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.
With the inclusion of an electronic bills of lading clause in the latest iteration of the NYPE form, as well as the International Group of P&I Clubs' approval of 3 electronic trading systems, we discuss some of the possible advantages and disadvantages of such systems to international trade.
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.
A trading dispute under an FOB contract provides the opportunity to clarify a number of issues including the role of local custom in the nomination of a port, whose right it is to nominate a loading place within a port, the nomination of a vessel incapable of loading at the original loading place and the nomination of a vessel incapable of performing the shipment.
Zohar Zik considers the decision of ACG Acquisition XX LLC v Olympic Airlines SA, where the court refused to grant summary judgment on a claim for unpaid rent in respect of a leased aircraft where it was arguable that ACG Acquisition XX LLC ("ACG"), the lessor, had breached the lease agreement and failed to provide Olympic Airlines SA ("Olympic"), the lessee, an aircraft in an airworthy condition.
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).