Sea Master Shipping Inc v Arab Bank (Switzerland) Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2030 (Comm) (28 July 2020)

Sea Master Shipping Inc v Arab Bank (Switzerland) Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2030 (Comm) (28 July 2020)

The contract of carriage does not require the implication of the terms sought by the Owner because responsibility for discharge remains with the Owner, the contract contains an express demurrage regime allocating liability to the Charterer, and the contract does not lack commercial or practical coherence without the implied terms. Implying such terms would contradict the express allocation of risk and responsibility.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2030 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: SEA MASTER SHIPPING INC; First Defendant: ARAB BANK (SWITZERLAND) LIMITED; Second Defendant: YOUSEF FREIHA & SONS SAL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Award
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Demurrage, Bills of Lading, Contractual Construction
Commercial Law Arbitration Shipping Law Implied Terms Demurrage Bills of Lading Contractual Construction

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SEA MASTER SHIPPING INC

Claimant

ARAB BANK (SWITZERLAND) LIMITED

First Defendant

YOUSEF FREIHA & SONS SAL

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term exists in the contract of carriage obliging the Bank and/or Receivers to take all necessary steps to enable cargo discharge and/or to discharge within a reasonable time
  2. 2 Whether the contract of carriage lacks commercial or practical coherence without such implied terms

Ratio Decidendi

The contract of carriage does not require the implication of the terms sought by the Owner because responsibility for discharge remains with the Owner, the contract contains an express demurrage regime allocating liability to the Charterer, and the contract does not lack commercial or practical coherence without the implied terms. Implying such terms would contradict the express allocation of risk and responsibility.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed