Great Elephant Corporation v Trafigura Beheer BV & Ors

Great Elephant Corporation v Trafigura Beheer BV & Ors

The Owners are entitled to demurrage for the period of delay, but only at half-rate from 7 September 2009 due to the delay arising from an abuse or arbitrary exercise of power by the Nigerian Minister, which was a 'restraint of princes' and not within the reasonable control of the charterers. The Owners are also entitled to additional war risk insurance. Claims for fresh water and bunker costs fail due to the operation of the restraint of princes clause. Trafigura's claims against Vitol and Vitol's claims against COOSI fail because the breaches were excused by force majeure, being unforeseeable and beyond reasonable control.

Parties
Claimant: Great Elephant Corporation; Defendant: Trafigura Beheer BV; Third Party: Vitol S.A.; Fourth Party: Vitol Asia Pte Limited; Fifth Party: China Offshore Oil (Singapore) International Pte Limited; Vessel: M/T Crudesky
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for demurrage and war risk insurance by Owners against Trafigura succeeds in part; claims for fresh water and bunker costs fail; Trafigura's claims against Vitol and Vitol's claims against COOSI fail.
Legal Topics
Demurrage, Force Majeure, Breach of Contract, Sale of Goods, Implied Terms, War Risk Insurance, Export Controls
Shipping Commercial Law Contract Law International Trade Demurrage Force Majeure Breach of Contract Sale of Goods +3 more

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Great Elephant Corporation

Claimant

Trafigura Beheer BV

Defendant

Vitol S.A.

Third Party

Vitol Asia Pte Limited

Fourth Party

China Offshore Oil (Singapore) International Pte Limited

Fifth Party

M/T Crudesky

Vessel

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vessel was entitled to demurrage and at what rate
  2. 2 Whether the actions of the Nigerian authorities were lawful
  3. 3 Whether breaches of Nigerian law or procedure occurred

Ratio Decidendi

The Owners are entitled to demurrage for the period of delay, but only at half-rate from 7 September 2009 due to the delay arising from an abuse or arbitrary exercise of power by the Nigerian Minister, which was a 'restraint of princes' and not within the reasonable control of the charterers. The Owners are also entitled to additional war risk insurance. Claims for fresh water and bunker costs fail due to the operation of the restraint of princes clause. Trafigura's claims against Vitol and Vitol's claims against COOSI fail because the breaches were excused by force majeure, being unforeseeable and beyond reasonable control.

Court Disposition

Claim for demurrage and war risk insurance by Owners against Trafigura succeeds in part; claims for fresh water and bunker costs fail; Trafigura's claims against Vitol and Vitol's claims against COOSI fail.

Orders

  • Owners recover demurrage at full rate until 7 September 2009 and at half-rate thereafter until 16 October 2009.
  • Owners recover additional war risk insurance from Trafigura.