Stephenson Harwood: ShippingBulletin, July 2014

1 Авг
01.08.2014

В настоящем сборнике помещены аналитические материалы, в которых рассматриваются последние судебные и арбитражные решения по спорам, возникающим из отношений, складывающихся в морской торговле, а также иных отношений, урегулированных морским правом. Особо актуальными, с нашей точки зрения, являются материалы о столкновении судов и поставке некачественного подсолнечного масла:

– В решении по спору The owners of the vessel “STOLT KESTRAL” v The owners of the vessel “NIYAZI S” [ 2014 ] EWHC 1731 (Admlty) суд разрешил вопросы об императивном, либо дискреционном характере норм, регулирующих продление (восстановление) сроков давности по требованиям in personam, а также по требованиям in rem, в том числе к систершип. Суд принял следующие решения:

1) императивными правила относительно сроков давности являются в соответствии со ст. 190(6) Закона о торговом мореплавании 1995 года при условии, что не было разумной возможности арестовать судно;

2) дискреционные полномочия вытекают из ст. 190(5) этого Закона;

3) если не имеется возможности применить императивные правила по требованиям in rem, то следует применять диспозитивные правила;

4) к требованиям in personam применение таких норм по различным причинам невозможно;

5) по вопросу о требовании к систершип вообще отсутствует необходимость в решении вопроса о дискреционности, поскольку отсутствие возможности ареста судна-правонарушителя или систершип в течении двух лет после правонарушения (столкновения) означает императивность применения таких норм.

– Спор Saipol v Inerco Trade [ 2014 ] EWHC 2211 был рассмотрен и разрешен арбитражем ФОСФА. Апелляция на это решение была удовлетворена и дело возвращено на рассмотрение трибунала, поскольку, возможно, что трибунал неправильно применил английское право – Закон о продаже товаров, то есть вместо ст. 53(2) трибуналом неправильно применена ст. 53(3) и др.

The NIYAZI S collided with the STOLT KESTRAL near the port of Liverpool on 10 October 2010. Claimant owners of the STOLT KESTRAL issued an in rem claim form on 9 October 2012, just prior to expiry of the 2 year time limit.

The NIYAZI S remained out of the jurisdiction and so on 10 December 2013 the claimant applied to add four sister ship defendants to the in rem proceedings. On 11 December 2013 they also issued an in personam claim form.

Following various applications, the Court was asked to determine the following issues:

1 Time for bringing the in rem proceedings: should there be a mandatory or discretionary extension of time?
2 Time for bringing the in personam proceedings – does there need to be and if so, should there be a mandatory or discretionary extension of time?
3 Time for joinder of the sister ships to the in rem proceedings – does there need to be and if so, should there be a mandatory or discretionary extension of time?
Held:

1 A mandatory extension of time is to be granted if the requirements of section 190(6) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 are satisfied: namely where there has not been a reasonable opportunity of arresting the defendant ship.
2 A discretionary extension of time is subject to section 190(5) and a two stage test: whether there is a good reason for the extension, followed by a balancing exercise of the relevant factors including hardship.
3 In respect of the in rem claim, a mandatory extension would be granted as there had been no opportunity to arrest the vessel, not even in the 4 days she was at anchorage immediately after the incident. If that conclusion was wrong, a discretionary extension would be granted. There was good reason not to arrest the vessel immediately after the collision and it was not apparent at the outset that the vessel was unlikely to call within the jurisdiction during the two year period.
4 In respect of the in personam claim, an extension of time was required because the two year time limit applies in the same way as to the in rem claim. However, mandatory extensions are only relevant to in rem claims. The claimant was not entitled to a discretionary extension. The fact that the claimant’s solicitors believed (wrongly) that the claim form issued within the two year limit was a hybrid claim form (including the in rem and in personam claim) was not a good reason for failing to issue the in personam claim form in time.
5 In respect of the joinder of sister ships, an extension of time is required as for the other claims. A mandatory extension of time would be granted because there had been no opportunity to arrest either the wrongdoing ship or the sister ships. It was unnecessary to decide the discretionary issue.

(The owners of the vessel “STOLT KESTRAL” v The owners of the vessel “NIYAZI S” [ 2014 ] EWHC 1731

(Admlty)

Источник: http://update.shlegal.com/rv/ff001935f92d3f9aa6585eb4de48a2668bc56a00/p=8313100?utm_source=Concep%20Send&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShippingBulletin%20July%202014_07/29/2014

A FOSFA tribunal considered a claim by Saipol as FOB buyers for contamination of sunflower seed oil. The sale contract was for 3,000 MT sunflower seed oil, which was shipped as part of a total cargo of 16,600 MT. Saipol were buyers of all the cargo from 5 different sellers. Before shipment all 5 consignments had been commingled. On discharge it was discovered that the entire cargo was contaminated.

The buyers claimed the difference in value between sound and contaminated cargo, and also consequential losses. Their claim against Saipol related to all 16,600 MT on the basis that each seller was in breach of contract, and each seller had contributed to the contamination of the whole; accordingly each seller was liable for the whole of the losses. The tribunal held:

1 There being no special circumstances, the applicable measure of damages was that laid down in Sale of Goods Act, s 53(3). Buyers were entitled only to the difference between goods as warranted and their actual value.
2 Sellers’ liability extended only to the 3,000 MT.

Buyers appealed.

Held:

The appeal was allowed:

1 The tribunal had proceeded on the basis that the only potentially applicable measures were s 53(3) and s 54. The correct starting point was s 53(2). Under 53(2) there can be, depending upon the facts, a claim for consequential losses on the basis that they will arise in the usual course of things.
2 The tribunal had given no proper reasons for rejecting the contention as to joint contribution in breach of contract relating to the contaminated cargo as a whole.

The matter would be remitted to the tribunal to consider, applying the law as it should have been applied.

(Saipol v Inerco Trade [ 2014 ] EWHC 2211)

Источник: http://update.shlegal.com/rv/ff001935f92d3f9aa6585eb4de48a2668bc56a00/p=2958150?utm_source=Concep%20Send&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ShippingBulletin%20July%202014_07/29/2014

 Stephenson Harwood: ShippingBulletin, July 2014