The ship had been returned beyond the charter date. The court was asked whether, when the vessel was sent on a legitimate last voyage but, through no fault of the charterers, was then redelivered after the final terminal date, the owners were entitled in respect of the overrun period to hire at the market rate (if higher than the charterparty rate) or only at the charterparty rate.
Held: The owners could claim the market rate. In relation to an illegitimate last voyage Lord Justice Bingham said that the owner: ‘was entitled to payment of hire at the charterparty rate until redelivery of the vessel and (provided he does not waive the charterer’s breach) to damages (being the difference between the charter rate and the market rate if the market rate is higher than the charter rate) for the period between the final terminal date and redelivery’.
Lord Justice Slade: ‘The judgments of Lord Denning MR and Lord Justice Browne in The Dione . . are, in my opinion, on a proper analysis, authority binding this Court for the proposition that if charterers send a vessel on a legitimate last voyage and the vessel is thereafter delayed for any reason (other than the fault of the owners) so that it is redelivered after the final terminal date, the charterers will (in the absence of agreement to the contrary) be in breach of contract and accordingly, if the market rate has gone up, will be obliged to pay by way of damages the market rate for any excess period after the final termination date up to redelivery . . ‘
Judges:
Lord Justice Bingham, Lord Justice Slade
Citations:
[1991] I Lloyd’s Rep 100
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia ComC 1-Dec-2006
The owners made substantial losses after the charterers breached the contract by failing to redliver the ship on time as agreed.
Held: On the facts found the Owners’ primary claim is not too remote. To the knowledge of the Charterers, it was . .
Cited – Digital Integration Limited v Software 2000 CA 16-Jan-1997
The parties had entered into a contract for the distribution of software by the plaintiff. The contract was terminated by the plaintiff and the defendant argued that this was in breach of the agreement, and that a sub-clause which apparently gave . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Transport, Contract
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.246745
