St Shipping And Transport Pte Ltd v Space Shipping Ltd, Re CV Stealth

St Shipping And Transport Pte Ltd v Space Shipping Ltd, Re CV Stealth

The Charterers' order exposed the vessel to a materially increased risk of detention due to the intended unlawful export of cargo, constituting a breach of clause 28. The detention was caused by the Charterers' act or neglect, so the Owners were entitled to indemnity under clause 13(a)(i) and (ii), and the vessel was not off-hire under clause 21(a)(v). The 'arrest or restraint of princes' exception in clause 27(a) did not apply due to the express terms of the Charterparty. No substantial question of law arose from the Arbitrator's findings, so permission to appeal was required and refused.

Parties
Claimant (respondent in the Arbitration): ST Shipping and Transport Pte Ltd; Defendant (claimant in the Arbitration): Space Shipping Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Under Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Charterparty Interpretation, Indemnity Clauses, Off Hire Provisions, Arrest or Restraint of Princes, Frustration, Permission to Appeal Arbitration Awards
Commercial Law Arbitration Shipping Law Charterparty Interpretation Indemnity Clauses Off Hire Provisions Arrest or Restraint of Princes Frustration +1 more

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

Parties

ST Shipping and Transport Pte Ltd

Claimant (respondent in the Arbitration)

Space Shipping Ltd

Defendant (claimant in the Arbitration)

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Under Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Charterers breached clause 28 of the Charterparty by exposing the vessel to risk of detention
  2. 2 Whether the Owners are entitled to indemnity under clause 13(a)(i) and (ii)
  3. 3 Whether the 'arrest or restraint of princes' exception in clause 27(a) applies

Ratio Decidendi

The Charterers' order exposed the vessel to a materially increased risk of detention due to the intended unlawful export of cargo, constituting a breach of clause 28. The detention was caused by the Charterers' act or neglect, so the Owners were entitled to indemnity under clause 13(a)(i) and (ii), and the vessel was not off-hire under clause 21(a)(v). The 'arrest or restraint of princes' exception in clause 27(a) did not apply due to the express terms of the Charterparty. No substantial question of law arose from the Arbitrator's findings, so permission to appeal was required and refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal under section 69 Arbitration Act 1996 is refused on all grounds