The “LIVANTIA” - STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v Ugland Bulk Transport A.S. [2007] EWHC 1317 (Comm)
Background
The parties entered into a trip time charter on an amended NYPE form. The charter was expressed to be for one trip “via St Petersburg, Baltic/Conti to the far east …”” The safe port warranty in lines 24-31 of the standard form charter was deleted, but additional clause 67, the Trading Exclusions clause, provided “trading to be worldwide between safe ports, safe berths and safe anchorages and places ….”
The vessel loaded steel coils at St Petersburg on 12 January. Due to ice at the port, the vessel joined an outbound convoy in order to sail out. During the outbound convoy the hull of the Vessel was damaged by ice.
At arbitration, the Tribunal held that the charterers were liable for breach of the express safe port warranty in clause 67. The cause of damage to the hull was held to be ice blocks and not negligent navigation.
The appeal
The charterers appealed to the High Court on the following grounds;
1. Where a charterparty expressly names a loading port and also contains a safe port warranty, does that safe port warranty apply to the named loading port?
2. If it does, is the owner entitled to rely on the safe port warranty in circumstances where the owner knew or should reasonably have known that the named port was unsafe at the time the charterparty was entered into?
3. Does the charterer act in breach of the safe port warranty in circumstances where the nominated port is, at the time the vessel uses it, ‘unsafe’ in a reasonably predictable and expected way?
The High Court decision
Mr Justice Langley agreed with the Tribunal and found against the charterers on both of points 1 and 2. He made the following points in support of his decision;
1. There is no inherent inconsistency between a safe port warranty and a named loading or discharge port.
2. The charterers submissions were substantially the same as those in the AIC v Marine Pilot case, where the charterers lost, as they should in this case.
3. There was no evidence that either party knew or ought reasonably to have anticipated anything about the likely conditions at St Petersburg more than the other, nor that either knew or should reasonably have known that St Petersburg was unsafe at the time the charter was entered into, nor that it was unsafe in a reasonably predictably and expected way. There was therefore no factual matrix to support an appeal on grounds two or three. |
发表于 2011-6-14 15:47
|