Essex Court Chambers’ Post

The High Court today gave judgment in Hapag-Lloyd AG v Skyros Maritime Corporation and Hapag-Lloyd AG v Agios Minas Shipping Company, two related arbitration appeals concerning damages for late redelivery of a ship under a time charter. The decision and reasoning will be received with interest in the shipping market and beyond, given that it is relevant not only to late redelivery under a time charterparty but also to late delivery under sale of goods contracts where the goods are on-sold. Ingolf Kaiser and Ryan Hunter of MFB acted for Hapag-Lloyd, the successful appellants, together with Steven Berry KC and Adam Board of Essex Court Chambers. See our full article here.

📢Judgment  The Commercial Court handed down its judgment in Hapag-Lloyd AG v. Skyros Maritime Corporation & Agios Minas Shipping Co, clarifying the law on damages for late redelivery of vessels under charterparties. This decision is of significance for shipping, commodities, and sales of goods law, and may have broader implications for contractual damages. Hapag-Lloyd successfully appealed, with permission granted for further appeals on certain issues. Julian Kenny KC and James Lamming were instructed by Wikborg Rein LLP. Read the full case note: https://lnkd.in/eNtZcGRg

What difference did the breach make? Commercial Court considers damages for late redelivery   In the recent case of Hapag-Lloyd AG v. Skyros Maritime Corporation and Agios Minas Shipping Company [2024] EWHC 3139, the Commercial Court considered the assessment of damages following late redelivery under time charterparties where the ships were also due to be delivered to buyers under sale contracts (MOAs). Find out more here 👇 https://lnkd.in/e7-6iRA9

“Point of Law” – Post 104: The “Skyros” and “Agios Minas” – where two vessels were redelivered late under time charters and the prevailing market rate was above the charter rate payable for the overrun period but owners were obliged on redelivery to deliver the vessels to buyers under ship sale and purchase agreements, owners were not entitled to substantial damages, based on the difference between the charter rate and the higher prevailing market rate for the overrun period, because owners had suffered no loss of opportunity to take advantage of the prevailing market rate during the overrun period – see https://lnkd.in/d_KpRmix #shipping #maritimelaw #arbitration #litigation

When it comes to the transportation of cargo, things aren’t always plain sailing. If the cargo is damaged, contaminated or lost during its voyage, disputes can arise and quickly transform into costly claims. At SMA, our expert legal team has dealt with all manner of cargo claims. Through this vast experience, we have sharpened our skills in this often-complex area to take on high-value work for a growing body of international clients, including but not limited to defending arbitration or foreign forum choice changes. See how we can help: https://bit.ly/3KEd8I2 #CargoClaims #ShippingLaw #MaritimeLaw

Legal Update: Limitation Claim Arising from the X-Press Pearl Incident In a pivotal legal determination, the Court has elucidated the ambit of Article 1(2) of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (as amended). This case emanated from the catastrophic fire and subsequent sinking of the X-Press Pearl off Colombo, Sri Lanka, on 2 June 2021. The claimants, comprising the vessel’s registered owners, bareboat charterers, and deponent owners, successfully petitioned for a limitation decree to circumscribe their liability for losses ensuing from the incident. The Court scrutinised whether Maersk, Bengal Tiger Line, and MSC, identified as "slot charterers," were also entitled to limit their liability under the Convention. Salient points from the judgment include: 1) The definition of "shipowner" under Article 1(2) encompasses owners, charterers, managers, or operators of a sea-going vessel. 2) The Court referenced the precedent set in The MSC Napoli case, affirming that slot charterers are entitled to limit their liability. 3) The contractual arrangements and the substance of the agreements are pivotal in ascertaining whether a party qualifies as a "charterer." This judgment highlights the necessity of examining the substance over the nomenclature in contractual arrangements to ensure alignment with the Convention's language and intent. #MaritimeLaw #LegalUpdate #ShippingIndustry #XPressPearl #LiabilityLimitation #ULA

This guide provides the latest information on port state control, marine casualties and owners liability, among others. Ebrahim Asvat Joaquin de Obarrio William Denham

RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV: The Supreme Court has reached a verdict on the force majeure case, addressing a "fundamental point of principle." This decision holds significant importance within the legal realm. 15 May 2024 OVERVIEW The Supreme Court, in its ruling on RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18, which was delivered on Wednesday, May 15, 2024, has granted MUR's appeal, thereby reinstating the verdict of Jacobs J. The court, in complete agreement, has determined that the force majeure clause contained within the parties' Charter Party Agreement (COA) allows MUR to temporarily halt its selection of vessels for performance due to anticipated delays in RTI's payment of freight in US dollars, as stipulated by the COA. These delays are a direct result of the sanctions imposed on RTI's parent company. The primary matter presented to the Supreme Court concerned the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision to support the tribunal's ruling in the underlying arbitration. The tribunal has come to a conclusion that MUR is unable to invoke force majeure as it has failed to meet the requirements outlined in clause 36.3(d). According to this clause, an event or situation can only be deemed force majeure if it cannot be "overcome by reasonable endeavors (sic)." The Court of Appeal, in line with the tribunal, contended that a problem or situation is deemed resolved only when all its adverse effects have been completely averted. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court adopted a distinct perspective, acknowledging the appeal as a profoundly significant principle with the potential to be universally applicable to all force majeure clauses. The central issue being considered is whether the existence of an informal solution to a contractual deadlock might impede a party from invoking force majeure. The court raised concerns about the potential consequences of non-contractual solutions, as they could weaken the importance of the parties' contractual rights and overlook the essential role of certainty in commercial agreements. #arbitration. #Force_Majeure

Check out our article on the High Court decision in Hapag-Lloyd AG v Skyros Maritime Corporation and Another [2024] EWHC 3139 (Comm). In this case, we explore late redelivery claims and examine how other contractual arrangements, such as MOAs, can affect the owner’s ability to claim. #shipping #lateredelivery #MOAs #agapitosgeorgiouandpartners #casecommentary https://lnkd.in/dsbptz5T

Litigation activity across the maritime sector has halved since 2014 and continues to decrease. In contrast, maritime arbitration is at an all-time high. HFW Global Head of Shipping Paul Dean joins litigation analytics platform Solomonic in assessing the data behind this developing trend, which provides an insight into how the industry is responding to escalating geopolitical uncertainty. You can read his interview here: https://lnkd.in/e-zD2Rmv To discuss these issues, please speak to Paul or your usual HFW contact. #Shipping #ShippingIndustry #Maritime #MaritimeIndustry #Litigation #Arbitration #DisputeResolution