Novologistics Sarl v Five Ocean Corporation the "Merida"

Novologistics Sarl v Five Ocean Corporation the "Merida"

The charterparty, read as a whole, defined the contractual destination as a berth, not a port. The opening term specified loading at 'one good and safe chrts’ berth terminal 4 stevedores Xingang', which is the language of a berth charterparty. Clause 2(1) did not override or negate the opening term but added a safe port warranty. Clause 2(2) was neutral or, if relevant, supported the berth charterparty construction. The arbitrators erred in law in construing the charterparty as a port charterparty.

Parties
Claimant (charterers) / Respondent in Arbitration: Novologistics SARL; Defendant (owners) / Claimant in Arbitration: Five Ocean Corporation (the “MERIDA”)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Final Arbitration Award
Outcome
Appeal allowed; arbitration award set aside to the extent challenged
Legal Topics
Voyage Charterparty, Laytime and Demurrage, Interpretation of Charterparty Terms, Port Vs Berth Charterparty, Notice of Readiness
Commercial Law Shipping Law Arbitration Voyage Charterparty Laytime and Demurrage Interpretation of Charterparty Terms Port Vs Berth Charterparty Notice of Readiness

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Novologistics SARL

Claimant (charterers) / Respondent in Arbitration

Five Ocean Corporation (the “MERIDA”)

Defendant (owners) / Claimant in Arbitration

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Final Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charterparty was a port or berth charterparty
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrators erred in law in their construction of the charterparty terms

Ratio Decidendi

The charterparty, read as a whole, defined the contractual destination as a berth, not a port. The opening term specified loading at 'one good and safe chrts’ berth terminal 4 stevedores Xingang', which is the language of a berth charterparty. Clause 2(1) did not override or negate the opening term but added a safe port warranty. Clause 2(2) was neutral or, if relevant, supported the berth charterparty construction. The arbitrators erred in law in construing the charterparty as a port charterparty.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; arbitration award set aside to the extent challenged

Orders

  • Owners’ claim for demurrage fails; demurrage not payable by Charterers
  • Parties to draw up an appropriate order and address costs