QC (sitting as a Judge of the Commercial Court) dismissed a common law claim for negotiating damages for the breach of a memorandum of agreement (MOA) for the sale of a ship.

The decision is one of the first to grapple with the recent Supreme Court decision in One Step (Support) Ltd v Morris-Garner [2018] UKSC 20, [2019] AC 649. In that case Lord Reed’s majority judgment issued a corrective to jurisprudence which, since the House of Lords’ decision in AG v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268, had seen the award of negotiating damages at common law “on a wider and less certain basis” than had been the case before Blake.

What are “negotiating damages”? Negotiating damages “represent such a sum of money as might reasonably have been demanded by [the claimant] from [the defendant] as a quid pro quo for [permitting the continuation of the breach of covenant or other invasion of right]”: see One Step at [4]). They are “assessed by reference to a hypothetical negotiation between the parties, for such amount as might reasonably have been demanded by the claimant for releasing the defendants from their obligations” (One Step at [25]).

Negotiating damages are commonly encountered in two situations: so-called user damages in tort; and damages awarded under Lord Cairns’ Act.

A claim for user damages arises where the defendant has used or invaded the claimant’s property without causing direct financial loss: an example commonly given is riding a horse without permission. The defendant, having taken something for nothing, is required to pay a reasonable fee for the use made of the claimant’s property.

As for Lord Cairns’ Act: historically, the Common Law Courts could only award damages for past breaches, i.e., where the cause of action was complete at the date the writ was issued. For the future, litigants had to look to the Courts of Equity for orders for specific performance and injunction etc. However, the latter had no power to award damages. That inconvenience was remedied by Lord Cairns’ Act 1858, section 2 of which (now s. 50 of the Senior Courts Act 1981) allowed the Courts of Equity to award damages as well as or instead of an injunction.

Damages may be awarded under Lord Cairns’ Act for past breaches, but are assessed on the same basis as damages at common law.

Damages in lieu of an injunction for future breaches, on the other hand, cannot be assessed on the same basis as damages at common law, as by definition such damages cannot be awarded at common law. Instead, negotiating damages may be awarded.

The Issue. As will be seen, the issue in The Lory was whether negotiating damages were available at common law for past breaches of the relevant term of the MOA.

The Facts. The Defendant Seller sold the Claimant Buyer its vessel on terms that included clause 19, by which the Buyer undertook that it would not trade the vessel and would sell it only for demolition. However, the Buyer traded the vessel. By the time of the trial, the vessel was completing discharge under her second fixture and was fixed for a third. The Seller claimed damages for or an injunction to restrain breach of clause 19 of the MOA (or both).

The Outcome. The Judge awarded an injunction restraining future trading of the vessel (expressly including the third fixture). Damages could in principle be claimed for the first and second fixtures, but – because they were now in the past – only at common law.

The Judge noted that, once the vessel had been sold and delivered, the Seller no longer had any proprietary interest in it, “no right or ability to use the Vessel to trade, and no right or ability to profit from the Vessel’s use … ”. Although the Seller was entitled to be placed in the position it would have been if the contract had not been breached, “it is not obvious how any further trading of the Vessel by the Buyer … could cause the Seller any loss.” [163].

It was “no doubt” for this reason that no conventional damages claim had been made, but only a claim for a hypothetical release fee. The “critical question”, so far as that claim was concerned, was whether the Seller could bring itself within [95(10)] of Lord Reed’s judgment in One Step and show that “ … the loss suffered by the claimant is appropriately measured by reference to the economic value of the right which has been breached, considered as an asset.” [189]

Lord Reed had made clear that “that such an approach is not available in the case of a breach of any contractual right, but only where:… the breach of contract results in the loss of a valuable asset created or protected by the right which was infringed.The paragraph implicitly regards the relevant asset not as the contractual right itself but as something else, a valuable asset “created or protected by the right”.” [190]

The “valuable assets” that Lord Reed had in mind were essentially proprietary rights and analogous rights such as intellectual property and rights of confidence [193]. The Judge rejected the Seller’s submission that its right under clause 19 was within the same class [196]. The Judge regarded the right under clause 19 as more closely analogous to the non-compete obligation at issue in One Step, which Lord Reed did not consider fell within “the category of cases where negotiating damages were available as a measure of the Seller’s loss” [199].

The claim therefore failed. The Judge did, however, grant permission to appeal. We may not, therefore, have heard the last word on this topic.

James M. Turner QC appeared for the Buyers in this case on the instruction of Alex Andrews and Claire Don of Reed Smith.

Most shareholders hold no shares — official. But it doesn’t matter.

Relief all round in the Square Mile today, courtesy of Hildyard J in SL Claimants v Tesco Plc [2019] EWHC 2858 (Ch).

Something over two years ago Tesco was fined a whopping £129 million for publishing misleading profit figures which bent the market in its shares. A number of institutions, market makers and others who had relied on these figures sued Tesco under s.90A and Sch.10A of FSMA 2000, saying they had bought or retained its shares on the basis of the figures. At this point, however, Tesco raised a classic pettifogger’s point (to be fair, one previously raised by, among others, Profs Gullifer and Benjamin).

To qualify for compensation under FSMA you have by Sch.10A to have bought, disposed of or retained “any interest in securities”. Tesco said two things. First, they argued that where shares were dematerialised and the custody chain included more than one layer of custodianship, no ultimate beneficiary investor ever held an interest in any securities so as to trigger liability under FSMA. If shares were vested (legally) in A who held them on trust for B who held them for investor X, X had an interest in B’s interest in the shares, but no interest in the shares themselves. Secondly, Tesco contended that intermediated securities were fungible; that when they were dealt with the whole transaction was effectuated by a combination of electronic credit and debit book entries and netting arrangements between custodians; and therefore that one could simply not talk in the old-fashioned way about shares being acquired or disposed of by anyone. True, they admitted, their plea would leave the relevant parts of FSMA largely like Cinderella — all dressed up with nowhere to go — and largely emasculate the whole UK scheme of investor protection as regards dematerialised securities (meaning these days almost all securities); but, in effect, that was tough. Fiat justitia ruat coelum, as they might have put it.

Hildyard J was having none of it. He accepted that where there were two or more custodians in a securities daisy-chain the ultimate investor technically had an interest in his immediate custodian’s interest, and not in the actual shares in which the custodian had an interest. But he rejected the idea that juridico-metaphysical niceties of this sort affected FSMA. “Any interest”, he said, could and should be interpreted as including any proprietary interest in shares or interests in shares. True it was, too, that technically a transfer of shares these days involved no transfer of anything at all, but rather a stream of electrons signifying juridical suppression of one equitable claim in X and its co-ordinated supersession by another in Y. But this did not prevent concepts like disposal being given their popular, rather than their technical equity lawyers’, meaning.

So the big claim against Tesco goes ahead. Relief, one suspects, not only in the City but in government. Had the result gone the other way there would have been a need for urgent corrective legislation. And in these fraught times we know just how hard it can be to get that kind of thing through.

Want to Arrest in Singapore? If you’re Not Actually Malicious, Feel Free

For more than 150 years, the test for wrongful arrest of a vessel has been that of ‘malice’ and ‘gross negligence’ on the part of the arresting party, as first described in The Evangelismos (1858) 12 Moo PC 352. While this test remains unchallenged in England and Wales, other common law jurisdictions including, but not limited to, Australia, South Africa, and Singapore have questioned its validity. More recently, the so-called Evangelismos test came under scrutiny in the judgment of the Singapore High Court in Hansa Safety Services GmbH v The Owner of the Vessel, the “King Darwin” (The King Darwin) [2019] SGHC.

On 13 November 2018, the claimant, Hansa Safety Services GmbH, brought an action in rem for services rendered to the vessel, the King Darwin. The total sum of the claim was 5,864.00 euros. On the same day, Hansa Safety Services GmbH arrested the King Darwin pursuant to a warrant of arrest. On 19 November 2018, the owners of the King Darwin provided security and the vessel was released.

On 21 January 2019, the Insolvency Administrator of the owners of the King Darwin, Hendrik Gittermann, was granted leave to intervene in the action. In his summons, Hendrik Gittermann sought to set aside the warrant of arrest and obtain damages for wrongful arrest of the vessel from Hansa Safety Services GmbH.

On 21 March 2019, Hansa Safety Services GmbH served a Notice of Discontinuance which it had filed on 7 February 2019, fourteen days after service of the defence to it. The purpose of the Notice of Discontinuance was to rescind the action as a whole including the counterclaim for damages for wrongful arrest of the vessel from Hansa Safety Services GmbH.

On 22 March 2019, Hendrik Gittermann applied to strike out the Notice of Discontinuance on the ground that it is necessary to prevent injustice or an abuse of process of the Court. The Senior Assistant Registrar granted the application. Hansa Safety Services GmbH appealed.

Vincent Hoong JC dismissed the appeal and upheld the order to strike out the Notice of Discontinuance. According to Vincent Hoong JC, this was an appropriate case for the Court to exercise its inherent powers to strike out a Notice of Discontinuance to prevent injustice to Hendrik Gittermann. The time and effort that Hendrik Gittermann would expend in recommencing a claim for the wrongful arrest of the King Darwin from Hansa Safety Services GmbH, taken in conjunction with the uncertainty of the test to be applied when bringing a claim for damages for wrongful arrest outside of in rem proceedings, were sufficient to set aside the Notice of Discontinuance.

Hendrik Gittermann argued that, by discontinuing the action, Hansa Safety Services GmbH would deprive him of his right to pursue a claim for wrongful arrest, which must be pursued in the context of an in rem action by the arresting party. Vincent Hoong JC rejected this argument. Hendrik Gittermann could bring a claim for damages for wrongful arrest independently of any in rem action by the arresting party. Vincent Hoong JC, reviewing the judgments in The Wallet D Wallet [1893] P 202, Best Soar Ltd v Praxis Energy Agents Pte Ltd [2018] 3 SLR 423 and Congentra AG v Sixtenn Thirteen Marine Sa (The Nicholas M) [2009] 1 All ER 479 (Comm), explained that such claim could be brought under the tort of wrongful arrest, which has long been recognised by the English Courts.

Furthermore, Hendrik Gittermann argued that, were he to pursue a claim for wrongful arrest independently of any in rem action by the arresting party, the test to be applied is unclear. Vincent Hoong JC recognised that the Court of Appeal’s observations in The Kiku Pacific [1999] 2 SLR (R) 91 and The Vasiliy Golovin [2008] 4 SLR (R) 994 have raised arguments that the applicable test for pursuing a claim for wrongful arrest when an in rem action is discontinued and an independent action is brought should be that of ‘without reasonable or probable cause’, rather than ‘malice’, as suggested in The Evangelismos (1858) 12 Moo PC 352. Nevertheless, Vincent Hoong JC took the view that these observations were not enough to lay down a less stringent test and ‘malice’ would almost certainly be the relevant threshold.

Brexit. Here’s the new deal – same as the old deal?

 

Mr Johnson yesterday concluded a new withdrawal agreement with the EU which will be put before Parliament on Saturday, after the rugby.

 

The main changes from Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement are that under the new backstop, that would come into effect on 1.1.2021 if a new agreement with the EU has not been concluded by then, there would be customs border between Eire and Northern Ireland but in practice customs checks on goods going into the island of Ireland, would take place on the UK mainland – not, as has been suggested, in the Irish Sea. Northern Ireland would also be subject to the rules of the internal market as regards goods and agriculture. Stormont will be able to vote on the continuance of this backstop four years after the end of the transition period and should it vote against them these provisions would lose force two years later during which time the “joint committee” would make recommendations to the UK and EU on “necessary measures”. In the absence of a sitting Northern Ireland Assembly at that time the UK would make alternative arrangements to provide for the necessary vote.

If the Northern Irish Assembly votes against the provisions, they would lose force two years later during which time the “joint committee” would make recommendations to the UK and EU on “necessary measures”.

 

There are changes to the political declaration, too. The parties are committed to concluding a free trade agreement which provides for regulatory autonomy in para 18 as follows.

“The Parties will retain their autonomy and the ability to regulate economic activity according to the levels of protection each deems appropriate in order to achieve legitimate public policy objectives such as public health, animal health and welfare, social services, public education, safety, the environment including climate change, public morals, social or consumer protection, privacy and data protection, and promotion and protection of cultural diversity. The economic partnership will recognise that sustainable development is an overarching objective of the Parties. The economic partnership will also provide for appropriate general exceptions, including in relation to security.”

Para 21 contemplates “free trade area, combining deep regulatory and customs cooperation, underpinned by provisions ensuring a level playing field for open and fair competition, as set out in Section XIV of this Part.”

Shortly afterwards there follows one of those exceptions.

 

  1. While preserving regulatory autonomy, the Parties will put in place provisions to promote regulatory approaches that are transparent, efficient, promote avoidance of unnecessary barriers to trade in goods and are compatible to the extent possible. Disciplines on technical barriers to trade (TBT) and sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) should build on and go beyond the respective WTO agreements. Specifically, the TBT disciplines should set out common principles in the fields of standardisation, technical regulations, conformity assessment, accreditation, market surveillance, metrology and labelling. The Parties should treat one another as single entities as regards SPS measures, including for certification purposes, and recognise regionalisation on the basis of appropriate epidemiological information provided by the exporting party.

And another is to be found in section XIV

“To that end, the Parties should uphold the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom at the end of the transition period in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters….”

The parties commit to “maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards…. [and] should rely on appropriate and relevant Union and international standards, and include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement. The future relationship should also promote adherence to and effective implementation of relevant internationally agreed principles and rules in these domains, including the Paris Agreement.”

 

But it is not all about goods. Paragraph 25 provides “The Parties should conclude ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on trade in services and investment in services and non-services sectors, respecting each Party’s right to regulate. The Parties should aim to deliver a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and building on recent Union Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).” This will aim for substantial sectoral coverage in line with GATT article 5.

Maritime transport is mentioned at para which provides “The future relationship should facilitate cooperation on maritime safety and security, including exchange of information between the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and the United Kingdom Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), consistent with the United Kingdom’s status as a third country.” There is no mention of the Rotterdam Rules.

There would be an independent arbitration process to deal with disputes under the new agreement but: “[131] The Parties indicate that should a dispute raise a question of interpretation of provisions or concepts of Union law, which may also be indicated by either Party, the arbitration panel should refer the question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as the sole arbiter of Union law, for a binding ruling as regards the interpretation of Union law. Conversely, there should be no reference to the CJEU where a dispute does not raise such a question.”

The new WA will have to obtain the approval of Parliament on Saturday, otherwise Mr Johnson will be required by law to seek an extension to 31 January under art.50.  If the necessary letter is not sent, the Scottish Court of Session will reconvene on October 21 to decide whether it will sign a letter to the EU on Mr Johnson’s behalf.

In the meantime, expect a lot of phone calls by Mr Johnson to ‘our friends in the North’. Labour votes, or abstentions, are likely to be critical to getting the new deal through.

 

“The Brillante Virtuoso Was Scuttled by Those Operating under the Instructions of the Owner” is the View of the Commercial Court

On 21 February 2019, a piece was published on this blog posing the question: “What really happened to the Brillante Virtuoso”? A meticulously drafted judgment of Teare, J ([2019] EWHC 2599 (Comm)) provides an answer to that burning question.

Now briefly the facts!  On 5 July 2011, on route to China with a cargo of fuel oil, the Brillante Virtuoso was boarded by pirates off Gulf of Aden. The pirates directed the vessel to Somalia but when the engine stopped and could not be re-started, they allegedly placed a detonator in the engine room causing huge damage to the vessel. The vessel was insured for $US 55 million with an additional $US 22 million increased cover with ten Lloyd’s underwriters. The underwriters refused to indemnify the assured (Suez Fortune Investments Ltd). The assured and its bank (Pireus Bank AE) as a co-assured under a composite policy brought a claim against the insurers.

Image result for the brillante virtuoso

In the first stage of the trial, the claimants were successful and Flaux, J, (as he then was) held that the vessel was a constructive total loss under s. 60(2)(i) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 as she was damaged by an insured peril and the cost of repairs would exceed the insured value of the ship when repaired [2015] EWHC 42 (Comm).  In 2015, war risk underwriters alleged wilful misconduct. As the case proceeded the owner of the vessel, Mr Marios Iliopoulos, declined to provide electronic documents related to the case to his own counsel or to the counsel of underwriters, raising questions for the court. In 2016, the owner’s claim was struck out for a failure to comply with disclosure obligations and Flaux, J, was adamant that Mr Iliopoulos had invented a false story in an attempt to explain his failure to make disclosure. The claim was then pursued by the bank alone. The underwriters resisted the claim put forward by the bank alleging that the loss was caused deliberately by the assured and hence was not covered by the policy.  

The case does not alter established legal principles in any significant manner. The burden of proving wilful misconduct or scuttling, on balance of probabilities, lies upon the insurers and as stressed by Neill, LJ, in The Captain Panagos DP [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Reports 33 at p. 43, “an inference of the owner’s guilt can properly be drawn if the probabilities point clearly and irresistibly towards his complicity.” On that premise, Teare, J, was convinced that the cause of loss was on balance of probability was “wilful miscounduct” of the assured. He pointed out to several inconsistencies in the owners’ account of the attack. For example, the incident occurred within Yemeni waters off Aden, a location where Somali pirates had never attempted a boarding before (and have not since). In VDR recordings, the attackers identified themselves as “security,” suggesting that if they were pirates, they would have had to have known that the vessel was awaiting a security detail. They brought with them an incendiary device. The master allowed them to come aboard, even though they were masked and armed and the ship was awaiting an unarmed security team. When directed to steer towards Somalia, the master selected a very different course, but the attackers did not detect this or correct it!

Accordingly, it was held that the supposed attack by pirates was a “fake attack”, and that in reality it was a charade orchestrated by the owner of the vessel, Mr Iliopoulos. It was also held that the vessel’s master and chief engineer were complicit in the scheme, alongside local Aden-based salvors, Poseidon Salvage, and current or former members of the Yemeni coast guard or navy.

An interesting point was raised by the bank in its submissions. On the assumption that the bank is insured under the policy as a composite co-assured, was it possible to argue that in the popular or business sense the owner of the vessel was a pirate, since they carried out the attack on a vessel (or instructed that the attack was to be carried out) with a motive of personal gain/to satisfy personal senses of vengeance/hatred? Teare, J was quick to dismiss this argument indicating that the violence to the vessel and the threat of violence to the crew would not qualify as piracy if carried out by the owners (or the conspirators) with the intention to defraud the insurers. This might seem an obvious point to some but is another clarification on the meaning of “piracy” for the purposes of marine insurance law. The bank’s attempt to argue that the loss was caused by “persons acting maliciously” also failed. Teare, J, quoting from the Supreme Court judgment in The B Atlantic [2018] UKSC 26 stressed that this peril involves an element of “spite or ill-will or the like in relation to the property insured or at least to other property or perhaps even a person” but he rightly indicated that those who were permitted to board the vessel did not act out of “spite or ill-will or the like” in relation to the vessel but did so on the request of the owner in order to assist him in his fraudulent plan to deceive the underwriters. Put differently, here the owner sought to damage his own property and the armed men sought to assist the owner, not to harm him.

The finding of the trial judge on the “wilful misconduct” point was adequate to decide the case in favour of the war risk underwriters insurers but it was briefly stated in the judgment that underwriters were also successful on a number of subsidiary and alternative defences such as the insured vessel being outside the geographical limits of policy (the so called “Aden agreement” point) at the time of the alleged loss and breach of a warranty that required compliance with advice and recommendations of an IMO Circular concerning planning and operational practices for ship operators and masters of ships transiting the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea.

The case does not necessarily establish novel legal points but a 52 day trial and a very lengthy judgment is a good illustration of the work that needs to be carried out by lawyers and judges in cases where insurers raise “fraud” as a defence to a claim under the policy.     

Different treatment of NOR for cancellation and for laytime purposes. Fine, if that’s what the parties agree.

 

The “strange result” condemned by Roskill J. in The Madeleine [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 224, namely, that a notice of readiness may be valid for one purpose (avoiding the option to cancel) but invalid for another purpose (the commencement of laytime), can arise if the parties choose to agree upon different regimes. This is what happened in Bilgent Shipping PTE Ltd.and ADM International SARL v. Oldendorff Carriers (The Alpha Harmony) [2019] EWHC 2522 (Comm) – a tale of a chain of two voyage charters, with the same provisions for tender of NOR to commence laytime but with different cancellation clauses. The laycan period under both initially ended on 31 May 2015 but was narrowed to end on 10 May 2015. The vessel tendered notice of readiness by email at 0704 on 10 May 2015 which was a Sunday. The email stated that the vessel had arrived at 0250 – outside normal working hours. Both charters provided for notice of readiness to be delivered between 0800 and 1700 on a weekday and between 0800 and 1100 on a Saturday, with laytime to commence at 0800 on the next working day after a valid notice of readiness had been tendered.  No express provision was made for delivery of a notice of readiness on a Sunday. However, the head charter contained an additional clause dealing with service of NOR that made no reference to service within working hours.

The vessel tendered notice of readiness by email at 0704 on  Sunday10 May 2015. The email stated that the vessel had arrived at 0250. Sub charterers cancelled at 2047 on Sunday 10 May 2015 and head charters followed suit at 0555 on Monday 11 May 2015. The question was whether the cancellations were lawful in circumstances where, although notice of readiness had been tendered before the relevant time on the cancelling date, it had not been tendered during the permitted hours. The arbitration panel in both arbitrations held that the cancellations were not valid.

Teare J allowed the appeal under the sub charter, but dismissed that under the head charter.

Under the sub charter cl16, the cancellation clause  provided: “Should the Notice of Readiness at loading port not be delivered as per Clause 14 by twelve o’clock noon on the 31st day of May 2015, the Charterers or their Agents shall at said hour and at any time thereafter, but not later than the presentation of Notice of Readiness together with the required certificates at said office, have the option of cancelling this Charter Party…” Teare J held that  the words “as per clause 14” meant that the Notice of Readiness must be in accordance with the requirements of clause 14 which required NOR to be served within stated office hours.

By contrast the cancellation clause in the head charter cl.4 provided as follows:

“… Should the vessel’s notice of readiness not be tendered and accepted as per Clause 17 before 2359 on the 30th/31st day of April/May of 2015, the Charterers or their Agents shall at any time thereafter, but not later than one hour after the notice of readiness is tendered, have the option of cancelling this Charterparty. … ”

There were two charter provisions relating to NOR. Clause 17 provided:

“(a) Notice of readiness and Commencement of Laytime See also Clause 70

Notice of vessel’s readiness to load and/or discharge at the first or sole loading and/or discharging port, shall be delivered in writing or by cable/telex/email to Charterers/Receivers (or their Agents). See also Clause 70. Such notice of readiness shall be delivered when vessel is in the loading or discharging port and is in all respects ready to load/discharge in case loading/discharging berth is occupied vessel to be allowed to tender Notice of readiness whether in port or not, whether in berth or not, whether customs cleared to not, whether in free pratique or not.”

Cl.70 contained provisions regarding the start of laytime and the requirement as to service of NOR within stated.

For cancellation purposes, it was cl.17 that was the relevant clause dealing with NOR and under that clause there was no time restriction on the service of NOR. The words in cl.17 “See also Clause 70”, were not sufficient to incorporate in clause 17, and hence in clause 4, the office hours requirement for the delivery of a notice of readiness. The combined effect of clauses 4 and 17 as amended showed, for the purposes of the cancelling clause, that there was no requirement that the notice of readiness be delivered within office hours. Accordingly, for cancellation purposes NOR had been served before the cancelling deadline of 2359 on 10 May 2015 and the head charterers had no option to cancel the charter.

Something for the New Year. INCOTERMS 2020 are coming.

INCOTERMS 2010 will be updated to INCOTERMS 2020 which comes into effect on 1 January 2020. The main changes are as follows.

Under FCA if the parties agree, the buyer, at its cost and risk, must instruct the carrier to issue to the seller a transport document (e.g. a bill of lading with an on-board notation) stating that the goods have been loaded, which the seller must then provide to the buyer.

Under CIP sellers will need to obtain cargo insurance cover which complies with Clauses (A) of the Institute Cargo Clauses (LMA / IUA) which, subject to certain exclusions, cover “all risks”, subject to the parties’ right to agree to a higher or lower level of cover.

DAT (Delivered at Terminal) now becomes DPU (Delivered at Place Unloaded).

FCA, DAP, DPU now allow the Seller to use its own transport rather than using a third party carrier.

Security obligations are made more prominent.

Anti-suit injunction against owners’ third party proceedings against charterers and sub-charterers in Singapore.

 

The Chang Hang Guang Rong [2019] EWHC 2284 (Comm)  is an interesting, recent anti-suit injunction decision by Andrew Burrows QC, soon to become a Judge of the Supreme Court. Cargo claims arising out of the issue of switch bills were brought against the vessel’s owners in the Singapore High Court. Owners sought to pass these on to Clearlake, the charterer, and to Gunvor the sub charterers, through third party proceedings analogous to CPR Part 20 procedure in England. Both parties obtained anti-suit injunctions (ASI) from the High Court in London on the basis of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the charter with Clearlake and in the bill of lading issued to Gunvor as shipper, although Gunvor denied being a party thereto.

Owners responded by amending their claims in the Singapore High Court, deleting all their contractual claims against Gunvor and relying on tort claims for misrepresentation, and deleting all their contractual claims against Clearlake, save for claims under a Letter of Indemnity, which contained a non-exclusive London High Court jurisdiction clause. Andrew Burrows QC held that there were two grounds for granting an ASI. First the foreign proceedings constituted a breach of the jurisdiction clause in the contract between the parties. An ASI would be granted unless there were strong reasons not to. Second, the foreign proceedings were otherwise vexatious and oppressive. The court would have to be satisfied that England was clearly the more appropriate forum for trial of the action. The ASI in respect of the proceedings against Clearlake fell within the first category and was maintained. Although the LOI provided for London arbitration for small claims this inconsistency was of no consequence as the claims here were not small.

The injunction was also maintained as regards Owners’ claims against Gunvor, now reframed solely as tort claims, which fell within the second category. The bringing of such claims was vexatious and oppressive, in that it circumvented the normal way of passing claims down a charter chain by leap-frogging Clearlake. Owners had manipulated their third party claims to avoid the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the charter. Clearlake, not Gunvor, dealt directly with the owners and the alleged misrepresentation was directly provided to them by Clearlake. There was a very good reason, so as to avoid forum-fragmentation on the same issues, to have all third party proceedings heard in the same jurisdiction (ie England). There was no obvious prejudice to owners in having all the third party proceedings heard in England rather than Singapore. It was not necessary to decide a further issue of whether Clearlake could restrain the tortious claims against Gunvor