Archive for the 'charterparties' Category

Enviroco Ltd v Farstad Supply A/S – WLR Daily

Enviroco Ltd v Farstad Supply A/S [2011] UKSC 16; [2011] WLR (D) 126

“When a Scottish holding company’s entire shareholding in one of its subsidiary companies had been pledged to a Scottish creditor as security and, pursuant to Scots law, the creditor had become the registered shareholder, the subsidiary company was, for the purposes of section 736 of the Companies Act 1985, no longer a subsidiary of the holding company.”

WLR Daily, 6th April 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd – WLR Daily

Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co Ltd [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm); [2010] WLR (D) 230

“An arbitral tribunal in assessing damages for breach of contract had been wrong to treat a claim for wasted expenses and a claim for loss of profits as two separate and independent claims which could not be ‘mixed’. Both claims were governed by the principle which required the court to make a comparison between the claimant’s current position and what it would have been had the contract been performed. Where steps had been taken to mitigate the loss which would otherwise have been caused by a breach of contract that principle required the benefits obtained by mitigation to be set against the loss which would otherwise have been sustained.”

WLR Daily, 6th August 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

ENE Kos 1 Ltd v Petroleo Brasileiro SA – WLR Daily

ENE Kos 1 Ltd v Petroleo Brasileiro SA [2010] EWCA Civ 772; [2010] WLR (D) 173

“A shipowner who withdrew his vessel from a charterer’s service for non-payment of hire while cargo was on board the vessel and required the charterer to remove the cargo from the vessel, was not entitled to remuneration, in the absence of accident, emergency or necessity, unless expressly or impliedly agreed. The owner could recover expenses incurred in taking care of the cargo in the course of the operation to discharge it. The owner could claim the cost of maintaining a guarantee on a counterclaim for wrongful withdrawal of the vessel as part of the costs awarded to him in the counterclaim.”

WLR Daily, 8th July 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Farstad Supply AS v Enviroco Ltd – WLR Daily

Farstad Supply AS v Enviroco Ltd [2010] UKSC 18; [2010] WLR (D) 113

“A requirement in a charterparty for the owner to indemnify the charterer against claims resulting from loss or damage in relation to the vessel was not limited to a requirement for the owner to reimburse claims against the charterer by third parties but precluded the owner from recovering damages from the charterer in respect of the charterer’s own negligence. It followed that where it was alleged that the charterer and a third party had jointly caused damage to the vessel whilst it was berthed in Scotland and, because of the indemnity agreement, the owner sued only the third party in the Scots courts, the third party would not be able to claim a contribution under s 3(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940 from the charterer as a ‘person who, if sued, might also have been held liable’.”

WLR Daily, 6th May 2010

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc – WLR Daily

Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc [2008] UKHL 48; [2008] WLR (D) 232

Charterers were not liable in damages for a shipowner’s loss of profits on a subsequent fixture resulting from the late redelivery of the vessel.”

WLR Daily, 10th July 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.


Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc – Times Law Reports

Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc

House of Lords

“Charterers were not liable for a shipowner’s loss of profits on a subsequent fixture resulting from the late redelivery of the vessel.”

The Times, 10th July 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.

Golden Fleece Maritime Inc and Another v ST Shipping and Transport Inc – Times Law Reports

Golden Fleece Maritime Inc and Another v ST Shipping and Transport Inc

Court of Appeal

“Owners of vessels which failed to comply with the Marine Pollution Convention, as warranted in the charterparty and were unable to carry to all specified ports the full range of petroleum products set out therein, were in breach of time charters.”

The Times, 10th June 2008

Source: www.timesonline.co.uk

Please note the Times Law Reports are only free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.


September 2017
M T W T F S S
« May    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Categories