In the recent case of MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company
S.A. v. Cottonex Anstalt  EWCA Civ 789 the Court of
Appeal ruled that the commercial purpose of the contract had been
frustrated and that demurrage on detained containers which could
not be redelivered to the carrier did not accrue indefinitely.
What were the facts?
The carrier, MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.
("MSC"), and the shipper, Cottonex Anstalt
("Cottonex"), contracted for the carriage of 35
containers of raw cotton from Bandar Abbas, Iran and Jebel Ali,
Dubai to Chittagong, Bangladesh.
The containers were discharged in May and June 2011. Cottonex
received payment for the goods and title passed to the consignee.
The consignee never took delivery of the goods. MSC insisted on
redelivery of their containers and claimed demurrage under the bill
of lading until 30 April 2013, and continuing thereafter at a daily
rate until redelivery.
What was decided?
In the Commercial Court, it was held that (i) Cottonex had
repudiated the contracts of carriage on 27 September 2011 when it
informed MSC that there was no realistic prospect of it being able
to redeliver the containers; (ii) the delay at that point was so
long that the commercial purpose of the adventure was frustrated;
and (iii) once there was no realistic prospect of Cottonex
redelivering the containers (its remaining primary obligation) MSC
no longer had any legitimate interest in keeping the contracts
alive in the hope of future performance. Therefore, MSC was
entitled to demurrage only until 27 September 2011.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the claim for demurrage could
not continue for an indefinite period of time but its reasons were
somewhat different. It held that the adventure was frustrated at a
later date, on 2 February 2012, when MSC had unsuccessfully
attempted to sell the containers to Cottonex. From that time
Cottonex was in repudiatory breach, and the contract was frustrated
as a result of that breach. There was nothing left to perform. MSC
was therefore not entitled to further demurrage. The Court did not
therefore consider the legitimate interest point but indicated that
if it had had to do so it would have agreed with the Commercial
Court judge that "this is a classic case in which it would
have been wholly unreasonable for the carrier to insist on further
If you are interested in a more detailed analysis of this case
please see our client alert 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.
In January of this year the findings of "Project MARTHA", a three year study into the causes and effects of crew fatigue, were released – along with proposals as to how best to mitigate against the risks posed by crew fatigue.
It is common practice for traders, usually when they are the sellers of the goods and the charterers of a vessel, to instruct the carrier to discharge cargoes without production of the original bills of lading and to agree to indemnify the carrier against the consequences of doing so.
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).