Action Navigation Inc v Bottiglieri Navigation Spa

Action Navigation Inc v Bottiglieri Navigation Spa

The arbitrators were entitled to conclude that hull fouling and de-fouling expenses were ordinary risks and expenses of trading under the Charterparty, foreseeable and foreseen by both parties at contract formation, and thus not covered by implied indemnity. The vessel was off-hire during de-fouling at Portland under clause 54, not clause 15, as the call at Portland was for Owners’ purposes and not due to a cause contemplated by clause 15.

Parties
Claimant: Action Navigation Inc; Respondent: Bottiglieri Navigation SpA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Arbitration Award / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Indemnity Under Charterparty, Off Hire Clause Interpretation, Charterparty Construction
Maritime Law Arbitration Implied Indemnity Under Charterparty Off Hire Clause Interpretation Charterparty 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Action Navigation Inc

Claimant

Bottiglieri Navigation SpA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Arbitration Award / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether implied indemnity under a time charterparty covers hull fouling expenses incurred at a port within Institute Warranty Limits
  2. 2 Whether time spent removing marine growth constitutes 'time lost' under clause 15 of the charterparty

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrators were entitled to conclude that hull fouling and de-fouling expenses were ordinary risks and expenses of trading under the Charterparty, foreseeable and foreseen by both parties at contract formation, and thus not covered by implied indemnity. The vessel was off-hire during de-fouling at Portland under clause 54, not clause 15, as the call at Portland was for Owners’ purposes and not due to a cause contemplated by clause 15.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed