P v A & Anor [2008] EWHC 1361 (Comm) (20 June 2008)

P v A & Anor [2008] EWHC 1361 (Comm) (20 June 2008)

The nomination of the laycan period by the charterers was irrevocable once given, as it defined the essential terms of the 5th voyage under the COA. The charterers' insistence on moving the laycan period constituted a clear intention not to be bound by their original nomination, amounting to a repudiatory breach. The tribunal was entitled to reach this conclusion, and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1361 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/charterer: P; Defendant/owner: A; Defendant/owner: I
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Award
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract of Affreightment, Repudiatory Breach, Laycan Nomination, Voyage Charterparty, Arbitration Appeal
Commercial Law Shipping Law Arbitration Contract of Affreightment Repudiatory Breach Laycan Nomination Voyage Charterparty Arbitration Appeal

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P

Claimant/charterer

A

Defendant/owner

I

Defendant/owner

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the nomination by the charterers of the laycan spread for the 5th voyage was irrevocable
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrators erred in law in holding that the charterers were in repudiation in purporting to revoke the laycan nomination

Ratio Decidendi

The nomination of the laycan period by the charterers was irrevocable once given, as it defined the essential terms of the 5th voyage under the COA. The charterers' insistence on moving the laycan period constituted a clear intention not to be bound by their original nomination, amounting to a repudiatory breach. The tribunal was entitled to reach this conclusion, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed