Metall Market OOO v Vitorio Shipping Company Ltd

Metall Market OOO v Vitorio Shipping Company Ltd

Owners were entitled to refuse delivery of the 98 coils as they retained a valid possessory lien for general average, since MMO failed to provide reasonable security in the form of a GA bond. The GA Guarantee alone was not inconsistent with retention of the lien. Owners are not entitled to recover storage costs...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Metall Market OOO; Defendant: Vitorio Shipping Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Arbitration Award / Judgment
Outcome
First question decided in favour of Owners; second question decided in favour of MMO.
Legal Topics
General Average, Possessory Lien, Damages for Detention, Storage Costs, Delivery of Cargo
Shipping Law Arbitration Commercial Law General Average Possessory Lien Damages for Detention Storage Costs Delivery of Cargo

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 4 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Metall Market OOO

Claimant

Vitorio Shipping Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Arbitration Award / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether shipowners are entitled to refuse delivery of cargo covered by a bill of lading after receiving and accepting an unlimited General Average guarantee from insurers
  2. 2 Whether shipowners are entitled to recover storage and other expenses incurred in exercising their lien over cargo after discharge

Ratio Decidendi

Owners were entitled to refuse delivery of the 98 coils as they retained a valid possessory lien for general average, since MMO failed to provide reasonable security in the form of a GA bond. The GA Guarantee alone was not inconsistent with retention of the lien. Owners are not entitled to recover storage costs incurred while exercising the lien, as such costs are not recoverable from the cargo owner under the principle in Somes, absent contractual provision.

Court Disposition

First question decided in favour of Owners; second question decided in favour of MMO.

Orders

  • Owners entitled to refuse delivery of cargo covered by Bill of Lading No. 4 as lien was retained;
  • Owners not entitled to recover storage costs incurred while exercising the lien.