Australia: Transport & Logistics News - March 2017: part 2

This article is part of a series: Click Transport & Logistics News - March 2017: part 1 for the previous article.

Sino Dragon Trading Ltd v Noble Resources International Pte Ltd [2016] FCA 1131

This was an attempt to set aside an arbitration award in a commodity transaction involving the sale from Noble Resources to Sino Dragon of 170,000 mt of iron ore. There had been previous attempts to have two of the arbitrators removed. The award which was given in Sydney was recognised in Hong Kong and leave to enforce it was given in that jurisdiction where the applicant, Sino Dragon, was incorporated.

The applicant sought to set aside the original award in the Federal Court pursuant to Article 34(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law which is given the force of law in Australia by the International Arbitration Act 1974.

The application was unsuccessful and Beach J dismissed it. The challenges which were made were summarised by Beach J in his judgment as being that:

  1. the arbitration dealt with a dispute not contemplated by the arbitration clause in the Contract of Sale. His Honour commented that: "this ground is in substance a challenge really going to the merits of legal and factual questions, but superficially characterised and cloaked as an excess of jurisdiction question." His reasons dealt at length with the material upon which he relied to support his comments in that regard.
  2. the evidence of two witnesses called by Sino Dragon via video conference facilities was beset by technical difficulties, giving rise to a lack of procedural fairness. This issue, according to his Honour, caused him some difficulty. It raised the issues of whether Sino Dragon was given a reasonable opportunity to present its case and whether there was a lack of equality of treatment. His Honour did not believe either issue was made out by Sino Dragon. In particular, there had been no "real unfairness" or "real practical injustice". Once again his Honour dealt with all the competing arguments in considerable detail.
  3. two of the three arbitrators were not appointed in accordance with the agreement of the parties and there was a real apprehension of bias. His Honour rejected this ground, again, in considerable detail.

The case is also significant as Sino Dragon was ordered to pay two-thirds of the costs on an indemnity basis and the remaining one-third on a party and party basis. In reaching that decision, Beach J rejected the suggestion that it would be justified by reason of a special rule. However, in applying current principles of Australian law to the issue, his Honour was of the opinion that the first and third challenges that were made in the application to set aside the award did not have reasonable prospects of success.

Watkins Syndicate 0457 at Lloyds v Pantaenius Australia Pty Limited [2016] FCAFC 150

We reported on the first instance decision of this case in Transport & Logistics in June 2016. It involved a claim for contribution by one of the two insurers (the Pantaenius policy) of the same yacht against the other insurers of a second policy (the Nautilus policy). At first instance, Nautilus had unsuccessfully defended the claim in reliance on a provision in this policy which suspended cover in the event that the yacht intended to enter foreign waters. It had entered foreign waters prior to its claim arising but was within the geographical scope of the cover at the time when it ran aground. The central legal issue before Foster J at first instance and the Full Court of the Federal Court (Allsop CJ, Rares and Besanko JJ) was whether or not section 54(1) of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984, which permits the court to overlook acts or omissions of insureds (in certain circumstances), was engaged for the benefit of the claim being pursued by the other insurer who had paid the insured's claim under the Pantaenius policy.

Foster J had held that it did apply as "the suspension provision was in the nature of an exclusion and did not operate as one of the contractually prescribed elements of the geographical limits on the scope of cover itself".

The Full Court agreed, and carried out a full examination of the recent cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal of New South Wales (as well as other courts), but especially Meagher JA's judgment in the NSW Court of Appeal in Prepaid Services Pty Ltd v Atradius Credit Insurance NV [2013] NSWCA 252 and the High Court decision of Maxwell v Highway Hauliers Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 33.

The following extract of the judgment (at [46]) explains how the Full Court came to determine the issue that section 54 was engaged:

The Nautilus policy provided cover where, as here, the yacht suffered a casualty within its stated geographical limits of 250 nautical miles off mainland Australia and Tasmania. But for the operation of the suspension of cover, after the insured's act of causing the yacht to clear Australian customs for the purpose of leaving Australian waters and the insured's omission to clear Australian customs after the yacht had re-entered the geographic limits on the return voyage, the Nautilus policy would have responded to the casualty. The act of clearing Australian customs and the omission (as yet at the time of the casualty) on the yacht's return to clear Australian customs, can each be seen to be an act or omission of the insured that occurred after the inception of the Nautilus policy, during its period of cover and within its geographic limits. That was sufficient to engage s.54(1) because the effect of the suspension of cover in those circumstances entitled Nautilus to refuse to pay the insured's claim: Maxwell 252 CLR at 599 [26]-[27].

The Full Court also held (at [52]) that the applicability of section 54 was just as relevant to circumstances in which another insurer sought recovery as when the insured made a claim under that policy because "contribution between insurers is founded in equitable principle... It is the existence of co-ordinate liabilities of two parties that gives a right of contribution. A payment under one policy relieves the other policy of what would be a liability were a claim to be made on it... Natural justice and equality underpin the right."

Bibin v Mainfreight International Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATCD 70

The decision of Member French in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal provides an example of the evidential difficulties faced in small cargo damage claims.

The applicant had imported building products from China. At the time of despatch, the supplier had sent a very apologetic email to the applicant purchaser regarding damage which had been sustained to the products prior to shipment. The supplier apologised for the rough cutting of building panels and advised there would also be some damage on loading and unloading the shipping containers owing to the size of items shipped.

When the cargo arrived and was unpacked, the applicant refused delivery of much of the cargo, purchased replacement goods and brought a claim against Mainfreight for the cost of the goods, storage, customs clearance and port charges, replacement costs and for consequential costs, including additional rental costs and interest, a claim in excess of the Tribunal's AU$40,000 jurisdiction. It was conceded by the applicant that the Tribunal could not compensate it beyond AU$40,000 and to that extent abandoned the excess claim.

It was argued by Mainfreight that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the dispute because the claim was one in the federal Admiralty jurisdiction as it concerned issues regarding international shipping. The Tribunal rejected this argument, the claim instead being one based on breach of the New South Wales Fair Trading Act and the Australian Consumer Law which arose from the unloading of the shipping containers.

However, the Tribunal found that while there was evidence that the arrived condition of the goods was worse than that on loading of the containers, there was insufficient evidence to discount the possibility of damage having been sustained during the voyage. There was also a lack of evidence of any fault or neglect on the part of Mainfreight in the manner in which the cargo was unloaded by its employees.

In all the circumstances, the applicant's claim was dismissed for lack of substantiation.

International decisions

Oldendorff GmbH and Co KG v Sea Powerful II Special Maritime Enterprises & Ors (2016) EWHC 3212

This case involved the sale of a cargo of 17 mt of iron ore to Xiamen C&D Minerals Co Ltd by SCIT Trading. It had a contract of affreightment with SCIT Services, who concluded a voyage charter with Oldendorff Carriers GmbH & Co KG for the carriage of cargo to China from Western Australia. Oldendorff Carriers had a long-term contract with Oldendorff GmbH & Co KG which in turn concluded a time charter trip with the owners of the "Zagora".

A letter of indemnity seeking delivery of the cargo without production of the original bill of lading was provided by Xiamen, which had itself on-sold the cargo, ultimately, to Shanxi Haixin International Iron & Steel Co Ltd.

Delivery of the cargo took place to Sea-Road Shipping Agency Co Ltd who had been appointed agent at the discharge port by Shanxi Haixin, and all the way up the chain to Oldendorff. The vessel had arrived at the discharge port on 25 December 2013 and discharge of the cargo was completed on 31 December 2013. The cargo was ultimately transported from Lanshan, the port of discharge, to the ultimate receiver between the 14 January and 8 February 2014. On 20 February 2014, the Bank of China paid the purchase price on behalf of Shanxi Haixin, who were not required to reimburse the Bank of China for 150 days. The Bank of China was in possession of the original bills of lading and arrested the vessel in Lanshan on 27 August 2014. The vessel was eventually released on 24 September 2014 when Oldendorff provided security to obtain its release, without prejudice to its rights to argue that the LOI had not been engaged. The bank's claim was therefore being litigated in China. The arbitrations and appeal therefrom were heard in London.

Although the arbitrations, down the line from the owners to Xiamen, had all been consolidated, the only parties who were represented at the hearing before Teare J were the owners and the Oldendorff companies. The issue in all cases was whether the LOIs were engaged, i.e. were the parties who had sought delivery of the cargo without production of the bill of lading liable to indemnify those to whom they had addressed the letter of indemnity? Teare J found that they were and they were enforceable down the line of the chain of charters. The only factual-legal issue that might have prevented that finding related to the capacity in which the entity to whom delivery of the cargo was made, Sea-Road, was serving. Was it the agent of the ship or the receiver of the cargo? The Court found that Sea-Road had been appointed as agent for the cargo receiver, it being improbable that the owners appointed those agents for the purposes of the delivery of the cargo. The owners had thereby complied with the instructions contained in the letter of indemnity.

Transgrain Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Yangste Navigation (Hong Kong) Co Ltd (MV "Yangste Xing Hua") (2016) EWHC 3132

This case involved an issue of construction of the Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement 1996 ("ICA") and whether the term "act" in the phrase "act or neglect" means a culpable act in the sense of fault, or whether it means any act, whether culpable or not.

The cargo in this case was soya bean meal being carried from South America to Iran. The vessel arrived off the discharge port in December 2012, but the charterers ordered the vessel to wait off the discharge port for over four months as they had not been paid for the cargo. The arbitrators had found "it seemed very clear that it actually suited the shippers/charterers, in money terms, to use the vessel as floating storage, at the receiver's expense, rather than unloading it ashore into a bonded warehouse". When ultimately discharged, the cargo in two of the holds was found to be lumpy and discoloured. The tribunal found that the monitoring of the cargo temperatures by the owners was not at fault and that the cause of the damage was a combination of the inherent nature of the cargo (and its oil and moisture content) together with the prolonged period at anchor at the discharge port. The delay was too prolonged, given the moisture content.

Clause 8(d) of the ICA requires cargo claims to be apportioned on a 50/50 basis between charterers and owners, "unless there is clear and irrefutable evidence that the claim arose out of the act or neglect of the one or the other... in which case that party should bear 100% of the claim".

Arbitrators had found that the proviso was engaged in this case and charterers should bear 100% of the consequences, despite finding that there was no "neglect" by charterers, in loading the cargo, "albeit that what in fact they loaded, together with instructions to wait outside the discharge port, was in all probability the cause of the damage...". They therefore had held that "act" was to be distinguished from something suggesting "fault, breach or neglect".

It was submitted in the appeal to Teare J by charterers that "act" means "culpable act" and the phrase "act or neglect" compendiously meant "fault".

Having examined the history of the ICA and other cases, Teare J found that the arbitrator's interpretation was correct; the word "act" in this context did not require fault.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

This article is part of a series: Click Transport & Logistics News - March 2017: part 1 for the previous article.
This article is part of a series: Click Transport & Logistics News - March 2017: part 3 for the next article.
Authors
Andrew Probert
Andrew Tulloch
Marcus Saw
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions