One obligation, one remedy. Now it’s Eternal Bliss for charterers.


In K Line PTE Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co, Ltd (The Eternal Bliss) [2020] EWHC 2373 (Comm) the vessel was kept at the anchorage at Longkou in China for some 31 days due to port congestion and lack of storage space ashore for the cargo. In consequence when the cargo of soyabeans was discharged it exhibited substantial mould and caking. This led the receivers bringing a cargo claim against owners which they then, reasonably, settled and then sought to recover from voyage charterers by way of damages for breach of their obligation to discharge within the laydays. Charterers responded by saying that demurrage was the exclusive remedy for this breach.

At first instance, [2020] EWHC 2373 (Comm), Andrew Baker J heard a preliminary point of law on assumed facts as to whether demurrage was the sole remedy for this breach of the obligation to discharge within the laydays. He found that it was not. It was the remedy only where what owners were claiming was detention loss. Other consequences of the breach, in this case the sum owners paid to settle the receivers’ claim, were recoverable as unliquidated damages. In doing so he declined to follow the only clear decision on this issue, that of Potter J in The Bonde [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 136 who had held that demurrage is liquidated damages for all the consequences of the charterer’s failure to load or unload within the laytime. Andrew Baker J also found that if demurrage was liquidated damages for all the consequences of the charterer’s delay at the discharge port, an indemnity would not be implied rendering the charterer liable for one of those consequences. Charterers appealed the finding on the extent of the demurrage remedy. Owners did not challenge the indemnity finding on appeal.

The Court of Appeal, EWCA/Civ/2021/1712, for whom Males LJ delivered the judgment of the Court, has today reversed that decision and concluded that in the absence of any contrary indication in a particular charterparty, demurrage liquidates the whole of the damages arising from a charterer’s breach of charter in failing to complete cargo operations within the laytime and not merely some of them. Accordingly, if a shipowner seeks to recover damages in addition to demurrage arising from delay, it must prove a breach of a separate obligation. The Court noted that The Bonde was the only clear decision on this point and that both the academic texts and judicial dicta were divided.

The Court of Appeal gave the following six reasons for its decision.

 “First, while it is possible for contracting parties to agree that a liquidated damages clause should liquidate only some of the damages arising from a particular breach, that strikes us as an unusual and surprising agreement for commercial people to make which, if intended, ought to be clearly stated. Such an agreement forfeits many of the benefits of a liquidated damages clause which, in general, provides valuable certainty and avoids dispute.” [53]

”Secondly, we accept that statements can be found in the case law to the effect that demurrage is intended to compensate a shipowner for the loss of prospective freight earnings suffered as a result of the charterer’s delay in completing cargo operations… No doubt this is the loss which is primarily contemplated and, in most cases, will be the only loss occurring. But that does not mean that this is all that demurrage is intended to do. The statements cited were made in cases where the present issue was not being considered.” [54]

Thirdly, if demurrage quantifies “the owner’s loss of use of the ship to earn freight by further employment in respect of delay to the ship after the expiry of laytime, nothing more”, as the judge held at [61] and again at [88], and does not apply to a different “type of loss” (as he put it at [45]), there will inevitably be disputes as to whether particular losses are of the “type” or “kind” covered by the demurrage clause.”[55]

“Fourthly, as Lord Justice Newey pointed out in argument, the cost of insurance is one of the normal running expenses which the shipowner has to bear. A standard expense for a shipowner is the cost of P&I cover which is intended to protect it against precisely the loss suffered in this case, that is to say liability to cargo claims, whether justified or not. Thus a shipowner will typically have insurance against cargo claims, while a charterer will not typically have insurance against liability for unliquidated damages resulting solely from a failure to complete cargo operations within the laytime. Rather, the charterer has protected itself from liability for failing to complete cargo operations within the laytime by stipulating for liquidated damages in the form of demurrage. Accordingly the consequence of the shipowner’s construction is to transfer the risk of unliquidated liability for cargo claims from the shipowner who has insured against it to the charterer who has not. That seems to us to disturb the balance of risk inherent in the parties’ contract.”[56]

“Fifthly, The Bonde has now stood for some 30 years, apparently without causing any dissatisfaction in the market.” [57]

“Sixthly, that reason would have less force if we agreed with the judge (at [127]) that the reasoning in The Bonde “is clearly faulty” or that the judgment “is explicable only if a non sequitur lies at its heart”. With respect, however, we do not accept the judge’s criticisms of The Bonde.” [58]

The Court of Appeal then noted that allowing the appeal would produce clarity and certainty, while leaving it open to individual parties or to industry bodies to stipulate for a different result if they wished to do so.

It will be interesting to see if owners now try to draft clauses stating expressly that demurrage only covers certain stated categories of loss – and whether charterers accept that.

It will also be interesting to see whether the case eventually ends up before the Supreme Court.

Additional freight claim. Effect of change of nominated discharge port/s by voyage charterers.

In London Arbitration 20/21 a shipowner claimed additional freight for discharge ports nominated by the voyage charterer who then changed the nomination to discharge ports which were not subject to additional freight. The vessel was chartered to carry 60,000 mt bulk soya to ½ ports in China with the sole/1st disport to be declared 10 days prior to the vessel passing Singapore. The charterers nominate Zhoushan for lightening and Taixing for discharge of the balance of the cargo. The charter provided for $1.75 per mt extra on entire cargo if Taixing was the nominated discharge port. Thirteen days later charterer changed the discharge port to Tianjin. Owners sent charterers an invoice for Zhoushan and Taixing, and charterers insisted on Tianjin. Eventually the disputed extra freight was paid into an escrow account and the vessel discharged at Tianjin.

The tribunal held that in accordance with established authorities culminating with The Jasmine B [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 39 the initial declaration of the discharge ports made by charterers had the effect of treating those ports as have been written into the charter from the outset. Charterers assumed the risk of any change of nomination subsequently made by their sub-contractors. The nomination provision was a typically worded nomination provision and nothing in it was special in permitting a change of nomination.

The fact that the owners only proceeded to Tianjin under protested, confirmed by the terms of the escrow agreement, was fatal to all charterer’s arguments as to variation, waiver and estoppel. Nor had owners been unjustly enriched at charterer’s expense because the voyage for which additional freight was contemplated was never performed. Nothing in the charter obliged owners to relinquish the freight for the contractual voyage if in the event that voyage was not performed. Owners were accordingly entitled to the freight payable on the original nomination which was held in the escrow account.

Demurrage time bar clause. What is the time for “completion of discharge”?

In Euronav NV v Repsol Trading SA (mt Maria) [2021] EWHC 2565 (Comm) Henshaw J was faced with a dispute between owners and charterers as to whether a demurrage claim was barred by clause 15(3) of the Shellvoy 6 form, which requires notification to be made of a demurrage claim “within 30 days after completion of discharge” failing which the claim becomes time-barred. The Vessel discharged at Long Beach and disconnected hoses at 21:54 local time (PST – Pacific Standard Time) on 24 December 2019, as noted in the Statement of Facts and laytime statement. On 24 January the Charterers received owners’ brokers an email stating that: “According to owners, demurrage has incurred on above [subject] voyage. Hence, please take this email as demurrage notice”.

Whether owners’ notification was within the thirty days after completion of discharge depended on which time zone was used in respect of ‘completion of discharge’. It was agreed that when computing a period of time within which a certain thing must be done, the first day is not ordinarily counted and that the date of discharge – whichever date it was – was ‘day 0’ and not counted as one of the 30 days within which notification had to be given. In addition ‘day’, absent any contrary indication meant a calendar day, i.e. the period of twenty-four hours beginning and ending at midnight, and not merely a period of twenty-four consecutive hours.

If as charterers’ argued, one took local time in California, where discharge took place, day one would be 25 December and the claim submitted on 24 January would be out of time and time-barred. Owners argued that for three alternatives which would give the date of completion on 25 December, and day one on 26 December:   (a) the time zone of the recipient of the required notice (here, Spanish time, that of Charterers), (b) the time zone of the giver of the required notice (here, Belgian time, that of Owners) or (c) GMT, given that the contract applied English law?  On each of these approaches the claim would not be time-barred.

Henshaw J held that the date of completion of discharge is to be determined applying local time at the place of discharge for the following reasons [61]:

“i)                   The ordinary and natural approach is to allocate to an event (e.g. a historical event, or a person’s birth, marriage or death) the date that was current in the place where the event occurred.

ii)                 That approach gains some support from the authorities and commentary referred to in §§ 30-35 above.

iii)               The discharge of cargo from a vessel is a tangible physical event, which occurs at a specific location and in a particular time zone.  It will in the ordinary course be recorded in documents, such as the Statement of Facts and any laytime statement, as having occurred at the time and date current applying local time.  A contracting party would naturally expect the date stated in such documents to be the date of completion of discharge for contractual purposes.

iv)               The date of discharge of the cargo is significant not only for the purpose of notification of demurrage claims, but also for other purposes.  It represents the end of the contractual service to the shipper, and ends the running of laytime or demurrage.  Under clause 15(3) itself it is also the start date for the separate 90-day period for service of supporting documents.  It is generally the starting point for the time limit under the Hague-Visby rules for cargo claims.  It would be unnatural and illogical either (a) for there to be more than one date of discharge, used for different purposes, or (b) for the date of discharge pursuant to (say) the Hague-Visby rules to be determined by something as potentially arbitrary and non-transparent as the place of receipt (or, even, potential receipt) of a notice of any demurrage claim.  Whether the date of delivery for Hague-Visby purposes is determined using local time at the place of discharge (which I am inclined to consider the obvious approach) or using the relevant court’s own time zone (as was mooted during submissions but appears to me less attractive), Owners’ case creates the prospect of the same event being differently dated for different purposes.

v)                  The use of local time at the place of discharge gives rise to a single, clear and easily ascertainable date and time of completion of discharge.  It tends to promote certainty and reduce the risk of confusion.

vi)               It is inherent in a date based system that different time zones may apply to the events which define the start and end of the period, if they are in different countries.

vii)             The point that it is not essential to apply the same time zone to the beginning and end of the 30 day period under clause 15(3) is illustrated by a case where daylight saving time changes during the period.  If, for example, discharge is completed on a particular day in the UK, and a notice is served at half past midnight on day 31, the notice would be out of time even if the clocks had gone forward an hour to GMT + 1 in the meantime (so that half past midnight was 11.30pm on day 30 GMT).  

viii)           If it were appropriate to determine both dates using a single time zone, it would be more logical for that to be the time zone of the place of discharge.  As already noted, the completion of discharge is a significant physical event, with a natural date, usually recorded in contemporaneous documents, and with several consequences under the contracts relating to the voyage.

ix)               The considerations discussed in section (D) above give no compelling or sufficient to depart from the natural approach.

x)                  There is no ambiguity in clause 15(3) that might justify a contra proferentem interpretation.”

Incorporation of Bulk Terminal Terms into Charter. Effect on Laytime and Demurrage Regime.

In London Arbitration 15/21 the Tribunal considered the effect, if any, of the incorporation into the fixture of what were referred to as UBT (United Bulk Terminal) Rules, which were rules imposed contractually by the berth operators on users of the berth. These provided:

 “2.2 NOTICE OF READINESS

In the case of an Ocean Vessel to be loaded, issuance of the Notice of Readiness shall mean that the Ocean Vessel (1) has obtained all requisite governmental approvals, inspections and clearances, including, but not limited to, those required by the US Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and (2) is located at the Berth or Closest Available Anchorage (as defined in section 2.5 below); and (3) is ready and suitable in all respects to receive the Cargo in all holds to be loaded; and (4) has confirmed with the Terminal that the Cargo is to be loaded to Vessel is in storage at the Terminal or, if Cargo is to be direct transferred, is in barges in the Terminal’s fleet; and (5) has determined that the Cargo is in a condition satisfactory to the Vessel Party and all regulatory authorities for shipment. Notice of Readiness shall be considered invalid unless the aforementioned five conditions are met…”

By contrast the recap setting out the fixture provided

“- SHOULD THE BERTH BE OCCUPIED OR SHOULD THE VESSEL BE PREVENTED FROM PROCEEDING TO THE BERTH AFTER HER ARRIVAL AT OR OFF THE PORT NOTICE OF READINESS MAY BE TENDERED BY TELEX, FAX WWWW (an acronym for “wibon, wccon, wifpon, wipon”, ie “whether in berth or not, whether customs cleared or not, whether in free pratique or not, whether in port or not”).

– AT BOTH ENDS PORT LAYTIME SHALL COMMENCE TO  COUNT 12 HRS AFTER VALID NOR IS TENDERED UNLESS OPERATIONS SOONER COMMENCED.  IN CASE SOONER COMMENCED, ACTUAL TIME USED TO COUNT.”

Clause 6 of the charter in effect confirmed what was agreed in the recap.

Owners gave notice of readiness at the port of Davant on the Mississippi on arrival at the South West Anchorage, having to wait there due to congestion at the berths. The tribunal held that there was no requirement in the contract for the vessel to have passed any inspections, etc before giving a valid notice of readiness. Nor was there any requirement in the contract that notice be accepted by the charterers or their agents. Similarly it contained no requirement that notice be given within the laycan.

Under English law was that where an incorporated document conflicted with the terms of the primary agreement entered into by parties, the conflicting terms had to give way to those in that primary agreement with which they were inconsistent, as had been held in a similar case The Linardos [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 28.

Accordingly the aspects of the UBT Rules relied on by the charterers conflicted with the terms of the fundamental agreement as found in the recap, and reinforced by the incorporated charter terms. As in The Linardos, the UBT Rules were designed to govern contractual relationships between the terminal and users of the berth so, when reading them into a charterparty, great caution had to be exercised in interpreting them in the charterparty context so as to ensure that only those provisions in the Rules that were truly relevant to and compatible with the charter agreement were given effect to.

In the light of the charter provisions agreed in the recap, the vessel was entitled to give notice of readiness at the Southwest Pass as that was the nearest available anchorage off the port at the time she arrived there, and the UBT Rules did not affect that position. Accordingly the owners’ demurrage claim succeeded, and they would be awarded the claimed amount of US$109,495.83 plus interest and costs.

Charterers orders to wait off berth not an extra contractual service; time falls within the laytime and demurrage regime.

London Arbitration 14-21 involved a claim by owners that time spent waiting on charterer’s orders following tender of NOR at the discharge port was a non-contractual service which should be remunerated by way of quantum meruit. This would be at the demurrage rate and would include bunkers consumed while waiting.

The Tribunal rejected the claim. Laytime had already started to run when the charterers ordered the vessel to wait off berth. This was not a non-contractual order as in The Saronikos [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 277 and Glencore Energy UK Ltd v OMV Supply & Trading Ltd [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 223. The charterers were entitled to use the whole of the agreed laytime, whether  by holding the ship off the berth, or by berthing her and not working her for some time, or by berthing her and working her immediately. Once laytime had started to count the charterers were entitled to use it in full. Even if owners had been right, they would not have been entitled to anything for bunker consumption. Assuming the demurrage rate was to be taken as a genuine pre-estimate of damages for detention, it had to follow that running expenses, including bunker costs, were to be taken as included in the agreed rate.

Smart claims for bill of lading freight by owners.

If an owner’s bill of lading incorporates the freight provisions of a time charterer’s voyage charter, can owners intervene to require payment of the freight to themselves rather than to the time charterer? That was the issue recently before Butcher J in Alpha Marine Corp v Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co Ltd (MV Smart) [2021] EWHC 1157 (Comm) (05 May 2021).


Claim were made by owners against charterers in respect of the loss of the vessel for breach of the safe port warranty. the Tribunal found that the Charterers had provided a safe port warranty in respect of Richards Bay and that there were some shortcomings in the running of the port. However, the Master had been negligent in his handling of the Vessel and it was this that caused the grounding of the Vessel. Owners had issued bills of lading which stated ‘freight as per charter’.  After the vessel was lost the Owners gave notice to the bill of lading holder, the voyage charterer to pay full freight to them. At that time only a sum in respect of bunkers was due to Owners.  Charterers claimed damages in respect of losses sustained as a result of owners’ intervention in respect of freight due under the bill of lading through the incorporation of the terms of the voyage charter. They also claimed in tort on the basis of procuring breach of contract by the voyage charterer and/or knowingly and/or unlawfully interfering with the Voyage Charter. The Tribunal found that Owners were not entitled to revoke Charterers’ right to obtain the bill of lading freight or to direct it be paid to the Owners. This is because the Charterparty contained an implied obligation that Owners would not revoke unless hire and/or sums were due to them under the Charterparty

On appeal, Butcher J considered three possible terms constraining owners’ exercise of their rights to intervene to claim freight under the bill of lading. First, the “all freight” implied term whereby if the Charterers were in default of their obligations under the Charterparty, then the Owners would be entitled to collect the entirety of the freight, even if it exceeded the amount of the Owners’ claim against the Charterers arising out of their default. Second, “All Freight (Sum Identified) Implied Term”) by which the Owners were not entitled to revoke the Charterers’ authority to collect any freight unless a sum was due to the Owners under the Charterparty and the relevant sum was identified at the time of any revocation of the Charterers’ authority; and (3) the “Dollar for Dollar” Implied Term whereby the Owners were only entitled, in the event of a default by the Charterers, to revoke the Charterers’ authority to collect freight in respect to an amount up to, but no more than, the amount due from the Charterers under the Charterparty.

Butcher J rejected the implication of any term.  Owners’ duty to account to the charterer for any excess in the amount of freight collected over the amount due under the charterparty meant that the present charterparty, or other time charters in similar form, did not lack commercial or practical coherence without an implied term restricting the owners’ right to intervene.  If owners claimed freight in excess of sums due to them under the time charter the owners would have to account for the balance to the time charterers, and that was the charterers’ protection.

The Award was set aside insofar as it awarded damages for breach of the implied term found by the Tribunal; and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the Charterers’ freight counterclaim on the alternative Tortious Basis, having regard to this judgment.

Deadfreight. Charterer’s nominated berth frustrates owner’s option as to quantity to load.

In London Arbitration 7/21 a vessel was chartered to carry coal. The owners were given the option to load between 27,000 and 33,000 mt of cargo, and the charterers were bound to provide a safe port/berth at the specified terminal. The owners exercised their option to load 33,000 mt

Prior to the fixture being concluded the owners had emailed the charterers’ agents at the loading port and had been advised that the maximum draft at the terminal was in excess of 13 m. The agents indicated that the vessel would berth at a specified berth where the vessel would have had no problem in loading 33,000 mt.

Charterers ordered vessel to load at a different berth where there was a lower maximum sailing draft and failed to change the berth nomination. There was a shortfall of 1,590 mt of cargo.

The tribunal held that the owners were entitled to exercise their option as to cargo quantity unfettered, and the charterers were bound to load whatever amount the owners opted for up to 33,000 mt. If, by their choice of berth, the charterers prevented the vessel from loading that quantity, they put themselves in breach of that obligation. By ordering the vessel to a berth where the draft was so limited as to stop the vessel loading 33,000 mt, the charterers frustrated the exercise of the owners’ option. Charterers were liable to owners in damages for the shortfall in cargo loaded

Demurrage time bar. Equivalence of requisite documents.

In London Arbitration 1/21 a vessel was chartered on amended Asbatankvoy for a voyage between two Italian port. An addition clause required the claim and supporting documents to be received by Charterers in writing within ninety days of completion of discharge, failing which any claims by owners would be waived and absolutely barred. The clause went on to specify the supporting documents for a demurrage claim. “Insofar as demurrage claims are concerned the supporting documents to be received by Charterers must include a Laytime and Demurrage calculation issued in accordance with the allowances and exceptions provided in this Charter Party. Owners’ invoice, Notices of Readiness and Statements of Facts issued at loading and discharging ports, duly signed in accordance with Clause 17 above. If other Time Sheets or Statements of Facts are separately issued for other cargoes handled at the same port or berth, these documents should also be attached to Owners Laytime and Demurrage calculation.”

Owners sent documents and the claim to charterers within the ninety days, but charterers claimed three documents were invalid.

1. Owners’ demurrage invoice. Owners had submitted their invoice at the bottom of the document headed ‘Time Sheet’ but had not stated on the face of the document that it was an invoice. The Tribunal followed Lia Oil SA v ERG Petroli SpA [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 509 and found that a single document could be both a laytime and demurrage calculation and an invoice.

2. Statement of facts at discharge port. Owners submitted an unsigned Statement of Facts, and a Time Sheet which had all the information expected of a statement of facts which was signed by receivers. The Tribunal accepted the second document as the Statement of Facts for the purposes of the time bar.

3. Port log, discharging log, and pumping log for discharge port. Owners had provided a detailed signed time sheet which was functionally equivalent to a port log and the unsigned statement of fact. They also provided a manifolds pressure log, which provided inter alia, the average discharge rate, the manifold pressure and number of pumps used for each hour of the discharge operation. That document was functionally equivalent to a discharging log and a pumping log.

Owners were obliged to present all supporting documents but Charterers had failed to identify any specific document owners had failed to produce or to produce an equivalent. That part of the challenge failed. Owners’ demurrage claim was not time barred.

War Risks and Kidnap & Ransom in charter do not exclude GA claim for piracy under bills of lading.

The Polar [2020] EWHC 3318 (Comm) – HERCULITO MARITIME LIMITED v. GUNVOR INTERNATIONAL BV – involved an appeal pursuant to section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, in respect of a claim by shipowners against cargo owners under six bills of lading for general average  in respect of ransom payments made by owners to pirates. under the relevant bills of lading. The general average expenditure was the payment of a ransom to pirates to enable the release of the vessel so that she could complete her voyage.  Cargo owners contended that the GA claim was barred because the bills of lading incorporated the terms of the relevant charterparty under which the shipowners’ only remedy in the event of having to pay a ransom to pirates was to recover the same under the terms of a Kidnap and Ransom insurance policy and a War Risks policy taken out by the shipowners, the premium for which was, pursuant to the charterparty, payable by the charterers. Previous cases on incorporation had involved demurrage clauses and jurisdiction and arbitration clause. Incorporation of insurance terms and their possible constitution of a complete code excluding other remedies, such as claiming in GA, was a novelty.

The clauses were incorporated as directly germane to the loading, carriage and discharge of the cargo, but they provided  for payment of the premiums

by charterers and this language would not be manipulated so as to include bills of lading holders. Sir Nigel Teare, acting as a Judge of the High Court, held that “to substitute “bill of lading holders” for “Charterers” when reading clause 39 into the bills would be inconsistent with the obligation of the bill of lading holders to pay freight as per the charterparty as the price for the performance by the Owners of the contract of carriage. It would mean that the holders of the bills of lading, in the event that certain liberties were exercised by the Owners, had to pay may more than the agreed freight for the performance of the contract of carriage. Moreover, such additional sums would be unknown and unlimited.”  Similar provisions applied as regards kidnap and ransom insurance premiums payable under the Gulf of Aden clause.

As regards, the argument that the charter provisions on payment of the premiums constituted a ‘complete code’ excluding owners’ remedies in the event of piracy, this was certainly the position as regards the charterers. On the true construction of the charter the parties had agreed to look to the additional policies for the recovery of relevant losses and so the Owners were precluded by that agreement from seeking to recover that loss by way of a contribution in general average. However, as regards the position under the bill of lading, the only parts of the clauses in question which have been incorporated into the bills so as to bind the holders of the bills were the liberties conferred on the Owners not to complete the voyage or to depart from the usual or expected route. There was an important difference between the position under the Charter and the position under the bills of lading –  it could not be said of the bill of lading holders, as Lord Roskill said of the charterers in the Evia No.2, that theyhad paid the premiums not only for no benefit for themselves but without shedding any of their liability to contribute in general average in respect of losses caused by the additional insured perils. The point was not that the Owners had agreed to transit the Gulf of Aden at no cost to themselves, but that the charterers had agreed to pay for the insurance.

For these reasons the contract of carriage contained in or evidenced by the bills of lading did not contain an agreement by the Owners not to seek a contribution in general average from the holders of the bills from liability in respect of losses covered by the additional insurance taken out by the Owners.

One breach, two losses. Does demurrage cover both?

Andrew Baker J today has said that it does not. In K Line PTE Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co, Ltd [2020] EWHC 2373 (Comm) the vessel was kept at the anchorage for some 31 days due to port congestion and lack of storage space ashore for the cargo. In consequence when the cargo of soyabeans was discharged it exhibited substantial mould and caking. This led to a cargo claim against owners who then settled and sought to recover from voyage charterers by way of damages for breach of their obligation to discharge within the laydays.

 Dicta of Sargant LJ in Reidar v Arcos [1927] KB 352, not the easiest of cases from which to extract a ratio, suggested that demurrage was the sole remedy for breach of that obligation, but that the case before him involved a breach of a separate obligation, a proposition applied by Potter J in The Bonde [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 136). By contrast, Webster J in The Altus [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 423 held that demurrage only had the effect of providing liquidated damages for a specific type of loss, the economic loss suffered by owners in the charterers exceeding the laydays for which they had paid in the freight. It did not cover other types of loss flowing from this breach. This was the view of Bankes LJ in Reidar. The contentious point was whether Atkin LJ had been with Sargant LJ or with Bankes LJ.

The academic writings were divided: Carver on Charterparties , Voyage Charters, and Shipping Law for the view of Sargant LJ; Scrutton contra for that of Bankes LJ; Schofield undecided; and Summerskill nowhere to be seen. After a long discussion as to whether precedent required him to follow The Bonde – it did not – Andrew Baker J held that damages could be claimed for the cargo claim resulting from the delayed discharge, notwithstanding the demurrage provision. He added that had he come to a different conclusion, there would have been no scope for implying an indemnity -owners’ second string to their bow.

One suspects this will come as an unpleasant surprise to charterers, but perhaps the bigger surprise is what owners were doing settling a claim which under the Hague Rules they would have had a good chance of resisting under Art IV (2)(q)  which provides an exemption as follows: “Any other cause arising without the actual fault or privity of the carrier, or without the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier, but the burden of proof shall be on the person claiming the benefit of this exception to show that neither the actual fault or privity of the carrier nor the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier contributed to the loss or damage.”  Deterioration of the cargo due to delay in discharge due to congestion would very likely constitute such a cause.

This looks like one for the Court of Appeal, and, maybe, the Supreme Court.