Imperator I Maritime Company v Bunge SA

Imperator I Maritime Company v Bunge SA

The continuing performance warranty in the charterparty applies even where underperformance results from compliance with charterers' orders, unless the underperformance was caused by a risk not contractually assumed by the owners and in respect of which they are entitled to indemnity; marine fouling from ordinary trading is a risk assumed by owners, so the warranty applies.

Parties
Owner/claimant (cl 2014 001013): Imperator I Maritime Company; Head Charterer/defendant (cl 2014 001013), Claimant (cl 2014 000969): Bunge SA; Sub Charterer/defendant (cl 2014 000969): C Transport Panamax Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Time Charter, Speed Warranty, Implied Indemnity, Marine Fouling
Maritime Law Contract Law Time Charter Speed Warranty Implied Indemnity Marine Fouling

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imperator I Maritime Company

Owner/claimant (cl 2014 001013)

Bunge SA

Head Charterer/defendant (cl 2014 001013), Claimant (cl 2014 000969)

C Transport Panamax Ltd

Sub Charterer/defendant (cl 2014 000969)

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether underperformance caused by compliance with charterers' orders is a defence to breach of continuing speed warranty under a time charter

Ratio Decidendi

The continuing performance warranty in the charterparty applies even where underperformance results from compliance with charterers' orders, unless the underperformance was caused by a risk not contractually assumed by the owners and in respect of which they are entitled to indemnity; marine fouling from ordinary trading is a risk assumed by owners, so the warranty applies.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Awards of arbitrators upheld
  • No need to determine issues on Respondent’s Notices