Jiangsu Guoxin Corporation Ltd v Precious Shipping Public Co Ltd

Jiangsu Guoxin Corporation Ltd v Precious Shipping Public Co Ltd

The shipbuilding contracts expressly provided for extensions of time for delays, including those caused by Buyer’s breach, under Article VIII.1. Therefore, the prevention principle does not apply. The Seller was not entitled to extend the Delivery and/or Cancellation Date without operating or exercising the relevant contractual machinery, including giving notice as required by Article VIII.2. Notification requirements are mandatory for extension of time unless a more specific regime applies. Modifications and Buyer’s payment defaults are governed by their own contractual provisions, and no extension is available without compliance.

Parties
Claimant: Jiangsu Guoxin Corporation Ltd (formerly known as Sainty Marine Corporation Ltd); Respondent: Precious Shipping Public Co. Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time Clauses, Prevention Principle, Notification Requirements, Shipbuilding Contracts, Implied Terms
Arbitration Contract Law Shipping Law Extension of Time Clauses Prevention Principle Notification Requirements Shipbuilding Contracts Implied 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jiangsu Guoxin Corporation Ltd (formerly known as Sainty Marine Corporation Ltd)

Claimant

Precious Shipping Public Co. Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prevention principle applies to SAJ form shipbuilding contracts with express extension of time provisions
  2. 2 Whether the Seller must give notice of delay events or exercise contractual machinery to rely on delay events when the Buyer purports to terminate for accumulated delay
  3. 3 Interpretation of Article VIII.1 and VIII.2 regarding permissible delays and notification

Ratio Decidendi

The shipbuilding contracts expressly provided for extensions of time for delays, including those caused by Buyer’s breach, under Article VIII.1. Therefore, the prevention principle does not apply. The Seller was not entitled to extend the Delivery and/or Cancellation Date without operating or exercising the relevant contractual machinery, including giving notice as required by Article VIII.2. Notification requirements are mandatory for extension of time unless a more specific regime applies. Modifications and Buyer’s payment defaults are governed by their own contractual provisions, and no extension is available without compliance.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed