Imperator I Maritime Company v Bunge SA [2016] EWHC 1506 (Comm) (24 June 2016)

Imperator I Maritime Company v Bunge SA [2016] EWHC 1506 (Comm) (24 June 2016)

Where a vessel has underperformed, it is not a defence to a claim on a continuing performance warranty for the owners to prove that the underperformance resulted from compliance with the time charterers' orders unless the underperformance was caused by a risk which the owners had not contractually assumed and in respect of which they are entitled to be indemnified by the charterers.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1506 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Imperator I Maritime Company; Defendant: Bunge SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Time Charterparties, Performance Warranties, Implied Indemnity, Marine Fouling, Interpretation of Charterparty Terms
Maritime Law Commercial Law Contract Law Time Charterparties Performance Warranties Implied Indemnity Marine Fouling Interpretation of Charterparty Terms

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imperator I Maritime Company

Claimant

Bunge SA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under S.69 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether owners can defend a claim for breach of a continuing performance warranty by proving underperformance resulted from compliance with charterers' orders
  2. 2 Whether the risk of marine fouling is contractually assumed by owners under the charterparty

Ratio Decidendi

Where a vessel has underperformed, it is not a defence to a claim on a continuing performance warranty for the owners to prove that the underperformance resulted from compliance with the time charterers' orders unless the underperformance was caused by a risk which the owners had not contractually assumed and in respect of which they are entitled to be indemnified by the charterers.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

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