Yesterday the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision in CSSA Chartering and Shipping Services SA v Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd (The Pacific Voyager)  EWCA Civ 2413 which we noted in this blog on 24 October 2017. The case involved a voyage charter on Shellvoy 5 form which contained no ‘estimated ready to load’ statement. Instead Part 1(b) contained estimated times of arrival for the itinerary on the previous charter. When did the owner’s absolute obligation to begin the approach voyage to the load port commence? Popplewell J held that the obligation began within a reasonable time of the completion of discharge at the final port in the previous charter as specified in the estimated itinerary for that voyage. The owners were in breach of that obligation and charterers were entitled to substantial damages.
The Court of Appeal have upheld this decision. Longmore LJ stated that this meant that there was no need to deal with charterer’s alternative argument that the cancellation date provided a further indication of the time at which it would be reasonable to say that the obligation of utmost despatch arises. “If, for any reason, it were impermissible to rely on the expected date of arrival of 25th January at the last discharge port under the previous charter, I would have difficulty in saying that the cancellation date would do instead. It would be necessary to know why it was that 25th January could not be relied on and, if it were because there was no ETA Rotterdam, that might apply equally to any argument about the cancelling date. If, however, there had been no itinerary given and the only guide was the cancelling date, that might be a different matter. That can (and should) be left to another day for the (perhaps somewhat surprising) terms of such a charterparty to be considered.”
3 thoughts on “When does a shipowner have to start the approach voyage under a voyage charter?”
Thank you for this case note Professor Baughen. I have duly annotated my copy of “Shipping Law”.
You meant that the charterers were entitled to substantial damages.
In our work on revising Gencon, we had, months ago, provided that the benefit of Art Iv.2 should apply as from the date of fixture. Letâs see what (if anything) the SC will do â¦
Thanks John for the headsup on the Gencon revision. Yes I did mean that it was charterers who were entitled to substantial damages and I’ve amended the entry accordingly.