Lloyd's Law Reporter
NAVISION SHIPPING A/S V PRECIOUS PEARLS LTD; CONTI LINES SHIPPING NV V NAVISION SHIPPING A/S (THE MV “MOOKDA NAREE”)
[2021] EWHC 558 (Comm), Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, Mr Justice Andrew Baker, 10 March 2021
Charterparty (time) – Off hire – Vessel arrested for cargo claims between third parties – Allocation of responsibility for arrest and detention under the charterparty
The vessel
Mookda Naree, laden with wheat, had been arrested at Conakry, Guinea at the instance of SMG, a Guinean company, in support of its claim
against a French wheat trading company, Cerealis (C), under a sale contract involving shipment of wheat by
Supertramp, an unrelated vessel. C was also the ultimate sub-charterer of
Mookda Naree. The parties to the present litigation were her head owners Precious Pearls, their time charterer Navision and Navision's
sub-time charterer Conti. Both charters were on the Asbatime form with additional clauses. Additional clause 47, present in
both charterparties, put the ship off hire inter alia upon being detained or arrested by any legal process, until the time
of release, "unless such . . . detention or arrest [was] occasioned by any act, omission or default of the Charterers and/or
sub-Charterers and/or their servants or their Agents". It was common ground that C fell within the clause 47 proviso. Additional
clause 86, appearing in the head charter only, provided inter alia: "When trading to West African ports Charterers to accept
responsibility for cargo claims from third parties in these countries (except those arising from unseaworthiness of vessel)
including putting up security, if necessary, to prevent arrest/detention of the vessel or to release the vessel from arrest
or detention and vessel to remain on hire". An arbitration tribunal held that the arrest did not place the vessel off hire.
Sub-charterers Conti and charterers Navision appealed against their respective disponent owners Navision and Precious Pearls.
The judge characterised the questions as "(a) as above, whether the arbitrators misconstrued clause 47, and (b) whether SMG's
claim against [C] for short delivery of the
Supertramp cargo was a 'cargo claim' within clause 86".