Insights

The demise of the OW Bunker group of companies in November, 2014, has provoked litigation worldwide. The Association has supported the owner of the RES COGITANS in its efforts to avoid having to pay twice for fuel supplied to the ship. This has now culminated in a decision by the Supreme Court in favour of the bunker supplier.

BIMCO recently announced (16th January, 2016) that the Intermediate Claims Procedure has been removed from the standard BIMCO dispute resolution clause following a request that they received from the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA). The LMAA decided to take such action because they found that the procedure was not being used to the extent they had anticipated following its introduction in 2009. This article looks to highlight the key differences between the Intermediate Claims Procedure and the alternative dispute resolution procedures more commonly used.

This article looks at the Supreme Court’s decision in Cavendish Square Holding BV v El Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. This is the first time this court has considered the principles governing penalty clauses since 1915.

2014 年11 月，丹麦宝运石油集团（OW Group）及旗下子公司宣告破产， 引发全球诉讼浪潮。协会为“RES COGITAN ”轮船东提供支援，避免重复支付燃油费。最终，英国最高法院裁定支持燃油供应商的主张。

This is the latest case to consider the assessment of damages arising from the early re-delivery of a ship by a charterer in breach of charterparty, in circumstances where there was no available market in which to re- x the ship on an equivalent basis. The dispute arose from a rather unusual scenario as the ship was sold by her owner due to the charterer’s early re-delivery.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment offers a useful recap on principles of mitigation and their applicability to ‘no available market’ cases.