Gulf Shippings Lines Ltd v Compania Naviera Alanje S.A. (Aspa Maria)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ORR,Mr. JUSTICE WALLER |
| Judgment Date | 11 June 1976 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1976] EWCA Civ J0611-1 |
| Date | 11 June 1976 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[1976] EWCA Civ J0611-1
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from the High Court of Justice Bench Division (Special Paper) (Mr. Justice Mocatta)
The Master of the Rolls
Lord Justice Orr and
Mr. Justice Waller
In the Matter of the Arbitration Act, 1950, And in the Hatter of an Arbitration.
Mr. M. A. PICKERING (instructed by Messrs. Constant & Constant, Solicitors, London) appeared on behalf of the Claimants (Charterers) (Appellants).
Mr. P. N. LEGH-JONES (instructed by Messrs. Holman, Fenwick & Willan, Solicitors, London) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Owners)
On the 9th April, 1973 the owner a of a email vessel called the "Aspa Maria" let it on a time-charter to the Gulf Shipping Company of London. It was placed at the disposal of the charterers at Hong Kong on the 28th June, 1973.
The original period of the charter was stated in these words: "… the said Owners agree to let, and the said Charterers agree to hire the said vessel, from the time of delivery, for 6 months 30 days more or less at Charterer's option". She was delivered on the 28th June, 1973. So the 6 months would come to an end on the 28th December, 1973. There was a clause providing that the charterers were to give the owners not less than 30 days' notice of the expected date of re-delivery.
There was, however, a clause which gave an option to continue the charter. It was clause 13, which said: "That the Charterers shall have the option of continuing this Charter for a further period of further 6 months 30 days more or less at Charterer's option declarable at the end of fourth month" The charterers did exercise that option. They exercised it on the 29th August, 1973 - long before the end of the fourth month - by a document which said: "… the Charterers have extended the Time-Charter for a further six months, thirty days more or less in Charterers' option.
The problem which has arisen is this: The two periods of 6 months - the initial six months and the further 6 months - that is, altogether 12 months, expired on the 28th June, 1974. The charterers wanted to keep the vessel for a further 60 days - that is until 28th August, 1974 - but the owners said that the charterers were only entitled to 30 days, that is, until 28th July, 1974. So on the 6th August, 1974 the owners withdrew the vessel, the "Aspa Maria", from the service of the charterers.
There were several disputes which went to arbitration.The time charter was on the New York produce exchange form but the arbitration clause was amended so as to provide for arbitration in London. So it said: " That should any dispute arise between owners and charterers, the matter in dispute should be referred to three persons at London, one to be appointed by each of the parties hereto, end the third by the two so chosen; their decision or that of any two of them shall be final".
The charterers appointed Mr. Cedric Barclay. The owners appointed Mr. Clifford Clark. By consent, those two appointed Mr. Diamond Q. C. as third arbitrator. The two, Mr. Barclay and Mr. Clark, made an interim award on two matters on which they agreed: but on the third matter - the duration of the charter - they stated a consultative case. Some judges have, I believe, discouraged arbitrators from stating a consultative case. But they should not be discouraged. Take this very case. It is pretty plain that the two arbitrators did not agree on the construction of the charterparty - so rather than make a, final award (which would commit them to a particular view) - they stated a consultative case. By so doing they could quickly obtain an authoritative decision and apply it: and thus decide everything. I think such a step should be encouraged: and that the Commercial Court should lend its aid by giving consultative cases priority of hearing so far as the list permits.
The dispute about duration arises in this way… The charterers claim that the original period was a maximum of 6 months plus 30 days, and that the further period was another maximum of 6 months plus 30 days. Adding those two maxima together, the total maximum was 12 months plus 60 days. But the owners say that the original period was 6 months - it never became the 30 days more - and that the second period of 6 monthscould only be extended by 30 days more. So the total was 12 months plus 30 days.
The Judge held that the owners were right and that the charterers had only 30 days after the 12 months expired on 28th June,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jadranska Slobodna Plovidba v Gulf Shipping Line Ltd (Matija Gubec)
-
KRITI AKTI SHIPPING Company S.A. and PETROLEO BRASILIERO S.A. [CA (Civil), 20/02/2004]
...1970s: The Alma Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v Mantovani (The 'Dione') [1975] 1 Lloyd 's Rep. 115 and Gulf Shipping Lines Ltd v Compania Naviera Alanje S.A. (The 'Aspa Maria') [1976] 2 Lloyd 's Rep. 643. The inter-change between arbitrators and the Commercial Court was then more frequen......
-
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. v Kriti Akti Shipping Company S.A.
...they were bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal in Gulf Shipping Lines Ltd v Compania Naviera Alanje S.A. (The 'Aspa Maria') [1976] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 643 so to hold. Accordingly, they held that the charterers' claim failed. 11 The charterers subsequently obtained leave to appeal on thi......
-
Atlantic Lines & Navigation Company Inc. v Didymi Corporation (Leon)
...Ltd. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1963) Appeal Cases 691 and the judgment in this court in The Aspa Maria (1976) 2 Lloyd's Law Reports 643. All that can be said against this view is that a six months' performance option is surprisingly long, particularly if off-hire can b......