UK Defence Club’s Post

📢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

Ever wondered about the legal framework governing the shipping of goods by sea? Dive into the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) and discover its vital role in regulating the rights and liabilities of shippers and carriers. From liability limitations to claims deadlines, COGSA is essential for smooth maritime operations. Learn more about how COGSA impacts the maritime industry: [What is COGSA?](https://hubs.ly/Q02XJDyg0)

On 13 December 2024, Mr Justice Bright handed down judgment in the case of Hapag-Lloyd AG v. Skyros Maritime Corporation and Agios Minas Shipping Company [2024] EWHC 3139 (Comm), two related arbitration appeals concerned with the assessment of damages upon late redelivery of containerships under time charters. The main issue in the appeals concerned the res inter alios acta rule and its exceptions, including the long vexed question of how, if at all, to reconcile the leading cases of Slater v. Hoyle & Smith [1920] 2 KB 11 (CA) and Wertheim v. Chicoutimi Pulp Co [1911] AC 301 (PC). Steven Berry KC and Adam Board acted for the charterers, Hapag-Lloyd AG. They were instructed by Ingolf Kaiser and Ryan Hunter of MFB Solicitors. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/eTKQqx6s

Jurisdictional challenge- was there a binding contract? The Merchant did not provide cargo to be loaded at Houston in repudiatory breach of the booking note, and the Carrier claimed dead freight of US $100,275.00. As provided by Clause 11. (h) of the booking note, the amount invoiced represented the gross freight of US $140,275.00 less estimated port and stevedore costs saved of US $15,000.00 and US$25,000.00, respectively. As the invoice remained unpaid, the Carrier proceeded to arbitration. Read more: https://lnkd.in/dXbQPMhu

Ever wondered about the legal framework governing the shipping of goods by sea? Dive into the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) and discover its vital role in regulating the rights and liabilities of shippers and carriers. From liability limitations to claims deadlines, COGSA is essential for smooth maritime operations. Learn more about how COGSA impacts the maritime industry: [What is COGSA?](https://hubs.la/Q033CmLn0)

“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

Sharing of costs can be a significant challenge for small firms, and in some cases, it can even lead to bankruptcy. With many small companies having containers of products worth very little, the issue is further compounded by the fact that they pay by letter of credit and in advance. This lack of control often leaves the buyer at the mercy of the shipping company or ship utilized. It is concerning that this may be a legal practice, but we hope that justice will prevail in court. #bridgecollapsebaltimore #economy2024

Sylvie Allen has written a very interesting article in the SkuldCharterer on the importance of who/which entity is signing the LOI - well worth a read for all of our charterers & traders!

Another win for the BarentsKrans Competition Litigation team this week, now in our Air cargo proceedings and regarding the overcharge methodology and the data to be used. Our client (Equilib), together with the other claimant (SCC), argued for a “one-step model” that was based on transaction data supplied by shippers. The airlines said there should be a “two-step model,” where first economists needed to determine the increase in what airlines charged freight-forwarders, and then to what extent this was passed on to the shippers. In its judgment, the court backed our model, saying it could produce “sufficiently reliable results”. The court also noted the airlines’ data might not be comprehensive enough to sustain this model. Another issue was if the overcharge should be assessed on the level of the surcharges (as argued by the airlines), or in relation to the total price of the airfreight services (as argued by the claimants). Also on this issue, the court sides with the claimants. Great teamwork of the BarentsKrans team (Martijn van Maanen, Tom Hoyer, Sophie Gilliam and myself), our funder Claims Funding Europe (Charles Wright, Roisin Lyng, Martin Hyde and Oscar McLaren) and The Brattle Group (Nicholas Powers and James Reitzes). Also a big thanks for the pleasant teamwork with Brande & Verheij LLP (counsel of SCC, Theodoor Verheij and his team) and Oxera Consulting LLP (Gunnar Niels and Lirio Barros). The judgment is not yet published but feel free to drop me a DM if you want to know more regarding the judgment or the case. BarentsKrans #competitionlitigation #dedicated

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