header-logo header-logo

14 December 2012
Issue: 7542 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Shipping—Charterparty—BIMCO Supplytime 1989 form

Greatship (India) Ltd v Oceanografia SA de CV [2012] EWHC 3468 (Comm), [2012] All ER (D) 38 (Dec)

Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, Gloster J, 5 December 2012

On the proper construction of cl 10(e) of the BIMCO Supplytime 89 form, in order for owners’ right “to suspend performance of any and all of their obligations” to be validly exercised, owners are not required to give charterers five banking days’ notice of the suspension.

Nigel Jacobs QC (instructed by Holman Fenwick Willan LLP) for the owners. Yash Kulkarni (instructed by Thomas Cooper) for the charterers.

By a time charterparty on an amended BIMCO Supplytime 1989 form, the claimant owners agreed to charter a vessel to the defendant charterers for two years firm. The charterparty contained a London arbitration clause. Further, cl 10(e) of the charterparty provided, inter alia: “While payment remains due owners shall be entitled to suspend the performance of any and all of their obligations hereunder.” The owners purported to suspend the provision of the services

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll