Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corporation (The Gregos)

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
CourtHouse of Lords
Judgment Date27 October 1994
Date27 October 1994
[HOUSE OF LORDS] TORVALD KLAVENESS A/S Respondents and ARNI MARITIME CORPORATION Appellants 1994 June 27, 28, 29; Oct. 27 Lord Templeman, Lord Ackner, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley and Lord Woolf

Shipping - Charterparty - Time charter - Redelivery - Vessel ordered on illegitimate last voyage - Vessel redelivered late - Whether legitimacy of voyage established at date order given - Whether charterers in repudiatory breach - Ships' Names - Gregos

By a time charterparty in the New York Produce Exchange form the owner chartered the Gregos to the charterers for a maximum of 70 days. The charterparty provided for payment of hire until the time of redelivery and for the charterers to give orders and directions with regard to employment and to provide all requisite instructions and directions. The vessel was delivered off Antwerp on 8 January 1988 and redelivery was due at the latest on 18 March 1988. The vessel proceeded in ballast to South America and then performed two voyages with cargo from Trombetas in Brazil to Matanzas on the river Orinoco in Venezuela. On 9 February, before completion of the second voyage, the master was instructed by the charterers to proceed from Matanzas to Palua, another Orinoco port, to load a cargo for Fos in Italy. At that time redelivery in accordance with the charterparty could reasonably have been expected. By 25 February, when the vessel completed discharge at Matanzas, it had become impossible to redeliver her within the stipulated period because of the obstruction of the navigable channel of the Orinoco between Palua and its mouth. The vessel nevertheless proceeded to Palua on 25 February on which date the owners informed the charterers that they declined to perform the voyage from the Orinoco to Fos and requested the charterers to give revised orders for the final voyage. No such orders were given, and a dispute arose as to the validity of the order of 9 February. After negotiations a without prejudice agreement was entered into and the vessel performed her voyage and was redelivered on 26 March, eight days late. The dispute was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of the owners. On appeal by the charterers, Evans J. upheld the award. On appeal by the charterers the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the arbitrator for reconsideration.

On appeal by the owners: —

Held, allowing the appeal, that in determining the date for judging the validity of the charterers' order for the final voyage it was necessary to ascertain the intention of the parties from the terms of the charterparty itself; and that, accordingly, the correct date for ascertainment was 25 February 1988, by which date an order originally permissible had become illegitimate; that albeit timely redelivery was not a term of the contract breach of which would amount to a repudiation the fact that the charterers had no intention of giving valid orders so as to enable the vessel to be redelivered within the stipulated time, constituted an anticipatory breach which enabled the owners to treat the contract as ended (post, pp. 1468B–D, 1474F, 1476A–B, G–H, 1478A–B).

Alma Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v. Mantovani [1975] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 115, C.A; Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries S.A. v. Shipping Corporation of India (The Kanchenjunga) [1989] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 354, C.A. and Batis Maritime Corporation v. Petroleos del Mediterraneo S.A. (The Batis) [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 345 considered.

Decision of the Court of Appeal [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 335 reversed.

The following cases are referred to in the opinion of Lord Mustill:

Alma Shipping Corporation of Monrovia v. Mantovani [1975] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 115, C.A.

Batis Maritime Corporation v. Petroleos del Mediterraneo S.A. (The Batis) [1990] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 345

Bunge Corporation, New York v. Tradax Export S.A. Panama [1981] 1 W.L.R. 711; [1981] 2 All E.R. 513, H.L.(E.)

Compagnie Commerciale Sucres et Denrees v. C. Czarnikow Ltd. [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1337; [1990] 3 All E.R. 641, H.L.(E.)

Federal Commerce & Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Molena Alpha Inc. [1979] A.C. 757; [1978] 3 W.L.R. 991; [1979] 1 All E.R. 307, H.L.(E.)

Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. v. Gesuri Chartering Co. Ltd. (The Peonia) [1991] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 100, Saville J. and C.A.

Marbienes Compania Naviera S.A. v. Ferrostaal A.G. [1976] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 149, C.A.

Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries S.A. v. Shipping Corporation of India (The Kanchenjunga) [1989] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 354, C.A.

The following additional cases were cited in argument:

Hector Steamship Co. v. V.O. Sovracht, Moscow [1945] K.B. 343; [1945] 1 All E.R. 540

Kodros Shipping Corporation v. Empresa Cubana de Fletes (No. 2) [1983] 1 A.C. 736; [1982] 3 W.L.R. 637; [1982] 3 All E.R. 350, H.L.(E.)

London & Overseas Freighters Ltd. v. Timber Shipping Co. S.A. [1972] A.C. 1; [1971] 2 W.L.R. 1360; [1971] 2 All E.R. 599, H.L.(E.).

Mareva Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Canaria Armadora S.A. [1977] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 368

State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. Golodetz Ltd. [1989] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 277 C.A.

Appeal from the Court of Appeal.

This was an appeal by leave dated 23 November 1993 of the House of Lords (Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Goff of Chieveley and Lord Slynn of Hadley) by the appellants, Arni Maritime Corporation, owners of the vessel Gregos, from the judgment dated 27 May 1993 of the Court of Appeal (Russell, Hirst and Simon Brown L.JJ.) allowing the appeal of the respondents, Torvald Klaveness A/S from the judgment dated 31 January 1992 of Evans J., upholding an award dated 15 February 1991 made by an arbitrator, Mr. Mark Hamsher, in favour of the appellants.

The facts were stated in the opinion of Lord Mustill.

Peter Gross Q.C. and David Goldstone for the owners.

Kenneth Rokison Q.C. and Timothy Young for the charterers.

Their Lordships took time for consideration.

27 October. LORD TEMPLEMAN. My Lords, in a time charter, the time for redelivery of the vessel by the charterer to the owner at the end of the charter is of the essence of the contract, absent any provision in the contract to the contrary. If the charterer in the course of the charterparty evinces an intention not to redeliver the vessel by the date or last date fixed for redelivery, the charterer will evince an intention no longer to be bound by the contract and will thus repudiate the contract. The owner may ignore the repudiation and claim damages resulting from breach of contract by any late delivery or accept the repudiation, withdraw the vessel from the control of the charterer and claim damages resulting from repudiation.

In the present case, the charterparty of the vessel, the Gregos, began on 8 January 1988 and the last day for redelivery was 18 March of the same year. During the currency of the charterparty, the charterers were entitled to give orders to the master of the vessel with regard to the loading and sailing of the vessel but they were bound to give orders which would result in the vessel being redelivered to the owners not later than 18 March. Orders were lawfully given by the charterers for the vessel to deliver a cargo of bauxite at Matanzas, a port in Venezuela on the Orinoco River and thereafter to load a cargo of iron ore at the neighbouring port of Palua, also on the Orinoco for delivery to Fos in Italy prior to redelivery at an authorised port in Europe on or before 18 March. The Gregos was ready to load at Palua on 25 February. Following the grounding of the vessel Philippine Roxas in the Orinoco, it was then possible for the Gregos to escape from the Orinoco unladen in time for redelivery on 18 March. If, however, the Gregos took on a cargo of iron ore at Palua, as had been ordered, it was no longer possible for the Gregos to clear the Orinoco until the obstruction of the channel caused by the grounding of the Philippine Roxas had been overcome. In that event, according to the owners it was not possible for the Gregos to be redelivered by 18 March. The charterers ordered the master to load at Palua. This order, if complied with, would have prevented redelivery by 18 March and was therefore a repudiatory breach of contract. If the master had accepted the order to load at Palua, the owners would have lost their right to accept repudiation and would only have been entitled to damages for late delivery. The master refused to load at Palua and requested fresh orders to enable the Gregos to be redelivered on time. On 29 February the charterers refused to give fresh orders and the owners treated the conduct of the charterers in ordering and attempting to insist upon loading at Palua as a repudiatory breach of contract and accepted that repudiation.

In the arbitration which inevitably followed, the charterers contended that they would have been able to redeliver by 18 March 1988 even if the Gregos had loaded at Palua and unloaded at Fos but this contention was disproved by events and was rejected by the arbitrator. It follows that the charterers were not entitled to order the vessel to be loaded at Palua, that their refusal to give an alternative order evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the contract to redeliver not later than 18 March and that the owners were entitled to accept the conduct of the charterers as a repudiation of the contract. In the event the owners did not suffer any damages from the repudiation but immediately after 25 February, while the charterers were still contending that they were not guilty of breach of contract or repudiatory conduct and that the owners were bound to allow the vessel to be loaded at Palua, the charterers and the owners entered into an agreement whereby the Gregos lifted the iron ore from Palua and the charterers agreed that if the owners were held to be entitled to accept the conduct of the charterers at Palua on 25 February as repudiatory, the charterers would pay the current increase in freight rate over the charterparty rate plus a notional ballast bonus. The arbitrator...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
20 cases
  • Marlan Homes Ltd v Walsh & Wedick
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 30 March 2012
    ...IR 272; Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 and Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corp [1994] 1 WLR 1465 approved - Charter Reinsurance v Fagan [1997] AC 313 applied - Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside (95/2010 - SC - 30/3/2012) [2012......
  • Kuwait Rocks Company (Appellants/Charterers) v Amn Bulkcarriers Inc. (Respondents/Owners)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 18 April 2013
    ...Furthermore, the modern approach, typified by Lord Mustill's speech in Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corporation ("The Gregos") [1994] 1 WLR 1465 at 1475–6, is a reluctance to decide that a particular term of a contract is a condition. In the absence of any binding authority that cl......
  • Transfield Shipping Inc. v Mercator Shipping Inc. (The Achilleas)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 1 December 2006
    ... ... 29 In The Gregos [1991] 2 LLR 40 the principal issue was whether ... Inc v National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd [987] I LLR 465 ... "The Sanix Ace" sailed ... of damages and mitigation in relation to maritime contracts. As will be apparent from the article ... ...
  • SK Shipping Europe Plc v Capital VLCC 3 Corporation
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 16 December 2020
    ...of the contract ( Aktion Maritime Corp of Liberia v S Kasmas & Brothers Ltd [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 283, 306; Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corp [1994] 1 WLR 1465, 1476.) Where one party evinces an intention to perform only part of its obligations, the right to treat the contract as d......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • DEMYSTIFYING THE RIGHT OF ELECTION IN CONTRACT LAW
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 December 2006
    ...would not prevent the shipowners from claiming damages for breach); Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corporation (The Gregos)[1994] 1 WLR 1465 (an election not to reject an uncontractual last voyage order by the charterers would not prevent the shipowners from claiming damages suffered......
  • The Achilleas: Custom and Practice or Foreseeability?
    • United Kingdom
    • Edinburgh University Press Edinburgh Law Review No. , January 2010
    • 1 January 2010
    ...can refuse an order for a last voyage if it appears bound to overrun.1010Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corporation (The Gregos) [1994] 1 WLR 1465. So the risk is within relatively narrow bounds. On the other hand, the charterer has no idea of what the market rates were when the owne......