Golden Stavraetos

[ Home ] [ Up ]

Note: on May 15 2003, the Court of Appeal overruled the decision of Morison J. reported below. For a note on the Court of Appeal's decision, click here 

DMC/SandT/31/02
Trafigura Beheer BV v. Golden Stavraetos Maritime Inc.
English High Court, Commercial Division: Morison J.: 12 June 2002: [2002] EWHC 1154 (Comm)
Mr Richard Lord QC, instructed by Clyde & Co, for Trafigura
Mr Boyd QC, and Ms Sara Cockerill, instructed by Messrs Watson, Farley & Williams, for Golden Stavraetos Maritime
VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY: CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: ARTICLE III RULE 6 HAGUE-VISBY RULES: NON-DELIVERY OF CARGO AT DESTINATION: CLAIM FOR CONTAMINATION: CARGO ON-CARRIED TO NEW DESTINATION FOR DISCHARGE THERE: LIMITATION PERIODS: WHETHER LIMITATION PERIOD STARTED ON NON-DELIVERY AT ORIGINAL DESTINATION OR ON COMPLETION OF DISCHARGE AT ALTERNATIVE DESTINATION
Summary
In a case where, on arrival at the original contractual destination, the cargo interests refused to accept delivery of the cargo on the grounds that it was damaged, and subsequently arranged with the shipowners for it to be carried to and delivered at another port, the time limit under Article III Rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules began to run from the time at which the cargo "should have been delivered" at the original port of discharge and not from the time that discharge was completed at the new port of discharge. The Claimants’ suit was therefore time-barred and summary judgment was entered in favour of the defendant shipowners.

DMC Category Rating: Confirmed

Facts
Trafigura chartered Golden Stavraetos' vessel, on a voyage charterparty, to which the Hague-Visby Rules (‘HVR’) applied, to ship fuel oil from Saudi Arabia to Lagos. The vessel arrived off Lagos on the evening of 2 February 2000, when notice of readiness was tendered. The intended purchaser refused delivery, alleging that the oil was off specification. Trafigura then ordered the vessel to proceed to Abidjan, where it arrived on 13 February 2000. After further negotiation, a further voyage from Abidjan to Greece was agreed. This was covered by an addendum to the original charterparty, which provided for the freight rate for this voyage and a new period of laytime. The cargo was eventually discharged in Greece, without further incident.

Trafigura alleged that the shipowners were in breach of contract in tendering a notice of readiness at Lagos when the cargo had been contaminated by residues within the vessel's tanks of soya bean oil. They commenced proceedings in London against the owners on March 21 2001.The issue was the application of Article III Rule 6 of the HVR, which provided for the shipowners’ liability to be discharged unless "suit was brought within one year of the delivery [of the goods] or of the date when they should have been delivered". The question was whether time started to run from the date of delivery in Greece, which was within the one-year limit, or from the date when the cargo "should have been delivered" at Lagos, namely, at the latest by 6 February 2000.

The charterers’ argument was that the cargo had been delivered in Greece and that the proceedings were commenced within one year from that date. Accordingly, the second part of Article III Rule 6 of the HVR (the "should have been delivered" part) did not come into play. 

Judgment
The judge held that, contrary to certain comments in the first edition of the text book, Carver on Bills of Lading, the HVR did not confer a choice on either Trafigura or the shipowners as to which "limb" of Article III Rule 6 applied. Any "choice" was to be made by the application of legal principles to the facts of the particular case. The court must adopt a process of construction appropriate to the interpretation of a set of Rules agreed internationally and enacted into UK law.

The judge found that the complaint that had led to proceedings being brought in this case was the non-delivery of the cargo at Lagos, due allegedly to its condition. The relevant suit was, therefore, the claim for damaging the cargo during the contractual voyage from the load port to Lagos. "Lagos," he said, " was the only legitimate place of delivery in relation to the voyage about which complaint is made; and there was a wrongful refusal of [Trafigura] to take delivery there; the defendant had fulfilled the owners’ obligations under the voyage charter, subject to any claims that might have been made in relation to the state of the cargo".

The cause of action was therefore complete at Lagos and time would start to run from the date that the cargo "should have been delivered" there. The delivery in Greece and the non-delivery in Lagos were two separate and distinct events. The delivery in Greece was not the subject of the suit and it would be contrary to the underlying need for certainty and clarity to suggest that time started on delivery in Greece.

As a result, the judge gave summary judgment in the owners’ favour, on the grounds that Trafigura’s action was time-barred.

 

These Case Notes have been prepared with care, but neither the Editor nor the International and other Contributors can guarantee that they are free from error, nor that they contain every pertinent point. Reliance should not therefore be placed upon them without independent verification. The Editor and the International and other Contributors disclaim all liability for any loss of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising as a result of others acting or refraining from acting in reliance on the contents of this website and the information to which it gives access. The Editor claims copyright in the content of the website.