The BSLE Sunrise  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,  EWHC1643 (Comm);  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.