DGM Commodities Corp v Sea Metropolitan SA [2012] EWHC 1984 (Comm) (18 July 2012)

DGM Commodities Corp v Sea Metropolitan SA [2012] EWHC 1984 (Comm) (18 July 2012)

The relevant conduct of the receivers was a failure to discharge the cargo, for which the charterers are responsible under the charterparty. Therefore, the delay and the continued existence of the Veterinary Service's order were attributable to the charterers, precluding reliance on frustration. The appeal is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1984 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: DGM Commodities Corp; Defendant: Sea Metropolitan S. A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Award
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Frustration of Contract, Demurrage, Voyage Charterparty, Agency, Attribution of Acts of Receivers, Self Induced Frustration
Commercial Law Shipping Law Arbitration Frustration of Contract Demurrage Voyage Charterparty Agency Attribution of Acts of Receivers +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DGM Commodities Corp

Claimant

Sea Metropolitan S. A.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a voyage charterparty is frustrated where delay is caused by actions or inactions of cargo receivers not party to the charterparty
  2. 2 Whether such delay is attributable to charterers so as to preclude frustration on grounds of self-induced frustration

Ratio Decidendi

The relevant conduct of the receivers was a failure to discharge the cargo, for which the charterers are responsible under the charterparty. Therefore, the delay and the continued existence of the Veterinary Service's order were attributable to the charterers, precluding reliance on frustration. The appeal is dismissed as the Tribunal correctly found that the ingredients for frustration were not present.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Charterparty not frustrated
  • Charterers remain liable for demurrage as awarded by the Tribunal