ED & F Man Sugar Ltd v Unicargo Transportgesellschaft mbH [2012] EWHC 2879 (Comm) (23 October 2012)

ED & F Man Sugar Ltd v Unicargo Transportgesellschaft mbH [2012] EWHC 2879 (Comm) (23 October 2012)

Clause 28 of the Charterparty does not apply to delay caused by the destruction of loading equipment by fire, as 'mechanical breakdown at mechanical loading plants' does not encompass destruction by fire. The Charterers' ability to nominate alternative berths means that the delay was not caused by an excepted peril under Clause 28. Administrative rescheduling by the port authority does not amount to 'government interference' within the meaning of Clause 28. The appeal is dismissed and the arbitration award is affirmed.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2879 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/charterer: E. D. & F. Man Sugar Ltd; Defendant/owner: Unicargo Transportgesellschaft mbH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitration Award
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; arbitration award affirmed.
Legal Topics
Charterparty Interpretation, Demurrage, Laytime Exceptions, Force Majeure, Arbitration Appeals
Commercial Law Shipping Law Arbitration Charterparty Interpretation Demurrage Laytime Exceptions Force Majeure Arbitration Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. D. & F. Man Sugar Ltd

Claimant/charterer

Unicargo Transportgesellschaft mbH

Defendant/owner

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in loading caused by fire destroying mechanical loading equipment counts as laytime under the Charterparty
  2. 2 Whether Clause 28 of the Charterparty applies to such delay
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'mechanical breakdown' and 'government interferences' in Clause 28

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 28 of the Charterparty does not apply to delay caused by the destruction of loading equipment by fire, as 'mechanical breakdown at mechanical loading plants' does not encompass destruction by fire. The Charterers' ability to nominate alternative berths means that the delay was not caused by an excepted peril under Clause 28. Administrative rescheduling by the port authority does not amount to 'government interference' within the meaning of Clause 28. The appeal is dismissed and the arbitration award is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; arbitration award affirmed.

Orders

  • Award of US$397,912.77 plus interest and costs to Owners affirmed.