|
|
|
|
| ITS used the wrong test for oil and certified it as contract compliant : Was ITS liable for losses sustained due to problems at discharge? Held by majority decision - YES. Finding of deceit overturned - but liability for concealment : Was time bar missed - NO. CA. 28th November 2006 |
| by Buxton LJ; Rix LJ; Sir Martin Nourse. Crown Copyright |
|
|
|
| Insurance non disclosure : GTI acted as an umbrella organisation for members. The members, including Italaudit were insured with Brit. GTI had a separate policy to cover any liability it might have as the umbrella organisation for the acts of its members. Brit avoided Italaudit’s policy for non-disclosure and purported to avoid GTI’s policy on the grounds that it was back to back with the Italaudit policy and thus simultaneously avoided. Court disagreed L The GTI policy was self standing and not tainted by non-disclosure. Commercial Court. 3rd March 2006 |
| by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright |
|
|
|
| Reasonable dispatch : Tug wrongfully proceeded at half speed pending payment of final stage of hire : vessel arrived late resulting in loss of sale of vessel bound for scrap. Held : Tow liable. Commercial Court. 23rd February 2006 |
| by Mr Justice Andrew Smith. Crown Copyright |
|
|
|
| Fob - laycan : vessel arrived in time - but loading delayed beyond laycan : Buyer repudiated the contract : Whether lawful? Held : No : Seller liable for demurrage : laycan gives seller right to repudiate if vessel does not arrive before expiry of laycan : not for benefit of buyer. Commercial Court. 9th June 2006 |
| by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright. |
|
|
|
| Off hire clause – cancellation clause if off hire for more than 30 days : Waiver. Award upheld in owners favour. Commercial Court. 15th December 2006 |
| by Mr Justice Morison. Crown Copyright |
|
|
|
| In determining whether a port is unsafe for the purposes of a safe port warranty in a voyage charterparty, is the relevant question whether the port is unsafe for the chartered vessel itself or is it sufficient for the owners to show that the port is unsafe for other vessels? Held : Port prospectively unsafe - appeal dismissed. Commercial Court. 12th December 2006 |
| by Mr Justice Toulson: Crown Copyright |
|
|
|
| Laytime - demurrage : What happens if charterers require a vessel to tender her notice of readiness, to berth, and to begin loading, all before the contractual commencement of the laydays? If her owners accept those orders without obtaining the charterers\' consent to an express stipulation that laytime is to start counting before the contractual commencement of the laydays, do the charterers obtain a period of free loading time? Held : No. CA. 5th July 2006 |
| by Buxton LJ; Rix LJ; Scott Babker LJ. Crown Copyright. |
|
|
|
| Appeal against the basis of damages award. Held “To award damages in this case on the basis of the difference between the market and the charter rate for the overrun would compensate the Owners for only a fraction of the true loss caused by the breach. In compensating them for the whole of it the majority did not, in my judgement, err in law. I shall, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.” Commercial Court. 1st December 2006 |
| by Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. Crown Copyright . |
|
|
|
| Chartered vessel arrested by authorities for breaking UN oil embargo in Irac. Whether charterer liable to owner for loss of vessel. Held : Yes. Commercial Court. 14th July 2006 |
| by Mr Justice Colman : Crown Copyright |
 |
Our publications are provided in PDF format, in order to view them you will need Adobe's free Acrobat reader. Acrobat reader can be downloaded from Adobe by following the link to your left. |
|
|
