Showing 1 - 10 of 11
The concept of an “arrived ship” is important to determine when laytime commences in a voyage charter. It is also important for traders who incorporate charterparty terms into their contract of sale for the purposes of ascertaining demurrage.
We look at the recent High Court and Court of Appeal case of Dyna-Jet Pte Ltd v Wilson Taylor Asia Pacific Pte Ltd ;  and Wilson Taylor Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Dyna-Jet Pte Ltd .
In a recent amendment to the Singapore Rules of Court, there is a change in the form of a caveat against arrest which may potentially bring about more interest in this procedure.
Case review 11/12/2017
Before the charter party was signed, there was an issue as to whether the end receiver was prepared to accept this vessel. Eventually the end receiver indicated that it was prepared to accept the vessel. However, Mercuria wrote to Toptip saying “Owrs cannot accept chtrs cp after review, so subject failed on cp review…”
Toptip went on to source from a substitute charter. It turned out that Toptip eventually chartered the same vessel but from another disponent owner at a higher rate. It appears that Mercuria terminated the charter party with Toptip and chartered the same vessel to another party at a higher rate, and that party subsequently sub-chartered the same vessel to Toptip.
In recent years, one manner of alternative dispute resolution has taken the form of a combination of mediation and arbitration.
Notes from the bar: once on demurrage, always on demurrage?
In international trade, it is very common for parties to reach an agreement on the main commercial terms of each transaction.
There has been a long tussle between insolvency lawyers and shipping lawyers over whether a lien over sub-freight ought to be treated as a registrable charge pursuant to the Companies Act.
BIMCO’s Documentary Committee recently adopted the revised SUPPLYTIME 2017, bringing the popular standard form charterparty for vessels more in line with current practices in the sector.
The Singapore High Court granted the shipowner unconditional leave to defend a claim for misdelivery on the ground that it is arguable that the bills of lading issued neither operated as contractual documents nor documents of title.