Insights

The quality of bunker fuel continues to be a source of concern to shipowners and charterers. Over the last 40 years or so, enhanced refining techniques have resulted in a decline in the quality of residual fuel. Unfortunately,...

Earlier in the year the Managers became aware that the Nigerian Federal Internal Revenue Service (FIRS) had begun issuing tax demands to tanker owners/ships in respect of calls at Nigeria between 2010 and 2019. It is...

Time charterparties usually require the charterer to provide a series of notices prior to redelivering the ship, informing the owner of the time and place of the redelivery. Very often, this will take the form of a series of “approximate” notices giving a decreasing amount of notice, followed by a series of “definite” notices even closer to redelivery. This should enable the owner to arrange for the ship’s next fixture and minimise any unemployment. But what happens if a charterer does not give some (or all) of the required notices, or does not redeliver the ship in line with the notices that are given? In such situations an owner may look to claim damages, and in this regard might be attracted to an argument based on a case called The Great Creation [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 315, which provides a seemingly straightforward way to calculate damages.   However, for the reasons set out below we would caution against relying too heavily on The Great Creation decision.

On 16th May, 2023 the European Parliament approved amendments to the EU Emissions Trading Directive, bringing shipping within the scope of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (“EU ETS”). As a result, from 1st January, 2024, ships of 5000GT and above which transport cargo or passengers for commercial purposes will be subject to the EU ETS. This publication considers how the EU ETS works, the implications for owners and charterers and how parties can allocate the costs and responsibilities for complying with an ETS in their charterparties.  

In London Arbitration 2/23, the arbitration tribunal rejected the owner’s claim for damages for breach of the Charterers’ unsafe port warranty, following the ship’s grounding, on the basis that a one-off mistake in the pilot’s navigation of the ship was not a defect in the set-up of the port that would render the port unsafe. In addition, the tribunal found that the lack of proper charts on board the ship rendered the ship unseaworthy although this was not causative to the ship’s grounding.