UK: Liability For Freight: Beware "…The Risk Of Being Required To Pay Twice"

Last Updated: 23 September 2012
Article by Nick Burgess and David Richards

Dry Bulk Handy Holding Inc. and another v. Fayette International Holdings Ltd and another (The Bulk Chile) [2012] EWHC 2107 (Comm)

The Commercial Court has recently determined a dispute concerning an attempt by owners to intercept freight payable by sub-charterers. The case illustrates the risks of a sub-charterer failing to heed a warning that, should he pay his disponent owner despite being put on notice of the ship-owner's rights, he runs the risk of having to pay twice. The court also dealt with a claim for payment for services rendered post-withdrawal.

The background facts

The vessel was, at the material times, subject to the following charterparty chain: DBHH – CSAV – KLC – Fayette – Metinvest.

In early 2011, KLC entered "rehabilitation" proceedings in Korea to restructure their debt obligations. The charterparties in the chain between DBHH and Fayette were all on terms which included clause 18 of the NYPE form which provides that "Owners shall have a lien upon all cargoes and all sub-freights for any amounts due under this Charter...".

Bills of lading were issued by Metinvest as shippers stating "freight payable as per Charterparty" and "freight prepaid". In fact, the freight had not been prepaid.

The head owners, DBHH, issued a number of invoices to KLC for hire until in excess of US$ 700,000 was outstanding. On 1 February 2011, notices were sent on behalf of DBHH to Fayette and Metinvest, directing the sub-charterers to pay freight or hire due under "charters, bills of lading, or other contracts of carriage" directly to the owners. A second notice was sent on 5 February 2011 which sought to extend the lien to cargo onboard.

On 26 February 2011, DBHH withdrew the vessel from KLC's service. On 1 March 2011, Fayette gave five days' notice of the vessel's redelivery. Even though DBHH had withdrawn the vessel from KLC, they continued to perform the voyage and discharged the cargo at Jakarta. On 12 April 2011, Metinvest paid about US$ 2.5 million in freight to Fayette.

Various claims arose and came before the Commercial Court.

The Commercial Court decision

Claim under the bills of lading

DBHH argued that, under the contract of carriage between DBHH and Metinvest as evidenced by the bills of lading, Metinvest were liable to pay freight to DBHH. Mr Justice Andrew Smith held that the right of DBHH to intercept or to intervene so as to require payment of freight was distinct from any right they might have to exercise a lien over sub-freight.

It was irrelevant that the bills of lading stated that freight was prepaid in circumstances where the freight was in fact unpaid. The judge dismissed arguments that the owners could not intercept the freight once it had been paid by Metinvest to Fayette. He stated that, unless the contract of carriage provides that payment to a charterer discharges the shipper's liability to pay freight directly to the carrier, any agreement to pay freight under a charterparty ceases to be effective once the ship-owners have demanded that freight be paid directly to them.

Mr Justice Andrew Smith also made it clear that the right to intervene to have freight paid directly to the owners does not depend upon whether the head charterers have defaulted in paying hire or whether any sums are yet due to the owners. Therefore, as Metinvest had paid freight after DBHH's notice intercepting that freight, the judge held that they were liable to pay the freight again.

The lien claim

The judge then dealt with the lien claim against Fayette and the arguments as to why the lien did not work in this case.

  1. The sub-charterers disputed whether the standard clause 18 wording, which refers to the right to intercept "sub-freights", could apply (without amendment) to intercept sub-hire. Although the judge's own view was that the phrase "sub-freights" was wide enough to cover sub-hire, he felt bound to follow previous authority to the effect that the unamended NYPE lien clause does not provide for a lien covering sub-hire. This is therefore a statement of the present law until it is reviewed by an appellate court.
  2. There was an issue as to whether a lien could intercept sub-sub-freights but it was eventually accepted by all parties that (as per the decision in The Western Moscow [2012] EWHC 1224), a lien on sub-freight confers on an owner the right to intercept sub-sub-freight provided that an appropriate lien clause is included in all charters in the chain.
  3. The sub-charterers asserted that a lien clause could not be effective if the notice misstates the date of the assignment or the amount of the debt to be transferred. They relied on strict rules that apply to assignments concerning the transfer of title. The judge decided, however, that these strict rules did not apply to equitable assignments. The only conditions for an effective notice to invoke a lien on sub-freights is that it must inform the charterers: (i) that the owners are assignees of a debt owed or to be owed by the sub-charterers; (ii) what debts are assigned; (iii) that an amount is due to the owners under the head charterparty and (iv) that the owners require that the assigned debt be paid directly to them. Other than this, no particular form of words is required and the judge held that the owners were not required to state exactly what amount was due to them under the head charterparty.
  4. The sub-charterers contended that sub-freights due from Metinvest to Fayette could only be assigned if they were due for payment. Mr Justice Andrew Smith rejected this argument holding that, provided a sum was due under the head charterparty, the lien could relate to sub-hire or sub-freight due in the future.
  5. The sub-charterers sought to rely on the Korean court orders in respect of KLC's rehabilitation proceedings to prevent the owners from enforcing their claims on the basis that this would give them an advantage over KLC's other creditors. The judge rejected these arguments and held that those proceedings did not have extra-territorial effect and did not in any event provide any answer to the lien claims made against the sub-charterers.

The post-withdrawal claims

The judge finally dealt with a claim against Fayette and Metinvest for a payment in respect of the continued use of the vessel after its withdrawal from KLC.

  1. The judge first rejected a claim that a new contract came into existence because Fayette continued to accept the vessel's services. On the facts, Fayette's conduct did not amount to an intention to enter into a new agreement for the continuing hire of the vessel.
  2. The judge applied the test laid down by the Commercial Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court in The Kos [2012] UKSC 17 that where, after a valid withdrawal, owners performed further services at the request of charterers, they may become entitled to remuneration for performing those services. On the facts, he concluded that Fayette had impliedly requested the vessel to continue to perform services by serving re-delivery notices and giving further instructions to the vessel.
  3. Alternatively, Mr Justice Andrew Smith held that, in principle, the owners could be entitled to a quantum meruit payment for providing "freely accepted" services. He was not persuaded, however, that Fayette were liable on that basis in this case because the owners were obliged to perform their contractual obligations under the bills of lading to deliver the cargo to destination – Fayette had no option as to whether to accept those services or not.
  4. Given his decision on the bill of lading claims and the post-withdrawal contractual claim for reasonable remuneration, the judge did not have to decide CSAV's alternative claim of unjust enrichment. He said, however, that he would have allowed the claim against Metinvest for unjust enrichment in continuing to use the vessel after its withdrawal, as per the Supreme Court decision in The Kos.


The judge's analysis of liens over sub-freight and sub-hire is in line with the recent decision of Mr Justice Clarke in The Western Moscow. Mr Justice Teare's decision is also noteworthy for applying the principles recently laid down by the Supreme Court in The Kos with regard to owners' rights of remuneration post-withdrawal of a vessel.

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

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

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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