St Shipping & Transport Inc v Kriti Filoxenia Shipping Co SA

The right to cancel under clause 17 does not survive a re-nomination of the first load port under clause 24 of the BEEPEEVOY 3 charterparty. The liberty to vary the nominated port is unfettered and not subject to the duty not to impair cancelling date achievability. There is no express or implied term preserving the cancellation regime after re-nomination, and the commercial context and structure of the charterparty support this conclusion.

Parties: Appellant/charterers: ST Shipping & Transport Inc.; Respondent/owners: Kriti Filoxenia Shipping Co SA
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 14 May 2015
Procedural Posture: Commercial Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Award
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Voyage Charterparty, Laycan Provisions, Right to Cancel, Re Nomination of Loading Port, Implied Terms, Duty of Co Operation

Shipping Law Contract Law Arbitration Voyage Charterparty Laycan Provisions Right to Cancel Re Nomination of Loading Port Implied Terms +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

ST Shipping & Transport Inc.

Appellant/charterers

Kriti Filoxenia Shipping Co SA

Respondent/owners

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

1 Does the charterers’ right to cancel under clause 17 survive a re-nomination of the first load port under clause 24?
2 If so, are charterers entitled to cancel where the re-nomination was made when the ETA for the re-nominated port was after the cancelling date?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed