M.H.Progress Lines SA v Orient Shipping Rotterdam BV & Ors

M.H.Progress Lines SA v Orient Shipping Rotterdam BV & Ors

Clause (2) of ICA 96 expressly provides that its time bar in clause (6) applies to claims under ICA 96, notwithstanding any contrary provision in the charterparty, including clause 39. Therefore, the one year time limit in clause 39 does not apply to ICA 96 claims; the applicable time bar is that in ICA 96.

Parties
Claimant (owner): M. H. Progress Lines SA; Respondent (charterer): Orient Shipping Rotterdam BV; Respondent (sub Charterer): Nordana Project & Chartering
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Award
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Charterparty Interpretation, Time Bar Clauses, Inter Club Agreement (ica 96), Arbitration Clauses, Conflict of Contractual Terms
Commercial Law Shipping Law Arbitration Charterparty Interpretation Time Bar Clauses Inter Club Agreement (ica 96) Arbitration Clauses Conflict of Contractual Terms

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. H. Progress Lines SA

Claimant (owner)

Orient Shipping Rotterdam BV

Respondent (charterer)

Nordana Project & Chartering

Respondent (sub Charterer)

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the one year time limit in clause 39 of the head charter apply to cargo claims to be settled and apportioned under ICA 96?
  2. 2 Is there a conflict between the time bar in clause 39 and clause (6) of ICA 96, and if so, which prevails?

Ratio Decidendi

Clause (2) of ICA 96 expressly provides that its time bar in clause (6) applies to claims under ICA 96, notwithstanding any contrary provision in the charterparty, including clause 39. Therefore, the one year time limit in clause 39 does not apply to ICA 96 claims; the applicable time bar is that in ICA 96.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the arbitrators’ award stands.