Stolt Tankers v. Landmark

[ Home ] [ Up ]

DMC/S&T/35/01
Stolt Tankers Inc. v. Landmark Chemicals SA
QBD Commercial Court: Andrew Smith J.: 21 December 2001
Mr. T Houghton of Holmes Hardingham for Stolt Tankers
Mr. A Baker instructed by Clyde & Co for Landmark Chemicals
SHIPPING: ARBITRATION: LAYTIME: DEMURRAGE: VESSEL WAITING FOR BERTH: OTHER OPERATIONS IN RESPECT OF CARGO CARRIED UNDER OTHER CHARTERPARTIES: AVAILABILITY OF VESSEL TO LOAD OR DISCHARGE: CAUSE OF DELAY: ‘FAULT’: DETAINED BY CHARTERERS:

Summary:
Laytime or time on demurrage was interrupted where, while the vessel was waiting for the charterers' berth to become available, she engaged in operations in respect of cargo carried under another charterparty.

Facts
This was an appeal by Owners, Stolt Tankers from an arbitration award disallowing part of their demurrage claim. The question of law for decision was: "whether (in the absence of any relevant provision in the governing voyage charterparty) laytime or time on demurrage was interrupted because, while the vessel was waiting for charterers' berth to become available, she engaged in operations in respect of cargo carried under another charterparty". The arbitrators had found that there had been interruption and had accordingly reduced their award in owners' favour by US$124,000.          í 
                                            
The Arguments
The owners said that the arbitrators had not paid proper regard to the cause of the vessel's delay, which was congestion at the berth. The operations they had conducted had not caused any additional delay to the vessel. The charterers contended that in order to be entitled to claim demurrage, the shipowners were obliged to have the vessel ready and available to load or discharge. The owners replied that time would be interrupted only where the vessel had been rendered unavailable through their "fault".                         í 

Judgment
(1) The "wider principle" recognised by Evans J in Ellis Shipping Corp. v. Voest Alpine Intertrading (the "Lefthero") should be applied in this case, whereby if actions of the owners for their own purposes rendered a vessel unavailable for cargo operations, it was natural to regard that in itself as preventing the loading or discharge of the vessel and ‘as a cause of any delay in cargo operations’.
(2) It was not necessary to show that the owners’ actions had in fact caused a delay in cargo operations.
(3) Demurrage was payable because the shipowners, having agreed freight to cover the voyage and an agreed time for loading and discharging processes, faced serious losses if this time was exceeded. The charterers agreed to compensate them for these losses by way of demurrage. If a vessel was not available for the charterers' cargo operations but was being used by the owners for their own purposes, there was no reason why the charterers should pay compensation. The charterers were not detaining her.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.