UK: Clyde & Co Shipping Newsletter – July 2015

Ballast Water Management Convention: The tricky waters of compliance

Beth Bradley and Chris Moxon

One of the great difficulties with worldwide regulation is ensuring consistent implementation and compliance. The IMO's Ballast Water Management (BWM) Convention ratified by more than 40 states but not yet in force, is a case in point.

In assessing whether to approve BWM systems as meeting the IMO's Ballast Water Performance Standard (the IMO Standard), flag states that have signed up to the Convention must take into account the guidelines set out by the IMO (Resolution MEPC 174(58)). Those guidelines are also intended to inform shipowners and technology manufacturers about the evaluation procedure for the equipment.

The US Coast Guard (USCG) has, however, developed its own ballast water performance standard (the USCG Standard) and guidelines for approving systems. The IMO Standard and USCG Standard are identical, but the respective guidelines are not.

As a result, shipowners and technology manufacturers should take care to ensure that both the IMO guidelines and USCG guidelines are consulted when considering developing, fitting and using BWM systems. A BWM system approved as meeting the IMO Standard may be eligible for approval as an Alternate Management System (AMS) by the USCG, entitling the ship to which it is fitted to trade in US and Canadian waters without full type approval.

That said, AMS approval only lasts five years beyond the date when the ship would otherwise be required to comply with the USCG Standard. Although the AMS regime is a useful "stop gap" measure, the lack of clarity about whether or not BWM systems approved under the IMO guidelines will ultimately obtain USCG-type approval – and even whether or not the IMO guidelines will be applied consistently in the BWM Convention's signatory states – is unwelcome.

The IMO seems alive to these issues in obtaining approvals. It initiated a study on the implementation of the IMO Standard in late March, exploring the similarities and differences in testing and certification of BWM systems worldwide.

The survey was open to technology manufacturers and shipowners (among others) until 1 June 2015. If the study assists in getting nearer to a consistent worldwide approach to testing BWM systems and applying the guidelines for approval, it will have been a success.

Once the Convention has come into force, shipowners and operators should ensure that ballast water samples taken to monitor regulatory compliance are representative of the entire discharge, and that the operation of multi-use tanks does not give rise to mixing of different water types.

Failure to keep a close eye on these matters could lead to fines and delays in ports for breach of IMO or USCG guidelines, with the risk of charterparty disputes ensuing. A ship "unduly detained or delayed" by Port State Control under the BWM Convention may, however, be entitled to compensation.

First published in The Motorship, May 2015 issue

Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court reviewed in Harms v Harms

Marcia Perucca

The Admiralty Court ruled in a recent decision1 that a German ship management company was entitled to issue proceedings in the English Court to obtain security for its claims against the German shipping companies in a dispute subject to German arbitration.

Background

The dispute between a German ship management company and the owners of six tugs registered in Germany arose from the owners' decision to sell the vessels to one of their competitors. The management company claimed this was a breach of the partnership agreements to which it was a party, and which gave it pre-emptive rights to purchase four of the vessels. The owners, on the other hand, said they had discovered that two of the management company directors had been taking secret commissions from the builders of three of the vessels which led them to lose trust in the company and, as a result, to terminate ship management agreements that were also in place between the parties.

The claims in the English court

The ship management company issued six in rem claims against the owners in the English court. There were two separate sets of claims. The first was a claim for damages for the unlawful termination of the ship management agreements by the owners, by way of selling the vessels without notice to the management company (the ship management claims). The second was a claim for breach of the articles of association of the corporate entity of the owners, which allegedly required notice of the sale of the vessels to be given to the management company, a shareholder in the corporate entity (the articles of association claims).

The purpose of the management company in issuing the claims in the English court was to obtain security for its claims in arbitration and German court proceedings. Although the in rem forms were not served and none of the vessels had been arrested, the owners filed an acknowledgement of service, and entered an appearance for the purposes of challenging jurisdiction. They later changed their approach, indicating they wished the English court to hear the ship management claims, but not the articles of association claims. The management company's position was that it was content for both substantive claims to be decided in the English court, but not just the ship management claims.

The ship management claims

The ship management agreements provided for German law and arbitration. On the other hand, it was common ground that the claims fell within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court by reason of s.20(1)(a) and s.20(2)(h) of the Senior Court Act 1981, as amended, these being claims arising out of an agreement relating to the use of a ship. This allowed the management company to issue the in rem claims in order to obtain security.

In submitting that the claim should be heard by the English court, the owners argued that there had been an agreement between the parties, in the exchange of submissions, to confer jurisdiction on the English court. Upon an analysis of the submissions, this argument was rejected by the court.

The owners also argued that once an in rem claim had been issued, it was always open to a defendant to file an acknowledgement of service and submit to the jurisdiction and that they had decided to do so in relation to the ship management claims.

Simon J held that the starting point was Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 (the Brussels I Regulation). He referred to Article 31, which provides that an application can be made to the courts of one member state for security which is available in that particular member state, even if, under the Regulation, the court of another member state has jurisdiction over the substance of the matter.

Simon J held that the management company's action in issuing in rem claim forms in order to obtain security was both unexceptional in domestic terms and consonant with the Brussels I Regulation. The Court, he said, "will normally recognise both the obligation to submit disputes to arbitration or courts in a foreign jurisdiction, and the claimant's right to obtain and retain security in respect of such disputes".

Simon J concluded that the proceedings had not been brought in breach of the arbitration clause, and the owners were not entitled to submit to the jurisdiction of the court for the substantive claims. These claims were, therefore, stayed pending the provision of security in the arbitration proceedings.

The articles of association claims

The article of association claims were linked to proceedings before the German courts, which had jurisdiction under Article 22.2 of the Brussels I Regulation since the proceedings had as their object the validity of decisions of companies whose seat was in Germany.

The issue in dispute in the English court was whether the in rem claims issued in England fell within the admiralty jurisdiction under section 20 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The management company argued that they fell under section 20(2), being either (a) a claim to the possession or ownership of a ship or the ownership of any share therein; or (b) a question arising between the co-owners of a ship as to possession, employment or earnings of that ship.

The purpose of the German proceedings was to nullify the resolutions to sell the vessels. The management company argued that, if the resolutions were annulled, their rights of pre-emption would be vindicated, making it a claim to the ownership of the vessels. The claim forms in the English court characterised the sale of the vessels as constituting a breach of the articles of association and a claim in tort and/or breach of statutory duties. The court concluded that in both sets of proceedings, the claim was essentially for damages resulting from the sale of the vessels, and could not be properly characterised as a claim to the ownership of the vessel (within the meaning of s.20(2)(a)).

As for s.20(2)(b), Simon J held that the section was concerned with co-ownership of vessels or shares in the vessel, and not with claims relating to the ownership of shares in companies or other legal entities which may own vessels. It followed that the English court had no jurisdiction in relation to the articles of association claims.

Comment

Simon J's decision confirms that in circumstances where a claim falls within the admiralty jurisdiction, a party's right to issue a claim in order to obtain security will be upheld even where the dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement or to the jurisdiction of a foreign court.

Footnotes

1 Harms Bergung Transport und Heavylift GmbH & Co KG v Harms Offshore AHT "URANUS" GmbH & Co KG & 5 Ors sub noms THE "URANUS" : THE "MAGNUS" (2015)

High Court upholds refund guarantees despite findings in China of fraud, and injunctions against the guarantor

Tom Kelly and Sapna Jhangiani

The case of Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV v Bank of China Ltd (2015) concerned two refund guarantees for two hulls (38 and 39) built for Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor BV (SBV), the Claimant. The refund guarantees were provided by the Bank of China (BOC). As the vessels were not delivered on time, SBV claimed the repayment of instalments from the shipyard. SBV claimed payment from BOC under the guarantees after obtaining arbitration awards to that effect.

In parallel, the shipyard brought proceedings against SBV, in China, claiming SBV had been fraudulent in assisting engine manufacturers supply second hand engines to the vessel. The Chinese Court upheld fraud, and issued orders requiring SBV to provide a guarantee in the Chinese Court, and preventing any payment out under the BOC guarantees.

Consideration of the guarantees

The guarantees were found to be on terms consistent with "on demand" guarantees, as considered in a number of recent cases1. This was, notwithstanding the inclusion of a proviso to the effect that where arbitration was commenced, payment needed to be made only in accordance with the terns of any award obtained by SBV.

BOC's main arguments on the issue of the guarantees were that:

(a) The arbitration award in the hull 39 reference was not an award for the purposes of the guarantee which triggered an obligation on the part of BOC to pay under the hull 39 guarantee

(b) On the basis that the guarantees were true guarantees, or sureties, they were discharged by the findings of fraud against SBV in China

As to argument (a), the Court held that any demand by SBV was valid, regardless of any arbitration award. The demand was independent of any dispute between SBV and the shipyard, and the disputes served only to defer payment under the guarantee. They did not affect the validity of the demand itself. The Court, therefore, held that once the arbitration award ordered the instalments to be repaid, and the shipyard failed to repay those instalments, BOC was obliged to pay under the guarantee.

In light of the Court's decision that the guarantees were performance bonds, argument (b) fell away. However, the Judge did go on to consider the situation had the guarantees been sureties in light of the wording, which stated that "our obligations shall not be affected or prejudiced by any dispute between you as the Buyer and the Seller". The Court held that this would include any finding of fraud against SBV. In particular, the Judge held that the word "dispute" was sufficiently wide to cover a situation where a judgment had been handed down following a dispute. There was, therefore, no need for a matter still to be contentious in order to count as a dispute.

The Court also considered the orders against BOC in China.

Chinese orders

Issue 1

First, the Court had to consider, as a matter of Chinese law, whether the orders against BOC, preventing any payment out under the guarantees, were still current. Based on expert evidence, the Court considered that the orders were indeed still current and, therefore, remained live. Certainly, the fact was that the Court in China regarded those orders as live.

Issue 2

The Court then considered whether those judgments should be recognised by the English Courts, despite being obtained in breach of the law and jurisdiction clause of the relevant contracts. The Court considered the fact that SBV had opposed jurisdiction of the Chinese Court to the full extent possible, but that when the Chinese Court ruled against it, and assumed jurisdiction, SBV took full part in defending the claims in China.

The Judge held, therefore, that the numerous clear authorities stating that it would be "manifestly against public policy to give recognition to the foreign judgment at the behest of the defendants who have procured it in breach of an order emanating from this court"2 did not apply. Where a party takes full part in foreign proceedings, even where those proceedings were started in breach of a jurisdiction clause and, in fact, of an anti-suit injunction, that party is held to have submitted to that jurisdiction, and loses its shield against recognition of the foreign judgment.

Despite the enforcement of the Chinese Court Orders, the Court declined to order a stay of enforcement of the guarantees. The Judge held that when considering an English law contract, such as the refund guarantees, English law regards illegality by the place of the performing party's domicile or place of business as irrelevant. The Judge, therefore, ordered judgment for SBV in the full amount of the guarantees claimed.

Footnotes

1 Such as Wuhan Guoyo Logistics Group Co Ltd v Emporiki Bank of Greece SA [2012] EWCA civ 1629 and Meritz Fire and Marine Insurance Co Ltd v Jan Denul NV [2011] 2 Lloyd's Rep 379

2 WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka [2002] EWHC 104

"SFL HAWK" – Passing of title under a bill of lading

Giyan Tang and Charlotte Gale

A holder of a bill of lading was deemed the owner of the cargo under section 25 of the Sale of Goods Act, even where the particular terms of a back to back sale contract indicated property only passed on payment, rather than on transfer of the bill.

Background

PT Awindo International (PT Awindo) were the shippers of a cargo of frozen swordfish, which they agreed to sell to Fishco BVBA (Fishco) (the First Contract). On the same date, Fishco also contracted with the Claimants, Carlos Soto Sau (Carlos Soto) for the on-sale of the cargo at a profit (the Second Contract).

The terms of the two contracts were materially similar with one main exception – the First Contract contained a rejection clause which was not replicated in the Second Contract.

In both cases, the cargo was to be paid for by an irrevocable letter of credit providing for payment within 45 days of shipment under the First Contract and within 60 days under the Second Contract.

The cargo was shipped on board the "SFL HAWK" and a "to order" bill of lading was issued by Maersk, naming PT Awindo as the shipper and Carlos Soto as the notify party. This bill of lading was endorsed in blank and passed to Fishco, who delivered the bill of lading and associated documents to Banco Santander, with whom Carlos Soto had opened the letter of credit. Although Banco Santander alerted Carlos Soto to discrepancies in the documentation, Carlos Soto waived these and collected the documents, amongst which was a packing list stating "LC 45 days after shipment with rejection clause".

At discharge, the temperature of the cargo was found to be overly high. Consequently, the Vigo Port Authority rejected the cargo, which meant that it could not be sold in the European Union. No payments had yet been made for the cargo by either party.

Fishco presented the rejection certificate to their bank, who cancelled the letter of credit in favour of PT Awindo. Carlos Soto paid Fishco in full for the cargo, before reselling the damaged cargo back to Fishco for 10% of the invoice value, by way of mitigation.

PT Awindo brought a claim against Maersk in respect of their losses. The parties settled on terms where PT Awindo warranted that they were the lawful holder of the bill of lading, that no other party had title to sue and that they were authorised to act on behalf of all other cargo interests.

Irrespective of that settlement, Carlos Soto brought their own claim against Maersk for damages.

Maersk agreed that Carlos Soto had paid for the cargo, were the lawful holder of the bill of lading and were entitled to possession of the cargo at all relevant times. Maersk did not agree that Carlos Soto were the owners of the cargo at the relevant time or that they had suffered any loss.

The Court was therefore asked to consider the following points by way of preliminary issue:

Did property in the cargo pass such that Carlos Soto were at all relevant times the owners of the cargo?

Whilst endorsing and transferring a bill of lading is prima facie evidence that there is an intention to pass property, this does not necessarily always follow. The question of passing of property is one of "actual intention".

The First Contract and letter of credit provided for delayed payment, the right to reject the cargo and the right to cancel the letter of credit. These particular features led the Court to conclude that the parties did not intend for property in the cargo to pass until PT Awindo had received payment from Fishco. As Fishco had cancelled the letter of credit, property remained with PT Awindo.

Carlos Soto raised an alternative argument that they received the bill of lading in good faith, with the consent of the seller and without notice of any rights of the original seller to retain title. It was submitted that Carlos Soto should be considered the owners of the cargo pursuant to s.25 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA 1979).

Maersk argued that Carlos Soto should have been put on notice by the packing list, which referred to a rejection clause. The Court accepted that even if Carlos Soto had seen the words on the packing list (which, on the evidence, they had not), they would not have realised property in the cargo may have been retained by PT Awindo.

The Court was satisfied that Carlos Soto were the owners of the cargo at all relevant times pursuant to s.25 of the SGA 1979.

Was the claimants' loss caused by Maersk's breach of duty?

Maersk argued that the true cause of Carlos Soto's loss was not their negligence as carrier, but Fishco wrongfully retaining payment from Carlos Soto despite not having paid PT Awindo. Fishco's retaining payment was an "intervening act" breaking the chain of causation, meaning that Maersk could not be liable.

The Court disagreed with this analysis. The cargo had been damaged prior to, or upon discharge at Vigo, so that the loss crystallised before any intervening act.

The Court recognised that the chain of causation could only be broken if the impact of an intervening act was severe enough to "obliterate" the previous wrongful act of the carrier. It was held that Fishco's actions did not obliterate Maersk's breach.

Comment

A carrier should exercise caution when settling a claim with a shipper because the holder of the bill of lading can also be deemed the owner of the cargo in their capacity as a "bona fide" purchaser under s.25 of the SGA 1979.

To continue reading click here

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.

Authors
Marcia Perucca
Thomas Kelly
 
In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.