MUR Shipping BV v RTI LTD

MUR Shipping BV v RTI LTD

Reasonable endeavours under the force majeure clause did not require the Owners to accept non-contractual payment in Euros; the Charterers were contractually obliged to pay in US dollars, and the Owners were entitled to insist on contractual performance. The tribunal erred in law by holding otherwise.

Parties
Claimant: Mur Shipping BV; Defendant: RTI Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Arbitral Award Under Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; arbitral award set aside to the extent challenged.
Legal Topics
Force Majeure, Sanctions, Contractual Interpretation, Payment Obligations, Reasonable Endeavours
Commercial Law Arbitration Contract Law Force Majeure Sanctions Contractual Interpretation Payment Obligations Reasonable Endeavours

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

Parties

Mur Shipping BV

Claimant

RTI Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Arbitral Award Under Section 69 Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'reasonable endeavours' under a force majeure clause requires acceptance of non-contractual payment
  2. 2 Whether payment in Euros instead of US Dollars satisfies contractual obligations under the COA
  3. 3 Whether the force majeure clause was properly invoked and causation established

Ratio Decidendi

Reasonable endeavours under the force majeure clause did not require the Owners to accept non-contractual payment in Euros; the Charterers were contractually obliged to pay in US dollars, and the Owners were entitled to insist on contractual performance. The tribunal erred in law by holding otherwise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; arbitral award set aside to the extent challenged.

Orders

  • The Owners’ appeal succeeds.
  • The Award should not be upheld for different reasons.