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 further loss was the issue of the notice of withdrawal, and the indemnity clause given was insufficient to cover this loss.
Judges:
Andrew Smith J
Citations:
[2009] EWHC 1843 (Comm), [2010] 1 Lloyds Rep 87, [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 669
Links:
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Appeal from – ENE 1 Kos Ltd v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa CA 6-Jul-2010
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 . .
At First Instance – 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, Litigation Practice
Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.368294