Navision Shipping AS v Precious Pearls Ltd (mv Mookda Naree) [2021] EWHC 558 (Comm) (10 March 2021)

Navision Shipping AS v Precious Pearls Ltd (mv Mookda Naree) [2021] EWHC 558 (Comm) (10 March 2021)

The court held that under clause 47, an 'omission' by a sub-charterer includes a failure to act where it is reasonably expected, not just breach of contract. The arbitrators were correct in finding that Cerealis' failure to secure SMG's claim after becoming aware of the arrest was an 'omission' within clause 47, so the vessel was not off hire after 12:00 hrs on 17 December 2018. However, the arbitrators erred in law in construing clause 86: 'cargo claims' in that clause are limited to claims concerning cargo carried under the head charter, not unrelated cargoes on other vessels. Therefore, SMG's claim was not a 'cargo claim' within clause 86, and Navision was not liable for damages under...

Citation
[2021] EWHC 558 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant (in CL 2020 000119), Defendant (in CL 2020 000138): Navision Shipping A/S; Defendant (in CL 2020 000119): Precious Pearls Ltd; Claimant (in CL 2020 000138): Conti Lines Shipping NV
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Appeals Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.69 (appeal on Point of Law) / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitration Awards
Outcome
Conti's appeal dismissed; Navision's appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Time Charterparties, Off Hire Clauses, Interpretation of Charterparty Provisions, Cargo Claims, Arrest and Detention of Vessels, Allocation of Liability Under Charterparties
Maritime Law Commercial Law Arbitration Time Charterparties Off Hire Clauses Interpretation of Charterparty Provisions Cargo Claims Arrest and Detention of Vessels +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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Navision Shipping A/S

Claimant (in CL 2020 000119), Defendant (in CL 2020 000138)

Precious Pearls Ltd

Defendant (in CL 2020 000119)

Conti Lines Shipping NV

Claimant (in CL 2020 000138)

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Appeals Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.69 (appeal on Point of Law) / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitration Awards

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What constitutes an 'omission' by a sub-charterer under an off-hire clause in a time charter?
  2. 2 Does a claim relating to cargo carried on a different vessel constitute a 'cargo claim' under clause 86 of the head charter?
  3. 3 Did the arbitrators err in law in their construction of clauses 47 and 86 of the charterparties?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that under clause 47, an 'omission' by a sub-charterer includes a failure to act where it is reasonably expected, not just breach of contract. The arbitrators were correct in finding that Cerealis' failure to secure SMG's claim after becoming aware of the arrest was an 'omission' within clause 47, so the vessel was not off hire after 12:00 hrs on 17 December 2018. However, the arbitrators erred in law in construing clause 86: 'cargo claims' in that clause are limited to claims concerning cargo carried under the head charter, not unrelated cargoes on other vessels. Therefore, SMG's claim was not a 'cargo claim' within clause 86, and Navision was not liable for damages under...

Court Disposition

Conti's appeal dismissed; Navision's appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • Award in the head charter reference remitted to the arbitrators for reconsideration in light of the court's findings on clause 86.
  • Conti's appeal in the sub-charter reference dismissed.