If a shipowner withdraws his vessel from a charterer’s service for non-payment of hire while cargo is on board the vessel and the shipowner requires the charterer to remove the cargo from the vessel, is the shipowner entitled to remuneration outside the contract and/or to recover expenses incurred in that operation?
Held: The shipowner’s appeal failed. The true cause of the claimant’s was the owners’ withdrawal of the vessel.
Longmore LJ said that it was: ‘not a natural consequence of ordering [the cargo] to be loaded that it would have to be discharged at the self-same port. The true cause of the necessity for the discharge of the cargo was the fact that, in the light of the withdrawal, the owners required the charterers to discharge the cargo.’
Longmore, Smith LJJ, Sir Mark Waller
[2010] EWCA Civ 772, [2010] 2 CLC 19, [2010] 2 Lloyds Rep 409
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – ENE Kos v Petroleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobas) ComC 23-Jul-2009
The claimant shipowners withdrew the vessel for non payment, but at the time they gave notice, the vessel was already laden. They now claimed for the further two days taken for unloading.
Held: The claim succeeded. The proper cause of the . .
See Also – Petroleo Brasilieiro SA v ENE Kos 1 Ltd CA 30-Oct-2009
The parties disputed the effective date of a payment into court where the cheque lodged was not in pounds sterling.
Held: The rules were silent on the exact point, but the date was the date of receipt in the court funds office of the cheque in . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Petroleo Brasileiro Sa v Ene Kos 1 Ltd (‘The MT Kos’) SC 2-May-2012
The MT Kos had been chartered by the appellants. The respondents failed to make payments, and notice was given to withdraw the vessel. The contract said that such a notice was without prejudice to any claim. At the time, the vessel was laden. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.420234
