Insights

In the recent case of The Zenovia ([2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 139) the English High Court ruled that a time charterer is not bound by a qualified 30 day redelivery notice. Given that redelivery notices are almost always qualified in some way, can an owner ever rely on such a notice?

In a recent case which involved the Association (TS Lines Ltd. V Delphis NV [2009] EWHC 933 Comm). The English High Court ruled that if a ship is proceeding in the same direction as she has been ordered, but is ultimately heading for somewhere else, she cannot be on hire.

Shipping cases rarely make the European Court of Justice and when the FronT Comor struck a jetty in Sicily in August 2000 the idea that several judges would be debating the consequences in Luxembourg some nine years later would have seemed improbable. However the incident has resulted in a ruling that the English Court does not have the power to grant anti-suit injunctions restraining a party from commencing or continuing proceedings in an EU member state where those proceedings are in breach of an arbitration clause.

South Africa has traditionally been a useful venue for ship arrest, largely because of the ability to arrest associated ships. While the popularity of Rule B attachments in the USA resulted in a decline in the number of ship arrests, the recent collapse in the shipping markets has placed South Africa firmly back on the map.

The subject of piracy has dominated the shipping journals in recent months. Although naturally the overriding concern is the well being of a ship’s crew, the threat of piracy can give rise to complex legal issues.