Metall Market OOO v Vitorio Shipping Company Ltd & Anor

Metall Market OOO v Vitorio Shipping Company Ltd & Anor

The shipowner was entitled to maintain its lien over the cargo, including the 98 coils, as the request for both a bond and an insurer’s guarantee was reasonable and consistent with long-standing practice. There was no waiver or discharge of the lien by acceptance of the insurer’s guarantee alone. The shipowner was also entitled to recover storage and related expenses incurred in exercising the lien, as the consignee was in breach of its obligation to take delivery and the Somes principle did not apply to shipping contracts where contractual or bailment obligations exist.

Parties
Appellant/consignee: Metall Market OOO; Respondent/shipowner: Vitorio Shipping Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (shipping/commercial) / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Consignee’s appeal dismissed; shipowner’s cross-appeal allowed; arbitrators’ award upheld.
Legal Topics
General Average, Shipowner's Lien, Bailment, Damages for Detention, Demurrage, Conversion, Obligation to Take Delivery, Lien Expenses
Admiralty Law Commercial Law Contract Law General Average Shipowner's Lien Bailment Damages for Detention Demurrage +3 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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Metall Market OOO

Appellant/consignee

Vitorio Shipping Company Limited

Respondent/shipowner

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (shipping/commercial) / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a shipowner’s lien for cargo’s general average contribution was waived by acceptance of an insurer’s guarantee without a bond for part of the cargo
  2. 2 Whether a shipowner is entitled to recover storage and other expenses incurred in exercising a lien over cargo after discharge

Ratio Decidendi

The shipowner was entitled to maintain its lien over the cargo, including the 98 coils, as the request for both a bond and an insurer’s guarantee was reasonable and consistent with long-standing practice. There was no waiver or discharge of the lien by acceptance of the insurer’s guarantee alone. The shipowner was also entitled to recover storage and related expenses incurred in exercising the lien, as the consignee was in breach of its obligation to take delivery and the Somes principle did not apply to shipping contracts where contractual or bailment obligations exist.

Court Disposition

Consignee’s appeal dismissed; shipowner’s cross-appeal allowed; arbitrators’ award upheld.

Orders

  • The shipowner’s entitlement to maintain the lien is affirmed.
  • The shipowner is entitled to recover storage and related expenses from the consignee.