Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v Swissmarine Services SA

Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v Swissmarine Services SA

There was no clear, direct, and irreconcilable conflict between clause 63 of the pro-forma charterparty and the fixture recap; clause 63 qualified but did not contradict the SHINC term. Both provisions could sensibly and commercially operate together, with the pro-forma charterparty supplementing the main terms. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Cobelfret Bulk Carriers N.V.; Respondent: Swissmarine Services S.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Award
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Incorporation of Terms, Interpretation of Charter Party, Laytime and Demurrage, Fixture Recap Vs Pro Forma Charterparty, Inconsistency Between Negotiated and Standard Terms
Commercial Law Arbitration Shipping Law Incorporation of Terms Interpretation of Charter Party Laytime and Demurrage Fixture Recap Vs Pro Forma Charterparty Inconsistency Between Negotiated and Standard 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cobelfret Bulk Carriers N.V.

Claimant

Swissmarine Services S.A.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 63 of the pro-forma charterparty is inconsistent with the fixture recap term 'SHINC' and thus not incorporated
  2. 2 Whether the pro-forma charterparty terms qualify or contradict the negotiated main terms in the fixture recap
  3. 3 Proper approach to construction of contracts with both negotiated and incorporated standard terms

Ratio Decidendi

There was no clear, direct, and irreconcilable conflict between clause 63 of the pro-forma charterparty and the fixture recap; clause 63 qualified but did not contradict the SHINC term. Both provisions could sensibly and commercially operate together, with the pro-forma charterparty supplementing the main terms. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed