Ts Lines Ltd. v Delphis NV

Ts Lines Ltd. v Delphis NV

The vessel was off-hire for the entire period from 7th to 28th September 2007 because, after the accident, it was not performing the service required by the Charterers—namely, proceeding to Shanghai to discharge cargo—but was instead proceeding to a repair yard in Hong Kong under Class instructions. The fact that the vessel's route coincided with the route to Shanghai for part of the journey did not render it efficient or on-hire, as it was not complying with Charterers' instructions or commercial purpose. The Arbitrators erred in law by finding otherwise.

Parties
Claimant: TS Lines Ltd; Defendant: Delphis NV; Claimant: Delphis NV; Defendant: Ulrike F KAI FreeSe GmbH & Co. KG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Time Charterparties, Off Hire Clauses, Arbitration Appeals, Interpretation of Charterparty Clauses
Commercial Law Maritime Law Arbitration Time Charterparties Off Hire Clauses Arbitration Appeals Interpretation of Charterparty Clauses

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

Parties

TS Lines Ltd

Claimant

Delphis NV

Defendant

Delphis NV

Claimant

Ulrike F KAI FreeSe GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vessel was off-hire for a continuous period of at least 20 days under Clause 57 of the Charterparty following an accident and deviation to a repair port, entitling Charterers to terminate under Clause 81.
  2. 2 Whether the vessel could be considered 'efficient' and on-hire while travelling a common route towards, but not intending to call at, the Charterers' nominated port.

Ratio Decidendi

The vessel was off-hire for the entire period from 7th to 28th September 2007 because, after the accident, it was not performing the service required by the Charterers—namely, proceeding to Shanghai to discharge cargo—but was instead proceeding to a repair yard in Hong Kong under Class instructions. The fact that the vessel's route coincided with the route to Shanghai for part of the journey did not render it efficient or on-hire, as it was not complying with Charterers' instructions or commercial purpose. The Arbitrators erred in law by finding otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Arbitrators' award set aside to the extent inconsistent with this judgment
  • Declaration that the vessel was off-hire for a continuous period from 7th to 28th September 2007