SBT Star Bulk & Tankers (Germany) GmbH & Company KG v Cosmotrade SA (m/v Wehr Trave)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Hon Sir Bernard Eder |
| Judgment Date | 22 March 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 583 (Comm) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CL-2015-000552 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Date | 22 March 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 583 (Comm)
Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court).
Sir Bernard Eder.
Dominic Happé (instructed by Loudouns) for the claimant/owner.
Nevil Phillips (instructed by Jackson Parton) for the respondent/charterer.
The following cases were referred to in the judgment:
Ispat Industries Ltd v Western Bulk Pte Ltd (The Sabrina 1)UNK [2011] EWHC 93 (Comm).
Martrade Shipping & Transport GmbH v United Enterprises Corp (The Wisdom C)UNK [2014] EWHC 1884 (Comm); [2014] 1 CLC 985; [2015] 1 WLR 1.
Ocean Tramp Tankers Corp v V/O Sovfracht (The Eugenia)UNK [1963] 2 Ll Rep 381.
Segovia Compagnia Naviera SA v R Pagnan & Fratelli (The Aragon)UNK [1975] 1 Ll Rep 628.
Shipping — Charterparty — Vessel hired for “one time charter trip”“via East Mediterranean/Black Sea to Red Sea/Persian Gulf/India/Far East” with redelivery “Colombo/Busan range”— Vessel loading at Black Sea ports and discharging at Red Sea and Persian Gulf ports — Charterer ordering vessel to proceed to Sohar (Oman) to load cargo for delivery at New Mangalore or Cochin — Whether charterer's order illegitimate because it involved a further trip after one time charter trip completed — Arbitration Act 1996, s. 69.
This was an appeal by the claimant shipowner under the Arbitration Act 1996, s. 69 against a partial final award on a preliminary issue in an arbitration relating to disputes arising under a charter with the defendant charterer.
The charter on an amended NYPE form 1946, with additional typed clauses, was for a “one time charter trip”“via East Mediterranean/Black Sea to Red Sea/Persian Gulf/India/Far East”, with redelivery “Colombo/Busan range including China not north Qingdao”.
The charterer ordered the owner to load cargoes at three Black Sea ports, and then to discharge at five ports, namely Jeddah (Red Sea), Sohar (Gulf of Oman), Hamriyah, Jebel Ali and Dammam (Persian Gulf).
The charterer then ordered the vessel to proceed back to Sohar when it was empty in order to load a cargo for delivery at New Mangalore or Cochin in India.
The shipowner disputed the charterer's entitlement to give that order. The tribunal considered the matter as a preliminary issue and decided that the charterer had been so entitled.
Held, dismissing the shipowner's appeal:
1. The concept of a “trip time charter” embraced a number of possible permutations. A “trip” might involve loading cargo at one port and a single voyage to another port to discharge cargo there. Alternatively, it might involve loading cargo at a number of different ports and a voyage to another port to discharge the cargo there, or perhaps a voyage to a number of different discharging ports. It might also involve several loading and discharging operations at different ports along a route. As a matter of language, all such examples could be described as involving a single “trip”. There was no single definition as to what constituted a “trip” or “one trip” and the scope of any “trip time charter” would depend on the particular terms agreed between the parties and any restrictions as to trading limits, geographical route and number and designation of loading and discharging ports or ranges. The issue was whether the charter contained sufficiently clear words to exclude Sohar as a loading port.
2. It was clear that the charterer was not, as a matter of language, restricted to loading the vessel at a single port. The charter specified a delivery port/range and a redelivery port/range. By and within that range, it specified a route. The charterer was entitled to call at such ports as it wished, provided that the calls were within the trading limits and the route was not inconsistent with the contractual route. Proceeding to Sohar was not inconsistent with the contractual route; it was both between Dammam and New Mangalore/Cochin (which were permissible discharge ports) and between Dammam and Colombo. The word “via”, as used in the charter, did not restrict the range at which the vessel might load but simply meant “by way of”, and the word “to” did not restrict the range at which the vessel might discharge, but simply denoted the contractual route. It followed that the charterer had been entitled to give the disputed order.
Sir Bernard Eder: Introduction
1. With leave of the Court, this is an appeal by the claimant pursuant to s. 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 from the Partial Final Award on a Preliminary Issue (the “Award”) of a tribunal comprising Messrs Lindsay Gordon and Peter Giles (the “tribunal”) in the underlying arbitration relating to disputes arising under a charter (the “charter”) between the claimant as owners (“owners”) and the respondent as charterers (“charterers”) of the m/v WEHR TRAVE (the “vessel”).
2. The charter comprises an amended NYPE 1946 form with typed additional clauses numbered 3A-108 and is evidenced by a clean recap dated 16 October 2013 attaching and amending a previous time charter dated 19 May 2010 in respect of a sister vessel, m/v WEHR HAVEL. So far as material, the relevant terms (including deletions) were as follows:
“ll. 13–15
… That the said Owners agree to let, and the said Charterers agree to hire the said vessel, from the time of delivery, for one Time Charter trip via good and safe always afloat, always accessible port(s) and/or berths via Continent/C Mediterranean/Black Sea/East Mediterranean to Red Sea/Persian Gulf/India, always via Gulf of Aden one Time Charter trip via good and safe ports and/or berths via East Mediterranean/Black Sea to Red Sea/Persian Gulf/India/Far East always via Gulf of Aden, with steels and/or other lawful/harmless general cargo, suitable for carriage in a cellular container vessel as described. No bulk cargo is allowed. Duration about 40–45 days without guarantee minimum 40 days without guarantee within below mentioned trading limits.
ll. 18–35
Vessel to be placed at the disposal of the Charterers on passing Skaw, Denmark dropping outward pilot Algeciras at any time day or night, Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays included. Vessel on her delivery to be ready to receive any permissible cargo … in such lawful trades, between good safe port and/or good safe ports and good safe berth and/or good safe berths and good safe anchorage and/or good safe anchorages, always afloat, always within Institute Warranty Limits (See also Clause 38) as the Charterers or their Agents shall direct …
cl. 4
That the Charterers shall pay for the use and hire...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hockin and Others v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc and another
...He referred me to the consideration of similar provisions including "arising out of or in connection with" in KMR Ltd v Forsters LLP [2016] EWHC 583 (Comm) per Sir Bernard Eder at [38] – [40]. In particular, at [40] the judge commented that it is often unhelpful and dangerous to rely upon e......
-
TMT Co Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (trading as RBS Greenwich Futures) and others
...Tchenguiz & Ors v Grant Thornton UK LLP & Ors [2016] EWHC 865 (Comm) (“Tchenguiz”) and Khanty-Mansiysk Recoveries Ltd v Forsters LLP [2016] EWHC 583 (Comm) (“Khanty-Mansiysk”) involved more broadly worded clauses. Khanty-Mansiysk involved clauses with phrases expanding the ambit such as (at......
-
Don't Trip Up A Warning For Owners
...Chloe Rogers The recently decided case of SBT STAR BULK & TANKERS (GERMANY) GMBH & CO KG V COSMOTRADE SA (THE "WEHR TRAVE") [2016] EWHC 583 (Comm) in the Queen's Bench Division of the Commercial Court and before The Hon Sir Bernard Eder will, perhaps, come as a This was an appeal pu......
-
Don’t trip up – a warning for owners
...decided case of SBT STAR BULK & TANKERS (GERMANY) GMBH & CO KG V COSMOTRADE SA (THE “WEHR TRAVE”) [2016] EWHC 583 (Comm) in the Queen’s Bench Division of the Commercial Court and before The Hon Sir Bernard Eder will, perhaps, come as a surprise. This was an appeal pursuant to section 69 of ......
-
Aggregation Words
..."He referred me to the consideration of similar provisions including "arising out of or in connection with" in KMR Ltd v Forsters LLP [2016] EWHC 583 (Comm) per Sir Bernard Eder at [38] – [40]. In particular, at [40] the judge commented that it is often unhelpful and dangerous to rely upon ......