- Home/Publications/Lloyd's Shipping & Trade Law
Asset Wonder Ltd v Stellar Shipping Co LLC (The "Ruby Star") (No 2) [2015] HKCFI 842
Sale pendente lite. The Ruby Star: the facts. This was the plaintiff's application by notice of motion for orders that the plaintiff's judgment dated 2 December 2013 did have first priority against the remaining sum held by the court in respect of proceeds of sale of the vessel Ruby Star,the bunkers thereon and the interest thereon.
Online Published Date:
10 October 2015
Appeared in issue:
Vol 15 No 08 - 01 October 2015
Glencore International AG v MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA and Another [2015] EWHC 1989 (Comm)
Delivery orders: delivery under electronic release system. The dispute between the claimant (Glencore) and the defendant (MSC) arose when two out of three containers containing cobalt briquettes carried by MSC had gone missing. The carrier, MSC, did not issue paper delivery orders or release notes against bills of lading, but "import PIN codes".
Online Published Date:
10 October 2015
Appeared in issue:
Vol 15 No 08 - 01 October 2015
Is positional loss recoverable? Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA v MT Maritime Management BV (The "MTM Hong Kong") [2015] EWHC 2505 (Comm)
Departing from the prima facie rule originally set out in the case of Smith v M'Guire (1858) 3 H & N 544, Males J awarded the shipowner damages for positional loss. It was held that a failure to award such damages would be contrary to the compensatory principle.
Online Published Date:
10 October 2015
Appeared in issue:
Vol 15 No 08 - 01 October 2015
Risk and responsibility in contracts of affreightment. Societe de Distribution de Toutes Merchandises en Cote d'Ivoire, trading as "SDTM-CI" and Others v Continental Lines NV and Another (The "Sea Miror") [2015] EWHC 1747 (Comm)
Introduction. TheSea Miror is a judgment on the extent to which the carrier may contractually exclude liability for damage to cargo during loading and discharge as against charterers and later holders of the bill of lading incorporating the charterparty. The decision of Flaux J highlights some of the difficulties in the meaning of "risk" and "responsibility" in contracts of affreightment.
Online Published Date:
10 October 2015
Appeared in issue:
Vol 15 No 08 - 01 October 2015