ED & F Man Sugar Ltd v Unicargo Transportgesellschaft mbH

ED & F Man Sugar Ltd v Unicargo Transportgesellschaft mbH

Clause 28 does not exclude from laytime delays caused by destruction of loading equipment by fire, as 'mechanical breakdown' requires a mechanical malfunction, not destruction; 'government interferences' does not cover administrative port rescheduling; Charterers' ability to nominate alternative berths means force majeure does not apply unless nomination is legally impossible.

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, Force Majeure, Laytime Exceptions
Commercial Law Shipping Law Arbitration Charterparty Interpretation Demurrage Force Majeure Laytime Exceptions

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 4 Authorities cited 12 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 force majeure applies when loading at '1-2 safe berths' is lawfully relevant
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'mechanical breakdown' and 'government interferences' in Clause 28

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 28 does not exclude from laytime delays caused by destruction of loading equipment by fire, as 'mechanical breakdown' requires a mechanical malfunction, not destruction; 'government interferences' does not cover administrative port rescheduling; Charterers' ability to nominate alternative berths means force majeure does not apply unless nomination is legally impossible.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; arbitration award affirmed.

Orders

  • Award of US$397,912.77 plus interest and costs to Owners affirmed.
  • Counsel to agree draft order including costs; court to resolve any outstanding issues if not agreed.