UK: Shipping Newsletter - November 2015

Last Updated: 1 December 2015
Article by Clyde & Co LLP

Expert legal advice in uncertain waters

Written by legal experts, the Clyde & Co Shipping Newsletter regularly reports on recent legal developments within the marine sector.

In this issue, Marcia Perucca reviews the recent ruling in the “MTM HONG KONG” on the calculation of damages following the repudiation of a charterparty, where an award of damages to a shipowner was upheld.

Peter Ward goes on to comment on the “MSC EUGENIA” in which the court examined whether a carrier, which had provided a shipper’s agent with pin codes for an electronic release system, had fulfilled its obligations under the bill of lading.

Miranda Karali and Natalie Johnston analyse the issue in “NAVIGAS 1” of whether the parties had concluded an agreement for a charterparty which included a London arbitration clause.

Heidi Watson then reports on a judicial review of the Maritime & Coastal Agency’s alleged failure to enforce a key provision of the Maritime Labour Convention.

Two cases, the “SEA WELLINGTON” and the “ANNA BO”, in which Clyde & Co acted for the successful parties, both relating to anti-suit injunctions, are reviewed by Beth Bradley and by Martin Hall and Thomas Forkin, respectively.

Jennifer Wheeler looks at the importance of the correct choice of forum in the “AFRICA REEFER” in circumstances where a tight limitation period applied.

Conor McStravick comments on the court’s decision to vary an order recognising South Korean insolvency proceedings involving a shipping company in order to support London arbitration, in the “UNIVERSAL QUEEN”.

In the “ CELTIC EXPLORER”, Catherine Baddeley considers the consequences of a 12 month delay in the publication of an arbitration award.

Links to our most recent client briefings can be found in the “What’s new?” section of the newsletter. These provide commentary on cases such as the “RES COGITANS” and Bunge v Nidera SV (2015), as well as on other topics of interest to the marine sector.

"MTM HONG KONG" – New ruling on the calculation of damages following the repudiation of a charterparty

By Marcia Perucca

In the "MTM HONG KONG", the Commercial Court upheld an award of damages to a shipowner that included losses arising from the loss of the benefit of two voyages that the ship would have undertaken but for the charterer's repudiation.

Charterers Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA had chartered the MTM HONG KONG from MT Maritime Management BV to carry a cargo from South America to the Gibraltar-Rotterdam area. The vessel's previous employment had taken her to Boma, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where she had grounded. This led to delay and exchanges between the parties, with owners accepting the charterers' latest message as a repudiation, bringing the charter to an end.

After discharging at Boma, the vessel proceeded to South America on 19 January 2011. The charter came to an end on 21 January 2011. The vessel continued to South America, where owners believed they would find substitute business, and arrived in Uruguay on 2 February 2011. However, the vessel was only fixed on 24 February 2011 for a voyage from Argentina to Rotterdam ("the substitute fixture"), where it completed discharge on 12 April 2011. If the original charter had been performed, the voyage would have completed on 17 March. The vessel would then have carried a cargo from the Baltic to the United States, followed by a cargo from the United States to Europe.

The arbitrators held that the charterers had repudiated the charter and that the owners' decision to direct the vessel to South America and to wait there until the substitute fixture could be performed was reasonable. They awarded damages consisting of the difference between (a) the profit which the vessel would have earned if not only the contract voyage but also the next two voyages had been performed and (b) the substitute fixture. Charterers appealed on quantum under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

The Commercial Court decision

The question of law before the Commercial Court was:

"If a voyage charter is repudiated by charterers in circumstances where the substitute employment begins after the contract voyage would have begun, and ends after the contract voyage would have ended, should damages be assessed by reference to the vessel's (actual or hypothetical) earnings up to the end of the contract voyage, or such earnings up to the end of the substitute employment?"

Males J reviewed the authorities on damages for repudiation of a voyage charter (Smith v M'Guire, The Concordia, The Noel Bay, The Elbrus, as well as textbooks Scrutton on Charterparties and Cooke on Voyage Charters) and on remoteness and assumption of responsibility (Hadley v Baxendale, Siemens Building Technologies Ltd v Supershield Ltd, The Achilleas, John Grimes Partinership Ltd v Gubbins and The Sylvia) and said that he did not think it was possible to give an answer to the above question which would hold good in all circumstances. Rather, the question must be answered in accordance with the following principles applicable in the present case:

  • The fundamental principle is the compensatory principle - the innocent party is so far as possible to be placed in the same financial position as if the contract had been performed
  • Smith v M'Guire provided the prima facie measure of damages – the starting point was the amount of freight which the ship would have earned if the charter had been performed, and from this amount there should be deducted the expenses which would have been incurred in earning it together with what the ship earned (if anything) during the period which would have been occupied in performing the voyage
  • On appropriate facts, it may be necessary to depart from the above measure to give full effect to the compensatory principle
  • The net freight and demurrage represent a cap on the owners' damages for loss of the profit which would have been obtained from performance of the repudiated charter
  • The position is different if the owner suffers a different kind of loss, that is to say something different from the loss of the profit described above. In such a case, there is in general no reason why such loss should not be recoverable subject to the principles of causation, mitigation and remoteness. On the contrary, failure to award such damages would be contrary to the compensatory principle
  • Such losses must be sufficiently proved. If this required complex hypothetical calculations about the future employment of a vessel, the likely conclusion will be that such losses are too speculative to be recovered
  • An example of such a different kind of loss arises when a vessel is redelivered to an owner in the wrong location or when a substitute fixture is completed at a different discharge port. The ability of a vessel to earn freight will depend to a large extent on the vessel being in a place where appropriate cargoes may be had. The package of rights for which an owner contracts when concluding a charter includes not only the freight but also the right to have the vessel back again and ready for her next employment. The Smith v M'Guire measure of damages does not address the latter

Applying the above principles to the present case, Males J said that the consequence of the charterers' repudiation was twofold: they had to make do with the lesser freight earned under the substitute fixture, but they also suffered a delay in repositioning the vessel in Europe and thereby lost the benefit of the two transatlantic voyages which the vessel would have been able to perform. There was no reason in law why damages for the consequence of the vessel's delay in returning to the North Atlantic market should not be awarded, since the arbitrators had found that the loss was suffered by owners, that it was caused by the charterers' repudiation, and that there was no failure to mitigate. There was no error of law in the arbitrators' reasoning.


Males J's decision provides an in-depth review of the authorities and also an interesting reasoning. When addressing the last principle set out above, Males J said that these were "important commercial considerations which the law of damages needs to recognise". This appears to have been the basis for his conclusion. In a postscript, he emphasised that he should not be taken as deciding that on similar facts an owner's claim for loss of future employment would always succeed. He said three factors had been important for owners to succeed in this case: 1) the finding that owners acted reasonably in sending the vessel to South America, because the lack of immediate employment was unexpected; 2) there was no suggestion in the arbitration that the losses were too remote; and 3) it was possible to predict the vessel's immediate future employment if the contract had been performed.

"MSC EUGENIA" – Pin codes for Electronic Cargo Release Systems: Handle with care

By Peter Ward

The Court held that a carrier, which had provided a shipper's agent with pin codes for an electronic cargo release system, had not fulfilled its obligations under a bill of lading pursuant to which the bill was to be exchanged either for the goods or for a delivery order.1


MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (MSC) carried three cargo containers from Fremantle to Antwerp under a bill of lading which named Glencore International AG (Glencore) as the shipper, and C Steinweg NV (Steinweg), Glencore's agents, as a notify party. A few days before the vessel's arrival at the discharge port, Steinweg lodged with MSC one of the bills of lading and soon after, MSC emailed to Steinweg a release note and pin codes for the electronic cargo release system (ERS) that MSC operated at that port.

After the vessel arrived at Antwerp, and the containers were discharged and stored at MSC's terminal, Steinweg sought delivery of the cargo but it transpired that two of the containers had already been collected by unknown, unauthorised recipients. The shipper brought a claim for damages against MSC.


The bill of lading contained an express term that it had to be "surrendered by the Merchant to the Carrier ... in exchange for the Goods or a Delivery Order". The Court found that the pin codes did not constitute a "delivery order", which was taken to refer to a "ship's delivery order" as defined in s.1(4) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992. Such an order contains an undertaking given by the carrier to deliver the goods to an identified person. It was held to be unlikely that a bill of lading holder would agree to surrender its rights without receiving either the goods or an undertaking in return.

MSC's contention that the provision of a pin code constituted a "Delivery Order" relied on the pattern of previous dealings between the parties. However, the Court rejected this argument. Negotiable bills have to be understood by various people other than the original parties so that, in this case, the original parties were taken to have intended the bill to have the meaning conveyed by its wording, in light of the knowledge available to the range of people to whom it was addressed. In addition, the shipper (as opposed to its agent) was found not to have been aware, at the time it entered into the bill of lading contract, that MSC used the ERS in Antwerp. But even if it had been, it did not follow that forwarding the pin codes constituted delivery.

MSC also submitted that a term should be implied into the bill of lading to the effect that a pin code would be a valid substitute for a delivery order. MSC further maintained that Steinweg had agreed to vary the bill of lading so that it might be exchanged for ERS pin codes. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the proposed implied term sat awkwardly with the express provision in the bill that the goods, or a delivery order, were to be provided in exchange for it. In addition, it was held that Steinweg did not have authority to vary the bill of lading contract by accepting the terms of the release note sent by MSC.

MSC also brought an estoppel argument, to the effect that, since the shipper gave the appearance that it was content for the ERS to be used for the 69 previous shipments, it was not open to it to complain that it was used for the three containers under the bill of lading. However, the shipper's complaint was that MSC had wrongfully delivered the containers to an unauthorised recipient, not that it had released the containers on presentation of the pin codes. In order to be estopped, the shipper would have had to have represented clearly that it was content for goods to be delivered to anyone who presented the relevant pin code. It had made no such representation and its claim, therefore, succeeded.


This case is a helpful reminder to carriers of the need to comply with their precise obligations under a negotiable bill of lading. In this case, nothing less than delivery of the goods or a ship's delivery order, in exchange for an original bill of lading, was sufficient to discharge the carrier's duty. Use of a discharge port's ERS does not release carriers of their duty to surrender the goods only to the person entitled to take delivery of them. The decision also emphasises the potential risks involved with the electronic cargo release system.


1 Glencore International AG v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA and Another (2015)

To continue reading this newsletter, please 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

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

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (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

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’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.


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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

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

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

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