VOYAGE

CHARTERS

LLOYD’S SHIPPING LAW LIBRARY

Series
Series editors:
editors: HattyW.
Andrew Sumption andand
Baker, QC Clare Ambrose
Hatty Sumption
 LLOYD’S SHIPPING LAW LIBRARY
Series Editors: Hatty Sumption and Clare Ambrose

Marine Cargo Insurance Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice

Second Edition Fifth edition
John Dunt Nigel Meeson and John A. Kimbell

The Law of Ship Mortgages The Law of Tug and Tow and Offshore Contracts
Second edition Fourth edition
David Osborne, Graeme Bowtle and Charles Buss Simon Rainey

Berlingieri on Arrest of Ships Volume I: A Commentary Ship Registration: Law and Practice
on the 1952 Arrest Convention Third Edition
Sixth edition Edward Watt, Richard Coles
Francesco Berlingieri
EU Shipping Law
Third Edition
Berlingieri on Arrest of Ships Volume II: A Commentary
Vincent Power
on the 1999 Arrest Convention
Sixth edition
The Law of Shipbuilding Contracts
Francesco Berlingieri
Fifth Edition
Simon Curtis, Ian Gaunt and William Cecil
Merchant Shipping Legislation
Third edition Miller’s Marine War Risks
Aengus R.M. Fogarty Fourth Edition
Oliver Caplin, James Davey and Michael Davey
CMR: Contracts for the International Carriage of
Goods by Road Bills of Lading
Fourth edition Third Edition
Andrew Messent and David A. Glass Richard Aikens, Richard Lord, Michael Bools,
Michael Bolding and Kian Sing Toh
London Maritime Arbitration
Laytime and Demurrage
Fourth edition
Eighth Edition
Clare Ambrose, Karen Maxwell and
John Schofield
Michael Collett
Offshore Construction: Law and Practice
The York-Antwerp Rules: The Principles and Practice Second Edition
of General Average Adjustment Stuart Beadnall and Simon Moore
Fourth edition
N. Geoffrey Hudson and Michael D. Harvey Voyage Charters
Fifth Edition
General Average: Law and Practice Julian Cooke, Timothy Young, Michael Ashcroft,
Third edition Andrew Taylor, John D. Kimball, David W. Martowski,
F. D. Rose LeRoy Lambert, Michael F. Sturley

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/Lloyds-Shipping-Law-Library/book-

series/LSLL
 VOYA GE
CHART E RS
BY

T I MO T H Y Y O U N G JOHN D. KI MBALL
Gray’s Inn, One of Her Majesty’s Counsel Partner in Blank Rome LLP; Adjunct Professor,
New York University Law School

DAVI D W. MARTOW SKI

MI C H A E L A SH C R O F T
Gray’s Inn, One of Her Majesty’s Counsel
JU L I AN C O O K E
Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister
Arbitrator and Mediator; Former President
of the Society of Maritime Arbitrators
and currently serves on its Board
of Governors
L E ROY LAMBERT
New York Arbitrator and Mediator

A N D RE W TAY L O R MI CHAEL F. STURLEY

London Solicitor, Reed Smith Professor Professor, University of Texas at Austin

FIFTH EDITION
 Fifth edition published 2022
by Informa Law from Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Informa Law from Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Informa Law from Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 Julian Cooke, Timothy Young, Michael Ashcroft, Andrew Taylor, John D. Kimball,
David W. Martowski, LeRoy Lambert and Michael F. Sturley
The right of Julian Cooke, Timothy Young, Michael Ashcroft, Andrew Taylor, John D.
Kimball, David W. Martowski, LeRoy Lambert and Michael F. Sturley to be identified as
authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any
form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Lloyds London Press 1993
Fourth edition published by Informa Law from Routledge 2014
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Cooke, J. H. S. (Julian Humphrey Spencer), author.
Title: Voyage charters / Julian Cooke, Tim Young, Michael Ashcroft, Andrew Taylor,
John Kimball, David Martowski, Leroy Lambert, Michael Sturley.
Description: 5th edition. | Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2022. |
Series: Lloyd’s shipping law library | Includes bibliographical references and index. |
Summary—Provided by publisher.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021056852 | ISBN 9780367494889 (hardback) |
ISBN 9780367496586 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003046912 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Charter-parties.
Classification: LCC K1182 .C66 2022 | DDC 343.09/68—dc23/eng/20220531
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021056852

ISBN: 978-0-367-49488-9 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-49658-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-04691-2 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003046912

Typeset in Times New Roman

by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Lloyd’s is the registered trade mark of the Society incorporated by the Lloyd’s Act 1871 by
the name of Lloyd’s.
 Preface

The preface to the 4th Edition (2014) said there had been no earth-shattering changes to the
law of the carriage of goods by sea. It is only seven years since then, but, during those seven
years, almost every area of relevant law has felt the hot breath of the senior courts.
For those reading the English law sections of the book, there is thus hardly a section in
Chapter 1 on the general law that has not been substantially re-worked in the light of important
appellate judgments. The law of the carriage of goods by sea in particular has been given a
fundamental shake by the Supreme Court’s Volcafe judgment and a helpful clarification by
a series of important and far-reaching appellate decisions on the Hague Rules, the estimated
time of arrival, ship classification and even general average. There have been some surprising
decisions by the courts, and only time will tell how well they are received and applied. Some
appeals remain tantalizingly undetermined as at the time of writing (1 December 2021) and,
where there are outstanding appeals, they have been identified. There is perhaps only one area
where the reforming zeal of the Supreme Court has not been usefully felt, namely deviation,
which remains a rather stark example of an older world of legal thinking.
So, the 5th Edition is probably of more timely relevance than the 4th, although given its
coincidence with the work of the BIMCO drafting committee on the new Gencon form, it has
been decided to re-assemble the chapters on the old forms into single comprehensive chapters
with the obvious considerable reduction in the overall number of chapters, but not overall
length. It is hoped that all the cross-referencing has been correctly updated; in case some have
not been, apologies are duly provided, but the new ones should be obvious.
One developing area is misdelivery/delivery against letters of indemnity. This has proved
to be a rich source of problems and litigation over the last few years. Those who bother to
read the names of counsel involved in cases will see that the present editors of the English
law section have been active, sometimes even against one another. This involvement has cer-
tainly spawned considerable thought about the issues that can arise, and it is believed that the
propositions advanced bear the balanced input of both sides of the argument.
Some of the previous bugbears remain, not least the increasing trend for cases to be reported
on-line with neutral citations (EWHC, EWCA, UKSC) but without making it into the older-
fashioned vehicles that are the Law Reports. Considerable effort has gone into identifying and
recording decisions that are so reported, and the reader will see many cases that no longer
bear the familiar “Lloyd’s Rep.” reference. It is hoped that Google and its friends will locate
the cases referred to with reasonable ease.
This book seeks to look beyond the English courts to the courts of Singapore, Australia,
New Zealand, India, Dubai and Hong Kong, and important decisions from those courts have
been embodied into this edition, although regrettably many will probably have been missed.
The editors would gladly receive contributions from all jurisdictions for the purposes of the
6th Edition, on which work will be shortly commenced.

v
 PREFACE

As for U.S. law, there also have been many significant developments. For example:
• The United States Supreme Court resolved a split among the circuit courts concerning
the safe port doctrine in its decision in Frescati v. Citgo (The Athos I), with the effect
that the law in the U.K. and in the U.S. remains aligned.
• The extent to which a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement is entitled to arbitrate
a dispute with a signatory and/or to which a signatory may oblige a non-signatory to
arbitrate a dispute with it arises in more and more contexts. In GE Energy Power
Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC, the Supreme Court held
the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards does not
preclude a court from applying traditional principles such as estoppel to determine
whether a non-signatory may enforce an arbitration clause against a signatory.
• As has been our practice since the first edition of this book, we have included many
citations to awards published by the SMA, which are available on LEXIS and Westlaw,
and added discussions of important awards which have been issues since the last edi-
tion. New York maritime arbitrations continue to be where most maritime contractual
disputes in the U.S. are decided. Published awards now number more than 4,400 and
provide useful guidance to parties and practitioners. A crop of highly regarded ship-
ping professionals has become active in the New York arbitration scene, maintaining
and broadening the expertise of the distinguished group of members in the SMA.
• In particular, and especially in the U.S., disputes have arisen out of trade sanction
laws and regulations, and a section on this topic has been added in Chapter 5. Discus-
sion of some SMA awards addressing and deciding procedural issues regarding con-
solidation, pre-award security, and injunctive and declaratory relief have also been
added.
Very shortly before the submission of the final script of this edition, the U.K. Supreme Court
produced the seminal judgment in The CMA CGM Libra on unseaworthiness, and the Court
of Appeal produced its judgment in The Eternal Bliss. It is hoped that these important deci-
sions have been adequately considered.
The U.S. and U.K. teams are large and have many family members and others to thank for
their forbearance.
The U.S. team offers our sincere thanks to Alexandra Clark and Grace Chamoun Taranto,
associates at Blank Rome, LLP, who assisted in legal research. We also thank Michele Granito,
who once again has rescued our work with her assistance with respect to the manuscript. The
editors would like to thank Guy Loft and Amelia Bashford in particular for their help and
patience in the not-altogether-straightforward production of this edition.
Many parts of this book are intended to serve as a companion to Time Charters, and the
reader will find many cross-references to the forthcoming 9th edition of that book. While Voyage
Charters is a stand-alone book, a number of subjects are more fully developed or addressed
only in Time Charters. Of course, we encourage our readers to keep them side-by-side on their
bookshelves for handy reference.
Our intention has been to state the law as at 1 December 2021, although when the limits of
editing allowed, we have incorporated some references after that date.

Julian Cooke John D. Kimball

Timothy Young Q.C. LeRoy Lambert
Michael Ashcroft Q.C. David Martowski
Andrew Taylor Michael F. Sturley

vi
 Contents

Page
Preface v
Table of U.K., Commonwealth and European Cases xxxix
Table of U.S. Cases cvii
Table of Arbitrations cxviii
Table of Legislation cxl
Table of Conventions and Rules cxliv
Table of Charterparties and Standard Clauses cxlviii

SECTION I: GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND GENCON CHARTER

para.
CHAPTER 1: FORMATION AND TERMS OF THE CHARTER 1.1
Formation of the charter 1.1
Types of charter 1.1
Concluding a binding agreement 1.3
Matters which must be agreed if the contract is not to be unworkable or void for uncertainty 1.5
The parties’ intention to contract 1.12
“Subject to contract” 1.16
“Subject to details” and similar expressions 1.17
“Subject to logical amendments/alterations” 1.20
“Subject to survey” 1.21
“Subject to stem” 1.23
“Subject to satisfactory completion of two trial voyages” 1.24
“Fixed in good faith” 1.25
Other “subjects” 1.26
Law governing the charter 1.27
Governing law chosen by the parties 1.28
1. Express choice of governing law 1.30
“Floating” governing law clauses 1.31
2. Choice of law “clearly demonstrated by the terms of the contract or the circumstances
of the case” 1.33
(a) Use of a standard form known to be governed by a particular system of law 1.34
(b) Course of dealing between the same parties 1.35
(c) Express choice of forum 1.36
(d) Reference to certain provisions of a system of law, without an express general choice
of that law 1.37
Other indications of a choice of law 1.38
Where the parties have made no choice of governing law 1.39
The role of the governing law 1.47
Procedural law – limitation of shipowners’ liability 1.50
Illegality of the contract of affreightment 1.51

vii
 CONTENTS

Mistake 1.64
1. Mistake as to underlying circumstances 1.65
2. Mistake as to the parties, subject matter or other terms 1.67
Parties 1.68
Subject matter 1.69
Terms of the contract 1.70
Rectification 1.73
Misrepresentation 1.79
Rescission for misrepresentation 1.81
Damages for misrepresentation 1.82
Representation – a term of the contract 1.86
Other vitiating factors: duress and bribery 1.87
Duress 1.87
Bribery 1.91
Remedies 1.92
Duress and the conflict of laws 1.93
The terms of the charter 1.94
Express terms 1.94
Interpretation of charterparty terms 1.95
The general principle of interpretation 1.95
Circumstances in which external evidence is admissible as an aid to interpretation 1.96
Other more specific guidelines for interpretation 1.104
Implied terms 1.121
Implied obligations of the owner 1.127
Implied obligations of the charterer 1.128
Classification of terms 1.129
1. Conditions 1.130
2. Warranty 1.132
3. Intermediate term 1.133
Affirmation 1.135
Bringing the charter to an end 1.136
Performance 1.137
Agreement 1.138
Accepted repudiation 1.139
Provision in the charter 1.140
Frustration 1.141
U.S. Law 1A.1
Formation and terms of the contract 1A.1

CHAPTER 2: PARTIES TO THE CHARTER 2.1

1. The basic rule: the identity of the parties depends on construction of the charter as a whole 2.2
Misnomer 2.3
Principal and agent 2.4
Decisions on construction 2.6
2. Real principal can sue and be sued 2.13
When the terms of contract exclude intervention of another person as principal 2.15
When the agent is the real principal 2.18
Election to sue agent or principal 2.21
3. Authority of agents 2.22
Actual authority 2.23
Ostensible authority 2.26
Ratification 2.33
Warranty of authority 2.34
Mortgagees and purchasers 2.36
The effect of the charter on non-parties 2.38
“Piercing the corporate veil” 2.39
1. Liability as a party to the charter 2.39
2. Other cases 2.44

viii
 CONTENTS

U.S. Law 2A.1

Parties 2A.1
Identification of owner or charterer 2A.4
“Piercing corporate veils” 2A.7
Piercing the corporate veil in arbitration 2A.22
Piercing corporate veils in tort cases 2A.24
Parties in interest 2A.26
Consolidation in arbitration 2A.27
Participation of non-signatories in arbitration 2A.33
Consolidated class actions in arbitration 2A.40

CHAPTER 3: DESCRIPTION OF THE SHIP 3.1

Contractual effect of descriptive statements 3.1
Condition, warranty or intermediate term 3.2
When the ship must comply 3.4
Name of the vessel 3.5
Vessel “to be nominated” 3.6
Liberty to substitute 3.7
Chartered tonnage 3.13
Owners’ right of transshipment 3.15
Registered tonnage 3.18
Deadweight and bale capacity 3.19
“About” 3.23
Classification 3.26
Oil major approvals and RightShip status 3.29
Flag and nationality 3.32
Condition of the vessel and her gear 3.34
Speed 3.35
Vessel’s description in shipping register 3.39
“Without guarantee” 3.40
U.S. Law 3A.1
Description of the ship 3A.1
Vessel’s name 3A.5
Gross and net registered tonnage (GRT/NRT) 3A.7
Cargo carrying capacity 3A.8
Vessel’s flag 3A.21
Classification society 3A.23
Length 3A.27
Arrival draft 3A.28
“Air draft” 3A.29
“WLTHC” 3A.30
“Under keel clearance” (“UKC”) 3A.31
Present condition of tanks/holds 3A.32
Shovel clean 3A.33
Whether description of cranes implies they can work simultaneously 3A.34
Suitable for grab discharge 3A.35
“Self-discharging” 3A.39
Sugar charters: non-compliance clauses 3A.41

CHAPTER 4: PROCEEDING TO THE LOADING PORT 4.1

Introduction 4.1
1. The position of the vessel at the date of the charter 4.2
Statements as to the time when the vessel is to sail for the loading port 4.4
2. “Expected ready to load” 4.5
Reasonable grounds 4.8
“About” 4.9
3. The obligation to proceed to the loading port 4.10

ix
 CONTENTS

The effect of an “expected ready to load” date or other charter indicia 4.11
Intermediate engagements 4.14
Condition or intermediate term? 4.15
The effect of excepted perils 4.16
When and where does the approach voyage begin? 4.18
4. Post-fixture notices of expected time of arrival 4.19
Gencon 1994
U.S. Law 4A.1
Present position of vessel and expected readiness to load 4A.1
“Expected ready to load (abt.)” 4A.2
Proceeding to the loading port 4A.12
Economic and trade sanctions 4A.13
The ALKIMOS and U.S. sanctions against Venezuela 4A.14
Owner’s demand for alternative voyage orders 4A.17
The parties’ contentions 4A.18

CHAPTER 5: LOADING AND DISCHARGING PORTS, PLACES AND BERTHS 5.1

“Port or place” 5.1
The identification and nomination of the port, place and berth 5.4
Delegation of nomination 5.6
Nomination under a bill of lading 5.7
The obligation to nominate 5.8
By whom the nomination may be made 5.10
When the nomination must be made 5.13
How the nomination is made 5.15
Order of call at two or more ports 5.18
The irrevocable effect of a valid nomination 5.20
Impossibility 5.23
Existing impossibility at the time of the nomination 5.24
Supervening impossibility 5.27
Safety 5.30
The warranty of safety – express and implied 5.30
1. Named ports or places 5.35
2. Choice from a range of named ports/places 5.36
3. Choice from a number of unnamed ports within a range 5.38
4. Choice of a berth within a port 5.43
Due diligence 5.47
Can the warranty of safety be qualified by the context/circumstances? 5.49
At what time does the charterer’s warranty as to safety operate? 5.50
Re-nomination after supervening unsafety 5.52
Definition of safety 5.58
Types of unsafety 5.59
Physical safety 5.60
“Political” or non-seafaring unsafety 5.65
“Always lie safely afloat” 5.68
“Always accessible” or “always available” or “reachable on arrival” 5.69
The particular vessel 5.71
The duration and ambit of the warranty of safety 5.73
1. “reach” 5.73
Lightening and safety 5.76
2. “use” 5.80
Interruptions in safe conditions for use 5.82
Tug and shifting costs 5.85
3. “return” 5.86
4. Port/berth ceasing to be unsafe prior to the vessel’s arrival 5.88
Temporary obstacles 5.89
Abnormal occurrences 5.94

x
 CONTENTS

Negligence on the part of the master or navigator 5.97

“So near thereto as she may safely get” 5.101
The effect on the implied warranty of safety 5.101
The effect of the term 5.102
Notice 5.107
The effects of the nomination of an unsafe or impossible port or place: the owner’s rights 5.108
The right to consider the order 5.108
The right to reject the order 5.109
Loss of the right to reject and damages 5.112
Damages for delay 5.116
U.S. Law 5A.1
Safe port and berths 5A.1
“Or so near thereto as she may safely get and lie always afloat” 5A.1
Owner may be a third-party beneficiary of the safe port warranty in a sub-charter 5A.11
Waiver and acceptance of named port 5A.12
What conditions make a port or berth unsafe? 5A.21
Avoidability by good navigation and seamanship 5A.34
Apportionment of damages 5A.40

CHAPTER 6: THE CARGO 6.1

Obligations: mutual and prior to loading 6.1
Meaning of a “full and complete” cargo 6.2
Only ordinary cargo spaces to be used 6.3
Ballast 6.4
Stowage and broken stowage 6.5
Preparation of the goods for loading 6.7
“not exceeding what she can reasonably stow and carry” 6.9
Bunkers, water and stores 6.10
Draft restrictions, harbours with bars 6.11
Effect of clauses describing the capacity of the vessel 6.13
Effect of clauses describing the stowage factor of cargo 6.14
Clauses fixing the amount of cargo to be shipped 6.15
Maximum and minimum quantities fixed by the charter 6.16
Options as to quantity to be loaded 6.18
Charterparty for “a cargo” 6.19
Part cargo 6.20
De minimis 6.21
Deck cargo 6.23
When carriage of deck cargo is permissible 6.23
1. Where the contract of carriage provides for carriage on deck 6.24
2. Custom of the trade 6.27
3. Where the ship is specially designed for carriage on deck 6.28
4. Containers 6.29
Rights and responsibilities where goods are carried on deck 6.31
Unauthorised deck carriage 6.31
Authorised deck carriage 6.32
1. Standard of stowage and seaworthiness appropriate to deck cargo 6.33
2. Where goods are carried “at charterer’s risk” or “at shipper’s risk” 6.34
3. Application of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules 6.37
4. General average 6.39
Owner’s right to freight where goods are carried on deck 6.41
The type of cargo 6.42
Cargo described specifically 6.43
Cargo not described specifically – “lawful merchandise” 6.44
Dangerous cargo 6.46
Express prohibition 6.46

xi
 CONTENTS

Implied term relating to dangerous cargo 6.49

The meaning of “dangerous goods” 6.51
The nature of the notice required 6.53
Dangerous goods and inherent vice 6.57
Legal obstacles – risk of non-physical damage 6.58
Is the carrier obliged to carry dangerous goods? 6.60
The effect of a Clause Paramount 6.62
BIMCO cargo clause 6.63
Rights of the owner when cargo loaded in breach of the terms of the charter 6.64
U.S. Law 6A.1
“Full and complete cargo” 6A.1
Cargo to be loaded 6A.3
“Lawful general cargo” 6A.19
Dangerous cargoes 6A.20

CHAPTER 7: CHARTERERS’ OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE CARGO 7.1

Nature of the charterers’ obligation 7.1
The time at which the cargo must be available 7.2
Loading in turn 7.3
Consequences of a breach of the obligation to provide cargo 7.5
Exceptions to the charterers’ obligation to provide cargo 7.6
1. Frustration of the charterparty 7.6
Illegality 7.8
2. Express exceptions clauses 7.9
(a) General principle of interpretation 7.10
(b) Customary place of storage outside the port 7.11
(c) Exceptions clauses extending to the providing of cargo 7.14
(d) Prevention by excepted perils of intended method of providing cargo 7.16
(e) “Cargo or intended cargo” 7.19
Cargo options – selection or election? 7.21
The effect of a true option 7.25
1. Mode of exercise 7.25
2. Failure to exercise the option punctually 7.26
3. Nomination of cargo already affected by delay 7.27
4. Revocation of the exercise of the option 7.28
U.S. Law 7A.1
Charterer’s duty to supply a cargo 7A.1
Waiting at the altar: When is there an anticipatory repudiation of the charter? 7A.2
Charterer’s breach 7A.8
Damages 7A.30
Duty to avoid or minimize damages 7A.32
Contracts of affreightment 7A.34
“Fairly evenly spread” 7A.38

CHAPTER 8: DUNNAGE 8.1

Meaning of dunnage 8.1
“Separations” 8.3
Removal of dunnage at end of voyage 8.4
“Required” and unnecessary dunnage and the Hague Rules 8.5
U.S. Law 8A.1
Dunnage 8A.1

CHAPTER 9: PROCEEDING ON THE CARGO VOYAGE 9.1

Abandonment and transshipment 9.9
U.S. Law 9A.1

xii
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 10: DELIVERY 10.1

What constitutes delivery? 10.2
Delivery under f.i.o. terms 10.6
Where, how and to whom delivery is to be made 10.7
Notification of readiness to deliver 10.9
Delivery of mixed or unidentifiable goods 10.11
1. Undifferentiated goods shipped as one parcel 10.12
2. Where goods become unidentifiable during the voyage as a result of an excepted peril 10.13
3. Where goods are shipped with inadequate or inaccurate marks 10.14
When mixing of goods is due to the fault of the shipowner 10.16
The method of apportioning unidentifiable goods 10.17
Cargo mixed with goods belonging to the shipowner 10.19
Failure of the consignee to take delivery 10.20
Special contractual provisions 10.21
Provisions which entitle the carrier to land and warehouse the goods (usually at the
merchant’s risk and expense) if the consignee does not take delivery 10.22
Provisions which stipulate that delivery to a person who would not, on ordinary principles,
be the agent of the consignee shall be deemed to amount to good delivery 10.27
U.S. Law 10A.1

CHAPTER 11: OWNERS’ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSE 11.1

The incorporation of the Hague Rules 11.3
The layout of the clause 11.5
The first paragraph – liabilities accepted 11.6
“Owners to be responsible . . .” 11.6
“. . . for loss of or damage to goods or for delay in the delivery of goods . . .” 11.7
1. Improper or negligent stowage 11.8
“Unless stowage performed by shippers/Charterers or their stevedores or servants” 11.11
The effect of the third paragraph of the clause 11.14
2. Unseaworthiness caused by personal want of due diligence on the part of the owners or
their manager 11.17
The role of absolute warranty at common law 11.17
Seaworthiness in general 11.18
The ISM code 11.26
Ship-vetting institutions 11.27
Structure and hull 11.28
Machinery 11.29
Hold preparation 11.30
Stowage 11.31
Manning 11.34
Equipment and supplies 11.36
Compliance with legal and documentary requirements 11.40
When must the ship be seaworthy? The doctrine of stages 11.43
The period before the beginning of loading 11.45
The loading stage 11.49
The intermediate stage after the end of loading and before the open sea voyage 11.50
Bunkering and the doctrine of stages 11.51
Personal want of due diligence of the owners or their manager 11.52
The effect of “personal” 11.52
The relevant persons – “the owners or their manager” 11.53
“. . . the owners or their manager . . .” 11.58
The position of the disponent owners 11.59
Personal obligations of owners or their manager 11.60
3. “. . . or by the personal act or default of the owners or their manager” 11.64
The second paragraph – liabilities excluded 11.68
“. . . loss, damage or delay . . .” – financial loss 11.69
To what matters, acts or omissions do the exceptions apply? 11.72

xiii
 CONTENTS

When the exceptions apply 11.74

The relationship of clause 2 with other clauses 11.76
Descriptive clauses and clause 2 11.79
The burden of proof 11.81
Gencon 1994 11.82
U.S. Law 11A.1
General principles 11A.1
The duty to make the vessel seaworthy 11A.3
Clause Paramount 11A.17
COGSA defenses 11A.26
Financial unseaworthiness 11A.27
Improper or negligent stowage 11A.29
Condition and stowage 11A.45
Personal want of due diligence, or act of default of owners or their manager 11A.46
The burden of proof 11A.57
Contribution and indemnity – tender of defense 11A.74

CHAPTER 12: DEVIATION AND DELAY 12.1

Basic obligation of the carrier 12.1
Usual and customary route 12.2
Departure from direct route for navigational reasons 12.4
Bunkering 12.5
Departure from direct route for loading or discharging cargo 12.6
Deviation by delay 12.8
Deviation in case of necessity 12.10
To effect repairs to the ship 12.11
To avoid capture or confiscation 12.12
To save life 12.13
To obtain fill-up cargo 12.14
Deviation must not exceed what is reasonably necessary 12.15
Clauses granting liberty to depart from the direct or usual route 12.16
The Gencon deviation clause 12.17
“To call at any ports in any order” 12.17
“For any purpose” 12.20
“To tow and assist vessels in all situations” 12.21
“To deviate for the purpose of saving life and/or property” 12.22
The BIMCO liberty and deviation clause 12.23
Other liberties to deviate 12.24
Effect of unjustifiable deviation 12.28
1. Rights and liabilities after deviation when contract is rescinded 12.29
(a) Terms of bailment 12.30
(b) Effect of rescission on owner’s accrued rights 12.37
2. Rights and liabilities after deviation where contract is affirmed 12.41
(a) Carrier remains liable for loss caused by deviation 12.42
(b) Exclusion clauses may not apply to a devious voyage 12.44
Deviation on the voyage to the loading port 12.46
U.S. Law 12A.1
Deviation and delay 12A.1
Usual and customary route 12A.6
Departure from direct route for navigational reasons 12A.9
Bunkering 12A.12
Departure from direct route for loading and discharging cargo 12A.19
Inadvertent failure to discharge cargo 12A.30
Deviation by delay 12A.31
Deviation in case of necessity 12A.34
Gencon form 12A.35

xiv
 CONTENTS

Deviation by unseaworthiness 12A.39

Burden of proving casual connection 12A.42
Effect of deviation on limitation of liability 12A.47
Effect of deviation on time bar 12A.52
Deviation by the carriage of cargo on deck 12A.53

CHAPTER 13: FREIGHT 13.1

The meaning of freight 13.1
The quantity of cargo on which freight is payable 13.4
“Freight on intaken quantity” 13.6
“Freight on delivered quantity” 13.9
Other stipulations: conclusive evidence 13.10
The rate of freight 13.13
Overage freight 13.18
Lumpsum freight 13.19
Lumpsum freight where no cargo is shipped or delivered 13.20
Lumpsum freight when cargo is short-shipped or when some cargo is lost 13.21
Freight on transhipment 13.24
Fault of the charterer preventing the earning of freight 13.25
Pro rata freight for delivery short of destination 13.27
The amount of pro rata freight 13.30
Rate of freight where the parties agree to a discharge port outside the agreed range 13.31
The persons from whom freight may be due 13.32
“Freight payable as per charterparty” 13.38
Where freight is payable to a third party 13.45
Deadfreight 13.47
Method of payment 13.48
Currency of account and currency of payment 13.48
Place of payment 13.54
Time of payment 13.55
Payment “in cash” 13.57
Payment by cheque or bill of exchange 13.59
Payment “without discount” 13.61
Deductions from freight – the rule against set-off 13.63
Claims for damages: equitable set-off 13.63
Liquidated claims: legal set-off 13.68
Procedural rules 13.69
Special clauses permitting deduction from freight of cargo claim 13.70
Payment of freight “on delivery” 13.73
“Right and true delivery” 13.79
Freight on delivery of damaged cargo 13.81
Freight payable in advance 13.87
Advances under clause 4 13.92
“Cash for vessel’s ordinary disbursements at port of loading to be advanced by Charterers
if required . . .” 13.92
“Ordinary disbursements at port of loading” 13.93
“If required” 13.94
“At highest current rate of exchange” 13.97
“Subject to two per cent to cover insurance and other expenses” 13.98
“Partial loss of cargo after part of freight advanced” 13.100
Other provisions for the payment of advance freight 13.102
Advance freight payable on loading 13.103
Advance freight payable on sailing 13.104
Advance freight payable on signing bills of lading 13.105
Calculating the amount of advance freight payable 13.108
Provisions which advance the date at which freight is earned 13.111

xv
 CONTENTS

Freight “earned” on shipment and similar provisions 13.112

Freight payable “lost or not lost” 13.114
“Freight prepaid” 13.116
Gencon 1994 13.120
Clause 4(b) 13.121
Clause 4(c) 13.124
Calculation of freight 13.126
U.S. Law 13A.1
“Freight” defined; contrasted with “hire”; usual modifications to the printed clause 13A.1
Amount: lumpsum or per measurement unit 13A.5
Amount based on trading range/ports 13A.14
“Without discount” 13A.16
When earned: “Non-returnable, vessel and/or cargo lost or not lost” 13A.24
Cases in which the owner was entitled to retain prepaid freight 13A.28
Cases in which the owner was not entitled to retain prepaid freight 13A.32
The double recovery problem 13A.39
Recovery of trans- or on- shipment costs 13A.48
Another line of cases: the owner’s decision to abandon the voyage must be “reasonable”
in order to retain prepaid freight 13A.51
Freight pro rata 13A.56
Time freight earned vs. time freight payable 13A.59
Time for payment: “prepaid” freight within so many days “after” signing/releasing bills
of lading 13A.66
Interest on late payment 13A.71

CHAPTER 14: LOADING AND DISCHARGING 14.1

General background 14.1
Customs of the port 14.4
Clause 5 of the Gencon charter 14.8
Gross terms 14.10
Receipt and delivery “alongside” the vessel 14.10
Effects of customs of the port when cargo to be received or delivered “alongside” 14.11
Responsibility for handling goods “alongside” 14.16
Operating the cargo gear 14.19
Large pieces or packages 14.20
Loading by elevator or discharging by spout 14.21
Stowage 14.22
Ensuring proper stowage and trim between discharging ports 14.29
Shipowner’s right to land and reload 14.29
“Seaworthy trim” clauses 14.30
F.I.O.S.T. terms 14.36
Effect of f.i.o.s.t. alternative 14.36
Incorporation of f.i.o.s.t. alternative into bill of lading 14.38
Effects of provisions retaining “supervision” or “responsibility” of captain 14.40
Residual responsibility of owners for bad stowage 14.42
Use of ship’s cargo gear and winchmen 14.46
Opening and closing hatches 14.50
Loading spaces with difficult access 14.51
Responsibility for stevedores under other forms of clause 14.52
Bagging bulk cargo 14.57
Liner terms 14.60
Lighterage 14.61
Exceptions clauses and optional methods of discharge 14.62
Gencon 1994 14.63
Clause 5(a) 14.64
Clause 5(b) 14.65
Clause 5(c) 14.67

xvi
 CONTENTS

U.S. Law
Loading/discharging costs 14A.1
Responsibility for port dues and cargo taxes 14A.3

CHAPTER 15: LAYTIME 15.1

General 15.3
Loading/discharging within the agreed laytime 15.5
Fault of the owner 15.7
Defining the period of laytime 15.10
Charterer’s obligation where no laytime is agreed 15.13
Interruptions and exceptions to laytime 15.14
Interruptions to laytime 15.15
“Weather permitting” 15.16
“Sunday and holidays excepted” 15.18
“Unless used, in which case time actually used to count” 15.20
Laytime exceptions 15.21
Construction of laytime exceptions 15.22
1. Strict construction 15.23
2. Applicability of general exceptions to laytime and demurrage 15.24
3. Failure to have cargo available 15.25
4. The period covered by the exception 15.26
5. Reasonable efforts to overcome the hindrance 15.27
6. Charterer causing the hindrance 15.28
The commencement of laytime 15.29
Notice of readiness 15.29
1. The place 15.34
2. The ability to load or discharge 15.39
Delay by the charterer 15.47
“Acceptance” by charterer of an invalid notice of readiness, or waiver of notice 15.49
“Laytime for loading and discharging shall commence at 1 p.m. if notice of readiness is given
before noon and at 6 a.m. next working day if given during office hours after noon” 15.53
“Next working day” 15.55
Special cases of time counting 15.56
“Time actually used before commencement of laytime shall count” 15.56
“Time lost in waiting for berth to count as loading or discharging time” 15.57
Other periods deemed to be laytime 15.60
Other provisions which place the risk of berthing delays on the charterers 15.61
Shifting 15.66
Shifting from anchorage to berth 15.68
Shifting out of berth 15.70
Gencon 1994 15.75
U.S. Law 15A.1
Introduction: basic concepts 15A.1
Where no time period is fixed for loading and/or discharging, or where it is left to custom 15A.8
Time waiting for a berth under a charter with no fixed laytime 15A.11
Charters in which a period of time is fixed for loading and/or discharging; notice
of readiness 15A.17
Content of notice of readiness 15A.21
Importance of notice of readiness 15A.23
From where may NOR be given? Herein of berth charters and port charters and
“arrived ships” 15A.25
“Whether in berth or not” 15A.35
Meaning of “port” 15A.38
Free pratique and customs clearance 15A.47
Physical readiness 15A.52
To whom must the NOR be given? 15A.64
How NOR is given 15A.68

xvii
 CONTENTS

Tender of NOR prior to laydays 15A.69

When may NOR be given? “Office hours” 15A.70
Time actually used before notice time expires 15A.75
Tender of NOR before first day of canceling period 15A.83
Meaning and effect of “time lost waiting for berth provision” 15A.85
Calculation of laytime 15A.94
“Running days” 15A.95
“Working days” 15A.98
“Sundays and holidays” 15A.101
“Weather permitting” and “weather working day” 15A.104
“Weather working day of 24 hours” 15A.110
“Weather working days of 24 consecutive [or running] hours” 15A.113
“Days” based on an amount of cargo loaded or unloaded per day 15A.114
“Days” based on amount of cargo per workable hatch 15A.119
“Days” based on amount of cargo “per hatch” 15A.124
“Separate” or “total” laytime for loading and discharging 15A.127
Other exceptions to laytime 15A.132
Vis major 15A.134
Fault of owner 15A.141
Specific contractual exceptions; general principles 15A.150
Any cause [whatsoever] beyond the control of charterer 15A.159
Congestion: “obstructions” 15A.165

CHAPTER 16: DEMURRAGE 16.1

General 16.2
Exceptions clauses – “once on demurrage always on demurrage” 16.3
Delays caused by the fault of the shipowner 16.5
Demurrage and mitigation 16.6
Demurrage and damages for detention 16.11
When demurrage falls due 16.16
Who is liable to pay demurrage? 16.18
Time bar clauses 16.21
Gencon 1994 16.22
U.S. Law 16A.1
How and when payable 16A.5
Demurrage contrasted with “damages for detention” or “detention” 16A.8
Standing to claim demurrage 16A.18
“Liner terms” 16A.20
Does the owner have a duty to “mitigate” demurrage? 16A.21
Despatch 16A.22

CHAPTER 17: LIENS 17.1

The nature of a lien 17.1
Lien and cesser clauses 17.2
The scope of the cessation of the charterer’s liability 17.4
The Gencon clause 17.4
Other clauses 17.7
“Supersession” clauses 17.8
The effect of a failure to exercise a lien 17.10
The burden of proof 17.12
The creation of the lien 17.14
Lien for sums due under the charterparty or the bill of lading 17.19
The exercise of the lien 17.23
The demand 17.24
Retaining possession 17.28
The cesser clause and the exercise of the lien 17.29

xviii
 CONTENTS

No lien for sums not payable at the time of discharge 17.31

The cargo over which the lien is exercisable 17.35
The costs of exercising the lien 17.37
What costs are recoverable? 17.37
The cesser clause and the costs of exercising the lien 17.40
The charterer as bill of lading holder 17.44
Gencon 1994 17.48
U.S. Law 17A.1
The maritime lien 17A.1
Executory contracts 17A.4
Shipowner’s lien on the cargo for freight, deadfreight, demurrage, and damages
for detention 17A.8
When the shipowner’s lien can be exercised 17A.17
Deadfreight, despatch, and other items 17A.25
Self-help and owner’s right to refuse to deliver the cargo 17A.26
“Freight prepaid” bills of lading 17A.30
Charterer’s liens 17A.32
When a maritime lien for beach of charter arises 17A.37
Scope of charterer’s lien on the ship 17A.38
Liens for necessaries provided by charterer 17A.41
Priority of charterer’s lien 17A.44
Cesser clause 17A.46
Charterer not relieved from liability accrued prior to loading and issuance of
bills of lading 17A.48
Charterer relieved from liability incurred subsequent to loading and issuance of bills of
lading if and only if the bill of lading adequately incorporates the terms of
the charterparty 17A.49
Charterer not relieved from liability incurred subsequent to loading and issuance of
bills of lading if the bill of lading does not adequately incorporate the terms of
the charterparty 17A.57
If the bill of lading adequately incorporates the charterparty provisions, the consignee/
receiver is secondarily liable for demurrage incurred at the load port 17A.62
The cesser clause does not protect the charterer from liability for breaches of duties
which it itself agreed to perform subsequent to loading 17A.63
“. . . but only to such extent as the owners have been unable to obtain payment thereof
by exercising the lien on the cargo” 17A.65
The effect of contradictory typed clauses 17A.68
Maritime liens for necessaries supplied to a vessel 17A.73

CHAPTER 18: BILLS OF LADING 18.1

Bills of lading in general 18.1
The bill of lading issued under a charterparty 18.2
Further variants 18.3
1. Bill of lading as a receipt 18.7
Bailment 18.8
Representations in the bill of lading 18.9
1. Evidence 18.10
2. Estoppel 18.12
3. Liability in tort 18.14
4. Liability in contract 18.15
Statements as to condition 18.16
The obligations of the master with regard to clausing the bill of lading 18.22
Statements as to quantity, weight, etc. 18.25
Section 4 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 18.30
Conclusive evidence clauses 18.33
Statements as to marks 18.37
Statements as to quality 18.38
Statements as to the date of loading 18.39

xix
 CONTENTS

2. Bill of lading as a contract of carriage 18.45

Charterparty terms and bills of lading 18.47
Incorporation of charterparty terms into bills of lading 18.48
Identification of the charterparty 18.60
Parties to the “bill of lading contract” 18.65
(a) The identity of “the carrier” 18.66
(b) The identity of the cargo interest who is party to the contract 18.78
The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 18.81
The types of documents to which the Act applies 18.81
Transfer of rights against the carrier under the bill of lading 18.83
Transfer of rights to a “lawful holder” of a bill of lading 18.85
What happens to the rights of the original party? 18.88
Concurrent rights 18.90
Undivided bulk cargoes 18.94
Indorsement of a “spent” bill of lading or after lawful delivery or loss of the goods 18.97
The original party’s liabilities and their imposition on other parties 18.98
The liabilities imposed 18.99
The imposition of liabilities on “lawful holders” 18.101
The continuing liabilities of transferors 18.105
Sea waybills and ship’s delivery orders 18.106
Implied contract 18.109
Cases of no implied contract 18.114
Third parties: independent contractors and employees 18.115
Bailment generally 18.118
The liabilities of bailees 18.119
The rights of bailees 18.124
Bailment and sub-bailment 18.125
The “bailment on terms” 18.127
The “sub-bailment on terms” 18.130
Stevedores and owners’ employees 18.136
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 18.138
3. The bill of lading as a document of title 18.142
Classification of bills of lading 18.143
“Straight”, “order” and “bearer” bills of lading 18.143
“Shipped”, “received for shipment” and “through” bills 18.147
“Exhausted”, “spent” or “accomplished” bills 18.149
The effect of a bill of lading being “negotiable” 18.151
Indorsement 18.153
Pledges 18.155
Sales 18.156
Stoppage in transit 18.157
Delivery and misdelivery by the carrier 18.161
Special terms 18.166
Discharge and delivery against a letter of indemnity 18.172
The charterparty bill of lading clause 18.174
“The Captain to sign bills of lading” 18.174
Who may sign 18.175
Charterers’ authority themselves to sign 18.178
The description of the goods in the bill of lading 18.180
Bills of lading to be signed in accordance with mate’s receipts 18.182
“at such rate of freight as presented without prejudice to this Charterparty” 18.184
1. Charterparties which require the bill of lading to be in a specific form 18.185
2. Charterparties which require the captain to sign bills of lading “at such rate of freight as
presented” but contain no express provisions as to the other terms of the bill of lading 18.189
Bills of lading differing from the charter 18.190
Freight terms 18.192
Terms other than freight 18.200

xx
 CONTENTS

3. Charterparties which allow the charterer to present a bill of lading in such terms as
he chooses without express restriction 18.203
Implied restrictions on charterer’s rights 18.204
Statements in the bill of lading 18.206
Further consequences of duty to sign bill of lading “as presented” 18.207
Effect of signing “without prejudice to this charterparty” 18.208
“but should the freight by bills of lading amount to less than the total chartered fright
the difference to be paid to the captain in cash on signing bills of lading” 18.210
Differing terms as to earning of freight 18.212
“Freight prepaid” bills of lading 18.213
Loss of cargo after payment of advance 18.216
The owner’s right of recourse 18.217
1. Basis of the right of recourse 18.218
(a) Damages for breach of the charter 18.218
(b) Damages for breach of a collateral warranty 18.219
(c) Damages in accordance with Article III rule 5 of the Hague Rules 18.220
(d) Express contract to indemnify 18.221
(e) Implied contract to indemnify 18.222
2. Examples of the right of recourse 18.225
(a) Bill of lading terms different from those of charter 18.225
(b) Inaccurate statements in the bill of lading 18.231
(c) “Captain to sign clean bills of lading” 18.236
(d) Where bill of lading not signed 18.239
(e) Departure from the bill of lading contract at charterer’s request 18.240
(f) No indemnity if act manifestly unlawful 18.241
Difference between damages and contractual indemnity 18.244
Causation and remoteness 18.245
Limitation of action 18.246
Gencon 1994 18.247
U.S. Law 18A.1

CHAPTER 19: CANCELLING CLAUSE 19.1

Nature of the rights derived from the cancelling clause 19.1
Cancellation of consecutive voyage charters 19.5
The mode of exercise of the charterer’s option 19.6
Accrual of the right to cancel 19.8
Burden of proof 19.8
Readiness 19.10
1. The role of the notice of readiness in cancelling 19.11
2. Where need the vessel be ready? 19.14
3. How ready need the ship be? 19.16
4. Supervening unreadiness 19.20
5. Time of day 19.21
6. Actions of the charterer 19.23
Premature cancellation 19.27
Charterer’s cancellation 19.28
Owner’s request for cancellation 19.31
“Such option to be ‘declared, if demanded, at least 48 hours before the vessel’s expected
arrival at port of loading’” 19.33
Latest time for the exercise of the right to cancel 19.38
Gencon 1994 19.44
U.S. Law 19A.1
General principles 19A.1
The Gencon 1976 form 19A.12
When can the charterer recover damages? 19A.14

xxi
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 20: GENERAL AVERAGE 20.1

Gencon 1976 20.1
Gencon 1994 20.1
English law 20.1
Which law governs the adjustment of general average? 20.2
The York-Antwerp Rules 20.5
The scheme of the York-Antwerp Rules 20.8
Meaning of a general average act under Rule A 20.10
Extraordinary sacrifice 20.10
Extraordinary expenditure 20.12
Intention 20.16
Reasonableness – the Rule Paramount in the 1994 Rules 20.18
The peril 20.21
Common maritime adventure 20.25
Causation under Rule C 20.26
Pollution and damage to the environment 20.30
Non-separation agreements 20.31
Contributing interests 20.32
Calculating the amount made good and the amount of contribution 20.35
Fault of person claiming contribution 20.39
Fault of other persons 20.45
Enforcing rights of contribution in general average 20.46
General average and exclusion clauses 20.51
General average “forum” clauses 20.52
Limitation of actions 20.53
The Gencon general average clauses 20.56
1. Gencon 1976 charterparty 20.56
“General average to be settled according to York-Antwerp Rules 1974” 20.56
“Proprietors of cargo to pay the cargo’s share in the general expenses even if same have
been necessitated through neglect or default of the Owners’ servants (see clause 2)” 20.58
2. Gencon 1994 charterparty 20.60
General average and the cesser clause 20.63
U.S. Law 20A.1
A common danger 20A.2
A voluntary sacrifice 20A.6
Success 20A.8
York-Antwerp Rules 1974 20A.9
Rule of interpretation 20A.10
Rule A 20A.13
Losses must be a direct consequence of the general average act 20A.15
Time in which to commence action 20A.19
Contributions from cargo interests 20A.20
New Jason clause 20A.22
Separation of interests 20A.27
Non-separation agreements 20A.28
Security 20A.30
“Special charges” 20A.31

CHAPTER 21: REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF THE CHARTER 21.1

Damages in general 21.1
The object of damages in contract and tort 21.1
Wasted expenditure 21.3
The assessment of the claimant’s “expectation” damages and the compensatory principle 21.5
What would have happened but for the breach? 21.6
1. The accepted repudiatory breach 21.7
2. Where innocent party unable or unwilling to perform 21.14

xxii
 CONTENTS

3. The breach which does not determine the contract 21.15

Optional methods of contractual performance and “minimum contractual obligations” 21.19
Remoteness of damage 21.27
Relevant knowledge of the contract breaker 21.31
With what degree of probability must the loss be contemplated? 21.38
Exclusion of liability for remote damages 21.40
Causation and mitigation 21.41
(1) Avoided loss 21.45
Loss increased by mitigation 21.50
Insurance and hedging 21.51
(2) Avoidable loss 21.52
The time at which the duty to mitigate arises 21.54
Diminution in value, reinstatement and betterment 21.57
Contributory negligence 21.61
The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 21.62
The defendant’s fault 21.63
(a) The clear law 21.64
(b) The less-clear law 21.65
The claimant’s fault 21.71
Limitation and contributory negligence 21.74
Costs 21.77
Indemnities in respect of judgments, awards and settlements 21.78
The court judgment 21.79
The arbitration award 21.82
The settlement 21.83
Costs and expenses 21.88
Damages for particular breaches of charter 21.90
A. Breach by charterers 21.90
1. Failure to nominate a loading port or delay in nomination 21.90
2. Failure to provide cargo and delay in providing cargo 21.92
3. Nomination of an unsafe port 21.95
4. Calculation of damages for loss of profit 21.96
5. Calculation of damages for detention of the ship 21.101
6. Physical damage to the ship 21.107
B. Breach by owners 21.110
1. Failure to provide ship for loading 21.110
2. Short loading 21.115
3. Non-delivery or short delivery 21.119
4. Delay in loading 21.121
5. Delay in delivery 21.123
6. Damage to cargo 21.124
7. Persons entitled to due for cargo loss or damage 21.126
8. Sub-charters 21.129
Currency in which damages awarded 21.130
Damages fixed by the charter 21.131
“Indemnity for non-performance of this charter proved damages not exceeding estimated
amount of freight” 21.134
Remedies other than damages 21.138
Injunction 21.140
Specific performance 21.144
Account of profits and negotiating damages 21.145
U.S. Law 21A.1
General principles of damages 21A.1
Burden of proof 21A.5
Recovery of expenses 21A.8
Limitations on recovery of damages 21A.12
Optional methods of performance 21A.12

xxiii
 CONTENTS

Remoteness of damages 21A.13

Avoidance of loss or mitigation 21A.25
Events hindering or preventing performance 21A.36
“Causation”; “Avoidable consequences” 21A.37
Damages for particular breaches of charter 21A.41
A. Breach by charterers 21A.41
1. Failure to provide a cargo 21A.41
2. Deadfreight or charterer’s failure to load a complete cargo 21A.46
3. Physical damage to the vessel 21A.56
4. Detention damages 21A.58
B. Breaches by owner 21A.64
1. Failure to provide ship for loading 21A.64
2. Short loading 21A.65
3. Damage to cargo 21A.66
4. Non-delivery or short delivery of cargo 21A.69
5. Delay in delivery of cargo 21A.73
Anticipatory repudiation of charter 21A.76
Interest 21A.83
Currency in which damages awarded 21A.84
Damages fixed by the charter 21A.87
Punitive damages 21A.92
Remedies other than damages 21A.94
Injunctions 21A.95
Specific performance 21A.98
Declaratory relief 21A.103
Interest fees and costs 21A.104

CHAPTER 22: FRUSTRATION OF THE CHARTER 22.1

Frustration in general 22.1
Self-induced frustration 22.2
1. Events resulting from breach of contract 22.3
2. Events occurring without breach of contract 22.4
Events for which the contract makes provision 22.7
Frustration of the commercial purpose 22.10
Assessing the delay or interruption 22.11
Unforeseen expense 22.14
Fact or law 22.15
Instances of frustration of charterparties 22.16
1. Loss of ship 22.17
2. Damage to ship 22.18
3. Delay to ship 22.19
4. Destruction of or damage to cargo 22.22
5. Delay in obtaining or loading cargo 22.25
6. Contemplated route impossible 22.27
7. Impossibility of loading or discharging cargo at the contractual port 22.30
Frustration of consecutive voyage charters 22.31
Effect of frustration 22.34
Terms of bailment after frustration 22.36
U.S. Law 22A.1

CHAPTER 23: AGENCY 23.1

Appointment of port agents 23.1
Duty and authority of port agents 23.3
Liability of principal for acts of port agent 23.8
Liability of agent to third parties 23.9

xxiv
 CONTENTS

Receipt of freights by agent – owner’s “lien” 23.10

U.S. Law 23A.1

CHAPTER 24: BROKERAGE 24.1

The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 24.3
Arbitration clauses 24.6
Defences 24.7
Charters to which the Act does not apply 24.8
When freight is paid net of commission 24.11
Deduction of commission pursuant to express provision in charter 24.12
No express provision permitting deduction 24.13
Enforcing a claim for commission against the charterer 24.14
The calculation of brokerage commission 24.15
Commission due on freight earned 24.15
Where charter varied or rescinded so as to prevent freight from being earned 24.16
Breach of the charter preventing the earning of freight 24.19
Payment to broker in case of non-execution 24.21
Brokerage clause in charter not reflecting the true brokerage agreement 24.25
Gencon 1994 24.26
U.S. Law 24A.1

CHAPTER 25: GENERAL STRIKE CLAUSE 25.1

General Strike Clause 25.2
Part 1 – Lines 149–151 25.4
Part 2 – Lines 152–162 25.8
In what circumstances do the owner’s options arise? 25.9
The exercise of the owner’s rights under Part 2 25.11
Where the charterer does not agree to reckon the laydays as if there were no strike 25.12
Where the charterer does agree 25.14
Part 3 – Lines 163–177 25.15
In what circumstances does Part 3 apply? 25.16
The charterer’s options 25.17
Gencon 1994 25.23
U.S. Law 25A.1
What constitutes a strike? Herein of “48 hours” 25A.4
After the strike is over, are delays caused by subsequent congestion excepted? 25A.9
The option to cancel at load port 25A.12
The right to half-demurrage at the discharge port 25A.13

CHAPTER 26: WAR RISKS (“VOYWAR 1950”) 26.1

“War risk” 26.2
Blockade or action announced as blockade 26.3
Government, belligerent or organised body 26.9
Sabotage 26.12
Piracy 26.13
Actual or threatened war 26.16
Hostilities and warlike operations 26.19
Civil war, civil commotion or revolution 26.23
The effect of the clause 26.27
The conditions of the rights and liberties 26.29
Risks at the date of the charter 26.34
“The Vessel or her Master and crew or her cargo” 26.36
“At any stage of the adventure” 26.37
“Any directions or recommendations” 26.40
The rights and liberties conferred by the clause 26.44

xxv
 CONTENTS

“Before the Vessel commences loading” 26.45

After loading has begun 26.47
Sub-clause (3) 26.49
Sub-clause (4) 26.57
Sub-clause (5) 26.63
Freight under the sub-clauses 26.64
All extra expenses 26.68
The effect of delay in the exercise of the liberties 26.76
Waiver, election or estoppel 26.77
Damage to or detention of the vessel by war risks 26.78
The relationship of the Voywar clauses with frustration 26.79
Gencon 1994 26.81
Sub-clause (1) 26.82
Sub-clauses (2)–(6) 26.85

CHAPTER 27: GENERAL ICE CLAUSE 27.1

Loading port sub-clause (a) 27.2
“Inaccessible” 27.3
“the Captain for fear of being frozen in is at liberty to leave without cargo” 27.6
“This Charter shall be null and void” 27.8
Sub-clause (b) 27.9
Sub-clause (c) 27.10
Sub-clause (d) 27.13
“This Ice Clause not to apply in the Spring” 27.13
Port of discharge sub-clause (a) 27.15
Sub-clause (b) 27.16
Sub-clause (c) 27.17
Inter-relationship with safe port warranty 27.18
Gencon 1994 27.22
U.S. Law 27.A1

CHAPTER 27A: LAW AND ARBITRATION 27A.1

Gencon 1994 27A.1
U.S. Law 27AA.1

SECTION II: ASBATANKVOY CHARTER

CHAPTER 28: PREAMBLE 28.1

Origin and layout of the charter 28.1
Formation of the charter 28.3
Parties to the charter 28.4
“Chartered owner/owner” 28.5

CHAPTER 29: DESCRIPTION AND POSITION OF VESSEL 29.1

Items of description generally 29.1
Deadweight 29.2
Class 29.3
Loaded draft 29.4
Capacity for cargo 29.5
Coated 29.6
Heating coils 29.7
Present position and expected ready 29.8

xxvi
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 30: THE VOYAGE 30.1

Commencement of laydays 30.1
Cancelling 30.2
Cargo 30.4

CHAPTER 31: FREIGHT, DEMURRAGE, COMMISSION 31.1

Freight 31.1
Laytime 31.2
Demurrage 31.3
Commission 31.4

CHAPTER 32: GENERAL AVERAGE AND ARBITRATION/TOVALOP/

SPECIAL PROVISIONS 32.1
General average 32.1
Arbitration 32.2
Failure to strike out London or New York 32.3
Tovalop 32.4

CHAPTER 33: WARRANTY – VOYAGE – CARGO 33.1

1. Condition of the ship 33.2
Maintenance of class 33.2
Seaworthiness and cargoworthiness 33.4
When does the obligation arise? 33.7
2. Proceeding to the loading port 33.9
“with all convenient dispatch” 33.10
“as ordered to loading port(s) named in accordance with clause 4” 33.12
“or so near thereunto as she may safely get (always afloat)” 33.13
3. The cargo to be loaded 33.14
Quantity of cargo – “a full and complete cargo” 33.14
Type of cargo – “petroleum and/or its products in bulk” 33.15
The loading operation 33.16
4. The cargo voyage 33.17
Commencing the voyage 33.17
“as ordered on signing bills of lading” 33.18
“direct to the discharging port(s)” 33.19
“so near thereunto as she may safely get (always afloat)” 33.20
Delivery of the cargo 33.21
Heating of the cargo 33.22
U.S. Law 33A.1

CHAPTER 34: FREIGHT 34.1

Rate of freight 34.1
Computed on intake quantity 34.2
Payment of freight upon delivery 34.4
“without discount” 34.5
“disbursements or advances” 34.6
No deduction for water or sediment contained in the cargo 34.7
Cargo retention clauses 34.8
In-transit loss clauses 34.11
Charterer to arrange and pay for petroleum inspector 34.12
U.S. Law 34A.1
Freight – general 34A.1
Computed on intake quantity as shown on the certificate of inspection prepared by a
petroleum inspector arranged and paid for by the charterer 34A.2

xxvii
 CONTENTS

Excess cargo 34A.3

The “best evidence” of intake quantity in the absence of a petroleum inspector 34A.4
Payable without discount 34A.5
Freight may not be withheld as security for charterer’s claims 34A.8
Alternative means for charterers to obtain security 34A.9
Demurrage as “extended freight” 34A.10
Partial final awards for withheld freight 34A.11
Upon delivery of cargo at destination 34A.14
Owners’ remedies 34A.16
Cargo retention clauses 34A.17
Worldscale 34A.18

CHAPTER 35: DEADFREIGHT 35.1

Deadfreight in general 35.1
Deadfreight under clause 3 of the Asbatankvoy charter 35.2
“fail to supply” 35.3
“a full cargo” 35.4
“In that event” 35.5
“at the rate specified in Part I” 35.6
“the difference between the intake quantity and the quantity the vessel would have carried
if loaded to her minimum permissible freeboard for the voyage” 35.7
Effect of demurrage or despatch on calculation of deadfreight 35.9
Where no cargo is loaded 35.11
Where freight not earned 35.12
U.S. Law 35A.1
Deadfreight – general 35A.1
Protest of short-loading 35A.2
“full cargo” – deadweight versus cubic capacity 35A.4
Defenses 35A.7
Damages 35A.12

CHAPTER 36: NOMINATION OF LOADING AND DISCHARGING PORTS 36.1

Clause 4(a) – loading port(s) 36.2
Clause 4(b) – discharging port(s) 36.5
Clause 4(c) – change of loading or discharging port 36.6
Any extra expense incurred in connection with any change of port 36.8
U.S. Law 36A.1
Nomination of loading and discharging ports – general clause 4 – general 36A.1
Clause 4(a) – charterer’s obligation to timely nominate loading port(s) 36A.4
Charterer’s option to nominate discharging ports 36A.5
Extra expenses and time lost for charterer’s account 36A.10
Discharge and reloading clauses 36A.11

CHAPTER 37: LAYDAYS – CANCELLING 37.1

Narrowing the laydays 37.6
U.S. Law 37A.1
Commencement of laytime before first layday 37A.1
“Except with the charterer’s sanction” 37A.3
Canceling date 37A.5
Notice of cancellation must be timely, unequivocal, and final
Vessel readiness 37A.12
Charterer has the option to cancel the charter and charterer may also have a right to
damages in the event of an independent breach by the owner 37A.14
Force majeure 37A.20

xxviii
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 38: COMMENCEMENT AND CALCULATION OF LAYTIME 38.1

Time counting before laytime 38.1
Notice of readiness 38.4
Delay in getting into berth 38.7
Laytime – general 38.14
The exceptions 38.15
1. “. . . delay due to the Vessel’s condition or breakdown or inability of the Vessel’s
facilities to load or discharge cargo within the time allowed” 38.16
2. “. . . regulations of the Owner or port authorities [which] prohibit loading or
discharging of the cargo at night” 38.19
3. “Time consumed by the vessel in moving from loading or discharge port anchorage
to her loading or discharge berth, discharging ballast water or slops” 38.22
Demurrage and the clause 6 and 7 exceptions 38.24
U.S. Law 38A.1
Introduction 38A.1
Notice of readiness – commencement of laytime 38A.5
“arrival at customary anchorage” 38A.9
Extenuating circumstances 38A.11
“the Master or his agent shall give the Charterer or his agent notice by letter, telegraph,
wireless or telephone” 38A.12
“that the Vessel is ready to load or discharge cargo” 38A.14
Free pratique and customs clearance 38A.20
Effect of tender prior to laydays stipulated in Part I(B) 38A.21
“. . . laytime . . . shall commence upon the expiration of six (6) hours after receipt of
such notice, or upon the Vessel’s arrival in berth (i.e., finished mooring when at a
sealoading or discharging terminal and all fast when loading or discharging
alongside a wharf ), whichever first occurs” 38A.30
The treatment of clause 6’s six-hour “free period” once the vessel is on demurrage 38A.33
“However, where delay is caused to Vessel getting into berth after giving notice of
readiness for any reason over which Charterer has no control, such delay shall
not count as used laytime” 38A.38
Charterer’s burden of proof 38A.39
Congestion/cargo unavailability 38A.41
Pro-rating time 38A.45
Navigational risks 38A.46
Weather and sea conditions 38A.49
Does clause 6 or clause 8 govern? 38A.50
Clause 6 and clause 9 38A.54
Clause 7: hours for loading and discharging 38A.55
Charterer’s obligation to provide a cargo 38A.57
Proper cargo documentation at loading and discharge ports 38A.58
Charterer’s obligation to issue orders on completion of loading 38A.59
Discharging at night 38A.60
Shifting time 38A.61
Deballasting time 38A.65
Ballasting time 38A.69
Shipside restrictions 38A.70

CHAPTER 39: DEMURRAGE 39.1

Demurrage 39.1
The demurrage exceptions 39.3
The first group – half-rate demurrage 39.4
“Fire” 39.4
“Explosion” 39.5
“Storm” 39.6

xxix
 CONTENTS

“Strike, lockout, stoppage or restraint of labor” 39.7

“Breakdown of machinery or equipment in or about the plant of the Charterer, supplier,
shipper or consignee of the cargo” 39.8
Causation 39.9
The second group – complete demurrage exemption 39.10
“strike, lockout, stoppage or restraint of labor of Master, officers and crew of the vessel
or tugboat or pilots” 39.10
Period of excused delay 39.11
U.S. Law 39A.1
Burden of proof for half demurrage 39A.1
“storm” 39A.4
“strike . . . in or about the plant” 39A.10
“breakdown of machinery or equipment in or about the plant” 39A.14
“delay caused by . . . tugboat” 39A.16
Laches 39A.17
Demurrage time bar clauses 39A.20
Calculation of demurrage rates 39A.22
Interest on unpaid demurrage and late payment of undisputed claims 39A.23
Clauses 6, 7, and 8 39A.25

CHAPTER 40: SAFE BERTHING – SHIFTING 40.1

“Reachable on her arrival” 40.2
Shifting 40.6
U.S. Law 40A.1
Safe berthing – shifting in general 40A.1
Adverse weather and tidal conditions 40A.2
Vessel deficiencies 40A.4
Bridge obstructions 40A.5
Unavailability of tugs 40A.6
Recovery for extra tug assistance 40A.7
“Reachable on her arrival” 40A.9
Shifting from berth to berth 40A.20

CHAPTER 41: PUMPING IN AND OUT 41.1

Pumping in 41.1
Pumping out 41.3
Short-delivery claims 41.5
Flushing of shore lines 41.7
Admixture – “load on top” 41.8
Ship-to-ship transfers 41.9
U.S. Law 41A.1
Slow loading 41A.4
Slow discharging (pumping) 41A.11
Burden of proof/shore conditions permitting 41A.15
Lightering/more than one discharge port/berth 41A.21
The 100 psi requirement 41A.24
Remedies 41A.30

CHAPTER 42: HOSES – MOORING AT SEA TERMINALS 42.1

Hoses 42.1
Mooring at sea terminals 42.2
U.S. Law 42A.1
“Hoses for loading and discharging shall be furnished . . . at the Charterer’s risk
and expense” 42A.1
“Laytime shall continue until the hoses have been disconnected” 42A.2
“the Vessel shall be properly equipped at Owner’s expense for loading or discharging . . .
at a sea terminal” 42A.4

xxx
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 43: DUES – TAXES – WHARFAGE 43.1

Generally 43.1
Taxes on freight 43.2
Charges for the use of any wharf, dock, place or mooring facility arranged by the charterer for the
purpose of loading or discharging cargo 43.3
U.S. Law 43A.1
General 43A.1

CHAPTER 44: EXCLUDED CARGOES – VAPOUR PRESSURE 44.1

“Vapor pressure” 44.1
Flash point 44.3
U.S. Law 44A.1
General 44A.1

CHAPTER 45: ICE 45.1

Sub-clause (a) 45.2
Sub-clause (b) 45.6
U.S. Law 45A.1
General 45A.1

CHAPTER 46: TWO OR MORE PORTS COUNTING AS ONE 46.1

“Freight rate standard of reference” 46.1
Groupings or combinations of ports or terminals 46.2
“For purposes of calculating freight and demurrage only” 46.3
Sub-clause (a) – rate of freight 46.5
Sub-clause (b) – expenses of using more than one berth 46.6
Sub-clauses (c) and (d) – time spent in shifting 46.7
U.S. Law 46A.1
Shifting time 46A.1

CHAPTER 47: GENERAL CARGO 47.1

CHAPTER 48: QUARANTINE AND FUMIGATION 48.1

Quarantine 48.1
“Should the charterer send the vessel” 48.2
Fumigation 48.3
U.S. Law 48A.1

CHAPTER 49: CLEANING 49.1

Cleaning to charterer’s inspector’s satisfaction 49.1
Responsibility of owners for admixture, leakage, contamination and deterioration 49.6
“admixture” 49.7
“leakage” 49.8
“contamination” 49.10
U.S. Law 49A.1
“The Owner shall clean the tanks, pipes and pumps of the Vessel . . .” 49A.1
“to the satisfaction of the Charterer’s Inspector” 49A.9
The consequences of tank rejection 49A.22
Tank cleanliness and the doctrine of “frustration” 49A.26
Consequence of tank acceptance 49A.27
Liability for “admixture,” “leakage, contamination or deterioration”; relationship
between clauses 18 and 20 49A.28
Nitrogen purging of tanks 49A.32

xxxi
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 50: GENERAL EXCEPTIONS CLAUSE 50.1

U.S. Law 50A.1

CHAPTER 51: ISSUANCE OF BILLS OF LADING 51.1

“The Master shall . . . sign Bills of Lading” 51.2
“in the form appearing below” 51.3
“without prejudice to the rights of the Owner and Charterer under the terms of this Charter” 51.4
Unsafe ports, blockaded ports 51.5
U.S. Law 51A.1

CHAPTER 52: TERMS OF BILLS OF LADING 52.1

“The carriage of cargo” 52.2
“such terms shall be incorporated verbatim or be deemed incorporated by the reference in
any such Bill of Lading” 52.3
“carrier” includes owner and chartered owner 52.4
Discharge and delivery against letters of indemnity 52.5
U.S. Law 52A.1

CHAPTER 53: CLAUSE PARAMOUNT AND CARGO CLAIMS 53.1

Clause Paramount and the Hague Rules 53.1
U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 53.2
Incorporation of other Hague Rules legislation 53.3
U.S. Law 53A.1
Standing to make claim 53A.1
Incorporation of the U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”) 53A.2
Notice of claim; commencement of proceedings; timeliness 53A.3
Notice of claim 53A.4
Commencement of proceedings; timeliness 53A.5
Recoupment/set-off 53A.12
Burdens of proof 53A.13
COGSA burdens of proof 53A.14
Claimant’s burden 53A.15
Owner’s burden 53A.20
Inherent vice – trade allowance 53A.25
Courts 53A.28
Arbitration 53A.30
Cargo retention clauses 53A.34
Burdens of proof 53A.36
“. . . pumpable . . .” 53A.37
“. . . as determined by an independent surveyor” 53A.40
Time bar 53A.41
Withholding demurrage as “extended freight” 53A.42
“Any action or lack of action in accordance with this provision shall be without
prejudice to any rights or obligations of the parties” 53A.43
Cargo conversion 53A.44
Arbitral fees and costs, and legal fees 53A.45
Punitive damages 53A.46
RICO treble damages 53A.49

CHAPTER 54: JASON CLAUSE 54.1

General average 54.2
Salvage 54.4
Deposit 54.6
U.S. Law 54A.1

xxxii
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 55: GENERAL AVERAGE 55.1

General average 55.1
“adjusted, stated and settled” 55.2
“York/Antwerp Rules 1950” 55.3
“as to matters not provided for by those rules, according to the laws and usages at the
port of New York or at the port of London, whichever place is specified in Part I” 55.4
“General Average statement” 55.5
“an Adjuster appointed by the Owner and approved by the Charterer” 55.6
“General Average Agreements and/or security” 55.7
Cash deposits 55.8
U.S. Law 55A.1

CHAPTER 56: COLLISION CLAUSE 56.1

U.S. Law 56A.1

CHAPTER 57: LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 57.1

Any statute or rule of law for the time being in force” 57.1
U.S. Law 57A.1

CHAPTER 58: WAR RISKS 58.1

CHAPTER 59: DEVIATION 59.1

Deviation in general 59.1
Reconciling the deviation clause and clause 1 59.2
“to call at any ports in any order” 59.3
“to go to the assistance of vessels in distress” 59.4
“to deviate for the purpose of saving life or property” 59.5
“to call for fuel at any port or ports in or out of the regular course of voyage” 59.6
Salvage 59.7

CHAPTER 60: LIEN 60.1

U.S. Law 60A.1

CHAPTER 61: AGENTS 61.1

U.S. Law 61A.1

CHAPTER 62: BREACH 62.1

Damages generally 62.1
“all provable damages” 62.2
“costs of suit and attorney fees” 62.3
U.S. Law 62A.1

CHAPTER 63: ARBITRATION 63.1

“all differences and disputes of whatsoever nature arising out of this Charter” 63.1
“the City of New York or in the City of London, whichever place is specified in Part I” 63.3
Appointment of arbitrators 63.4
The right to submit further disputes 63.5
Costs and attorneys’ fees 63.6
Entering judgment upon the award 63.7
U.S. Law 63A.1

xxxiii
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 64: SUBLET 64.1

Generally 64.1
Assigning the charter 64.3
U.S. Law 64A.1

CHAPTER 65: OIL POLLUTION 65.1

Limitation of liability 65.4
U.S. Law 65A.1
Clause 39A 65A.8
Tanker vetting 65A.14
Tanker terminal vetting 65A.20

SECTION III: THE HAGUE AND HAGUE-VISBY RULES

CHAPTER 66: THE HAGUE AND HAGUE-VISBY RULES 66.1

The role of the Rules in relation to charterparties 66.1
The Paramount Clause 66.1
The approach to the interpretation of the Hague Rules 66.9
When the Rules are incorporated into a charterparty 66.10
The relevance of the Rules to charterparties 66.19
The specific statutory role of the Hague-Visby Rules 66.23
The application of the Rules by the “force of law” and by contract 66.24
Exclusive jurisdiction clauses 66.25
The compulsory application of the Hague-Visby Rules with the “force of law” 66.31
International carriage 66.34
Shipment in the United Kingdom and non-international carriage 66.37
Compulsory application of the Rules by virtue of a contractual term 66.38
Transshipment 66.49
The Hague Rules 66.55
Article I. Definitions 66.57
(a) “Carrier” includes the owner or the charterer who enters into a contract of
carriage with the shipper 66.59
(b) “Contract of carriage” applies only to contracts covered by a bill of lading or
any similar document of title, in so far as such document relates to the carriage
of goods by sea, including any bill of lading or any similar document as aforesaid
issued under or pursuant to a charterparty from the moment at which such bill of
lading or similar document of title regulates the relations between the carrier and a
holder of the same 66.64
(c) “Goods” includes goods, wares, merchandises and articles of every kind whatsoever,
except live animals and cargo which by the contract of carriage is stated as being
carried on deck and is so carried 66.70
(d) “Ship” means any vessel used in the carriage of goods by sea 66.77
(e) “Carriage of goods” covers the period from the time when the goods are loaded
on to the time when they are discharged from the ship 66.79
Article II. Risks 66.83
Contractual allocation of functions and the scope of Article II 66.85
Article III. Responsibilities and liabilities 66.92
The overriding effect of Article III rule 1 66.94
Seaworthiness, etc. 66.95
“Due diligence” 66.98
The duty is not delegable 66.99
“Before and at the beginning of the voyage” 66.101
Want of due diligence before the ship comes into the carrier’s “orbit” 66.103
Where a charterer is the “carrier” 66.105
The termination of the obligation 66.106
Multiple loadings 66.108

xxxiv
 CONTENTS

The burden of proof in relation to claims arising from unseaworthiness 66.109

Article III rule 2 66.110
Discharge and delivery 66.115
“Properly and carefully” 66.117
The burden of proof in relation to claims not arising from unseaworthiness 66.121
Paper losses 66.130
Loading and discharging in containerized carriage 66.131
Article III rule 3 66.132
“Marks” 66.137
“Quantity” 66.139
“Apparent order and condition” 66.142
Article III rule 4 66.146
The amendment in the Hague-Visby Rules 66.153
Article III rule 5 66.157
Article III rule 6 66.165
The time bar in the third paragraph 66.171
“the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability” 66.171
“. . . in respect of loss or damage . . .” 66.176
“Unless suit is brought” 66.183
The commencement of arbitrations 66.195
“Within one year of their delivery or of the date when they should have been delivered” 66.198
The effect of Article III rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules 66.203
Deviation 66.206
Article III rule 6bis 66.208
Article III rule 7 66.215
The effect of the Hague-Visby Rules 66.221
Article III rule 8 66.222
“A contract of carriage” 66.224
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 66.225
“Any clause, covenant or agreement” 66.226
The extent of the nullifying effect of the rule 66.240
1. Only parts of the term offend Article III rule 8 66.243
2. Periods and activities beyond those covered by the Rules 66.245
3. Matters on which the Rules are silent 66.248
“Liability for loss or damage to or in connection with goods” 66.249
“A benefit of insurance” 66.250
Article IV Rights and Immunities 66.252
Article IV rule 2 66.259
General principles 66.261
“(a) Act, neglect or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or the servants of the carrier
in the navigation or in the management of the ship” 66.264
The relevant persons 66.265
Navigation of the ship 66.268
Management of the ship 66.275
“(b) Fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier” 66.281
“(c) Perils, dangers and accidents of the sea or other navigable waters” 66.285
“(d) Act of God” 66.298
“(e) Act of war” 66.301
“( f) Act of public enemies” 66.305
“(g) Arrest or restraint of princes, rulers or people, or seizure under legal process” 66.307
“(h) Quarantine restrictions” 66.317
“(i) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, his agent or representative” 66.318
“( j) Strikes, lock-outs or stoppage or restraint of labour from whatever cause, whether
partial or general” 66.323
“(k) Riots and civil commotions” 66.329
“(l) Saving or attempting to save life or property at sea” 66.332
“(m) Wastage in bulk or weight or other loss or damage arising from inherent defect,
quality or vice of the goods” 66.333

xxxv
 CONTENTS

“(n) Insufficiency of packing” 66.337

“(o) Insufficiency or inadequacy of marks” 66.342
“(p) Latent defects not discoverable by due diligence” 66.345
“(q) Any other cause arising without the actual fault or privity of the carrier, or without
the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier . . .” 66.348
Article IV rule 3 66.351
The shipper 66.352
The liability excluded 66.354
Article IV rule 4 66.357
“Reasonable deviation” 66.358
The effect on other contract terms 66.361
The effect of reasonable deviation 66.363
The effect of an unreasonable deviation 66.364
Article IV rule 5 66.365
Tonnage limitation 66.367
“In any event” 66.368
Limitation by reference to “£100 per package or unit” 66.369
The meaning of “package or unit” 66.372
Package 66.372
Unit 66.378
The exclusion of the carrier’s liability 66.380
The version of the rule in the Hague-Visby Rules 66.381
The calculation of damages 66.385
“The total amount recoverable” 66.385
“The value of the goods” 66.388
Lost and damaged goods 66.389
Late delivery 66.390
The relevant “price” 66.391
Commodity exchange price 66.392
Current market price 66.393
Normal value 66.395
Subsidy loss 66.396
The time of “discharge” as the date for the ascertainment of value 66.399
Currency of loss and recovery 66.400
The limitation of the carrier’s liability 66.401
“In any event” and the nature of the carrier’s breach 66.401
The higher of 666.67 units of account per package or unit or 2 units of account per
kilogramme of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged 66.402
“Package or unit” in the Hague-Visby Rules and containerisation 66.407
Hybrid cases 66.411
The conversion into the appropriate national currency 66.412
Exceeding the limit 66.415
Declaration of nature and value 66.416
Agreement for higher figure 66.419
Intentional or reckless act or omission of the carrier done with knowledge 66.421
The identification of “the carrier” whose misconduct is relevant 66.422
The mental element 66.424
Damage and loss 66.426
The exclusion of the carrier’s liability 66.427
Article IV rule 6 66.430
The relationship of the common law and the Hague Rules code 66.431
“Goods of an inflammable, explosive or dangerous nature” 66.433
Knowledge of the nature and character of the goods and consent to their shipment 66.435
Consent 66.436
Knowledge of the nature and character of the goods 66.438
The separation of knowledge from consent 66.442
The shipper’s “fault” 66.443

xxxvi
 CONTENTS

The carrier’s rights 66.444

Immunity 66.445
Cause of action 66.446
“directly or indirectly” 66.448
The exercise of the right of landing, destroying or rendering the goods innocuous 66.450
General average 66.454
The effect of a breach of duty by the carrier 66.456
Where there is a breach of Article III rule 1 66.457
Where there is a breach of Article III rule 2 66.459
Immunity as against the shipper 66.460
Apportionment 66.462
Article IVbis of the Hague-Visby Rules 66.464
The position of the carrier 66.466
“in respect of loss of or damage to goods covered by a contract of carriage” 66.467
The position of the carrier’s servants and agents 66.470
The limit on recovery against the carrier, his servants and agents 66.475
Article V 66.479
Article VI 66.486
Bill of lading or non-negotiable receipt 66.489
Factors justifying a special agreement 66.491
Article VII 66.497
Article VIII 66.500
Article IX of the Hague Rules 66.503
Article IX of the Hague-Visby Rules 66.507
Article X of the Hague-Visby Rules 66.513
U.S. Law 66A.1
The U.S. COGSA enacting clause 66A.3
U.S. COGSA § 1(a) – the “carrier” definition 66A.6
Multiple carriers 66A.6
Himalaya clauses 66A.9
U.S. COGSA § 1(c) – the “goods” definition 66A.13
U.S. COGSA § 3(2) and the burden of proof in relation to claims not arising from
unseaworthiness 66A.14
U.S. COGSA § 3(3)(c) – the carrier’s obligation to show “apparent order and condition” 66A.16
U.S. COGSA § 3(4) – the prima facie evidence of a bill of lading 66A.18
U.S. COGSA § 3(6) and the notice-of-loss provision 66A.20
U.S. COGSA § 3(6) and the one-year time-for-suit provision 66A.22
Arbitration 66A.23
Deviation 66A.24
U.S. COGSA § 3(7) – converting “received for shipment” bills of lading 66A.25
U.S. COGSA § 4(2)(a) – the nautical fault exception 66A.26
U.S. COGSA § 4(2)(c) – the “perils of the sea” exception 66A.28
U.S. COGSA § 4(2)(j) – the labor unrest exception 66A.30
U.S. COGSA § 4(2)(q) – the “catch all” exception 66A.31
U.S. COGSA § 4(4) – deviation 66A.32
U.S. COGSA § 4(5) – the package limitation 66A.34
The limitation amount 66A.35
The customary freight unit 66A.36
Breaking limitation 66A.42
Deviation 66A.24
The fair opportunity doctrine 66A.44
False bills of lading 66A.47
Actual damages 66A.50
Knowing and fraudulent misstatements 66A.51
The Hague-Visby Rules 66A.52
U.S. COGSA § 4(6) – dangerous goods 66A.56
U.S. COGSA § 7 – freedom of contract before loading and after discharge 66A.59

xxxvii
 CONTENTS

U.S. COGSA § 8 – global limitation of liability 66A.60

Title II of the U.S. COGSA 66A.61

SECTION IV: APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1. U.K. STATUTES A1.1
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 A1.1
The Carriage of Goods by Sea (Parties to Convention) (Amendment) Order 2000 A1.2
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 A1.3
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 Sections 185, 186, Schedule 7 A1.4
Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1995 A1.5
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 A1.6
APPENDIX 2. U.S. STATUTES A2.1
The Harter Act 1893 (as recodified in 2006) A2.1
The United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936 A2.2
APPENDIX 3. CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT 1924 A3.1
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924 A3.1
APPENDIX 4. NON-STATUTORY RULES A4.1
York-Antwerp Rules 2016 A4.1
Laytime Definitions for Charter Parties 2013 A4.2
APPENDIX 5. FORMS A5.1
Amwelsh Form 1993 A5.1
Baltimore Form 1976 A5.2
Gencon Form 1976 A5.3
Gencon Form 1994 A5.4
Norgrain Form 1989 A5.5
Sugar Charter-Party 1999 A5.6
Asbatankvoy Charterparty A5.7
Congenbill 2007 Bill of Lading A5.8
The Int Group Letter of Indemnity (LoI) A5.9

Index 1401

xxxviii
 Table of U.K., Commonwealth and European Cases

214 Die Elbinger AG v. Armstrong (1874) L.R. 9 Q.B. 473 .......................................................................................21.80

21st Century Logistic Solutions v. Madison [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 92 .........................................................................1.55
4 Eng v. Harper [2009] Ch. 91 .....................................................................................................................................21.43
569 (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 242 .........................................................................................................................................66.273
A. Meredith Jones & Co. v. Vangemar Shipping Co. (The Apostolis)
[1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 475; [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 241 ...................................11.24, 66.256, 66.281, 66.282, 66.284
A.B. Marintrans v. Comet Shipping (The Shinjitsu Maru) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 568;
[1985] 1 W.L.R. 1270 ...........................................................................................................................................14.40
A.B.D. (Metals & Waste) v. Anglo-Chemical Ore [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 456 ...........................................................21.12
A.E. Potts v. Union Steamship [1946] N.Z.L.R. 276 .................................................................................................66.337
A.E. Potts v. Union Steamship [1946] N.Z.L.R. 276 ....................................................................................66.337, 66.348
A.I.C.C.O. v. Forggensee Navigation (The Polar) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 478...............................................14.24, 66.118
A.P.J. Priti, The (Atkins International v. Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines) [1987]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 ...................................................................................................................................................5.66
A.U.X. v. G.M. Solders, The Times, 7 July 1982 ......................................................................................................18.122
A/B Karlshamns Oljefabriker v. Monarch SS. Co. Ltd (1948/9) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 137 ..................................................11.41
AB Corp. v. CD Corp. (The Sine Nomine) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 805 ....................................................................21.146
AB Marintrans v. Comet Shipping (The Shinjitsu Maru) [1985] 1 W.L.R. 1270. 192 At p. 197 ................................21.67
AET Inc. v. Arcadia Eagle Petroleum Ltd. (The Eagle Valencia)
[2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 257 (C.A.) .............................................................................................................15.45, 16.21
AG Securities Limited v. Vaughan [1990] 1 A.C. 417 ...................................................................................................2.43
AGF Steel v. Mill Shipping (2016) F.C. 461 and (2017) L.M.C.L.Q ............................................................................66.1
AIB Group v. Mark Redler & Co [2015] A.C. 1503; (2018) ICLQ 73 .....................................................................21.145
AIC Ltd v. ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd (The Kriti Palm) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 555 .............................................1.80
AIC Ltd v. Marine Pilot Ltd (The Archimidis) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 597;
[2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101 ......................................................................................5.31, 5.70, 5.79, 5.89, 6.11, 21.93,
21.95, 21.110, 21.115, 35.3, 50.4
AICCO v. Forggensee The Polar [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 478 ......................................................................................14.38
AIG Europe v. Anonymous Greek Co. of General Insurance (The Ethniki) [2000] 2 All E.R. 566..........................66.190
AJU Remicon Co. Ltd v. Alida Shipping Co. Ltd [2007] All E.R.(D) 214 ...................................................................2.28
AMB Generali v. SEB Trygg [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 318 .......................................................................................2.3, 2.34
AP Moller-Maersk v. Sonaec Villas Cen Sad Fadoul [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ...........................................................18.81
AP Moller-Maersk AS v. Kyokyuo Ltd (The Maersk Tangier) [2018] EWCA Civ 778;
[2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 580; [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 59 .................................18.45, 66.35, 66.37, 66.38, 66.41, 66.50,
66.59, 66.65, 66.66, 66.237, 66.376, 66.377, 66.378, 66.402, 66.408
AP Moller-Maersk (t/a Maersk Line) v. Sonaec Villas Cen Sud Fadoul
[2010] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 1189, [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ...........................................................18.82, 18.83, 18.157
A/S Awilco v. Fulvia S.p.A. di Navigazione (The Chikuma) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 371 ...........................................13.58
A/S Brovigtank v. Transcredit (The Gunda Brovig) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 39; aff’g
[1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 43 ........................................................................................................................................43.2
A/S Dux v. Arcos (1935) 52 Ll. L. Rep. 250 ............................................................................................................... 27.5
A/S Gunnstein v. Jensen (The Alfa Nord) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 434 ........................................................................13.67
A/S Hansen Tangens Rederi v. Total (The Sagona) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 194........................................................18.240
A/S Iverans Red. v. K.G.M.S. Holstencruiser [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 378 ................................................................66.230
A/S Ocean v. Harding [1928] 2 K.B. 371, 393 ............................................................................................................18.64
A/S Rendal v. Arcos (1937) 58 Ll. L. Rep. 287 (H.L.) ................................................................................................16.21
A/S Siboti v. BP France (The Siboti) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 364..............................................................................66.190
A/S Skagerak v. Saremine (1939) 64 Ll. L. Rep. 153 .....................................................................................................8.3
A/S Tank v. Agence Maritime L. Strauss (1939) 64 Ll. L. Rep. 19 ......................................................5.8, 5.13, 5.17, 5.22

xxxix
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

A/S Westfal-Larsen v. Russo-Norwegian Transport (The Hosanger) (1931) 40 Ll. L. Rep. 259 ................................15.18
ASM Shipping Ltd of India v. TTMI (The Amer Energy) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 293 ...............................................21.30
AXA Sun Life Services plc v. Campbell Martin Ltd [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ............................................1.79, 1.80, 3.40
A Turtle Offshore S.A. v. Superior Trading Inc. (The A Turtle) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 177 ............................ 11.37, 11.72
A v. B [2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 281 ....................................................................................................................................1.3
Aaby’s (E.B.) Rederi v. LEP Transport (1948) 81 Ll. L. Rep. 465................................................................................22.1
Aaby’s Rederi v. Union of India (The Evje) (No. 2) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 714;
[1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 351 (C.A.) ...............................................................................................................11.37, 63.1
Abbey Forwarding v. Hone [2014] 3 W.L.R. 1676 ......................................................................................................21.38
ABN Amro Bank v. Royal and Sun Alliance MS. [2022] 1 W.L.R. 1773 .......................................................................2.3
Abqaiq, The (National Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia v. BP Oil Supply Co.)
[2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1, [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 18 .............................................................................................16.21
Abrahams v. Herbert Reiach Ltd [1922] 1 K.B. 477 ...............................................................................21.5, 21.21, 21.22
Abt Rashtra, The [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 575 ...............................................................................................................20.31
Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co. v. Product Star Shipping (The Product Star) (No. 2)
[1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 397 (C.A.) .............................................................................................................26.34, 26.35
Acatos v. Burns (1878) 3 Ex. D. 282 ................................................................................................6.49, 6.57, 9.14, 26.30
Accinanto v. Ludwig Mowinckels (The Ocean Liberty) [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 38
(U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Cir.). .......................................................................................................................66.445
Accomac, The (1890) 15 P.D. 208 ................................................................................................................66.270, 66.273
Ace Imports v. Lloyd Brasileiro (The Esmeralda I) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 206 (Aust. Ct.) .......................................18.26
Achilleas, The [2009] 1 A.C. 61 [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 275 ....................................................................................21A.23
Achille Lauro v. Total [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 65; [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 247....................................................12.2, 13.16
Achilleas, The. See Transfield Shipping v. Mercator Shipping— ...............................................................................21.30
Aconcagua Bay, The [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 381 ...........................................................................................................38.8
Aconcagua, The. See Compania. Sud Americana de Vapores v. Sinochem Tianjin
Import & Export Corp.—
Acre 1127 Ltd (formerly Castle Galleries) v. De Montfort Fine Art Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ. 87 ................................21.14
Action v. Britannic Shipping [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 119 (C.A.); [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 481 .......................................17.3
Actis v. Sanko (The Aquacharm) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 7 (C.A.) .....................................................................9.13, 11.23
Adam Opel GmbH v. Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd [2007] EWHC 3205 (Q.B.) .........................................................1.90
Adamastos [1959] A.C. 133 .........................................................................................................................................66.42
Adamastos Shipping Co. Ltd v. Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co. Ltd (The Saxon Star)
[1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 271(C.A.); [1959] A.C. 133 ..................................1.116, 4.16, 20.59, 33.2, 52.2, 66.8, 66.10,
66.12, 66.13, 66.17, 66.18, 66.177, 66.253, 66.260, 66.353, 66.483
Adams v. Cape Industries [1990] Ch. 433 (C.A.) .................................................................................................2.40, 2.42
Adams v. Hall (1877) 37 L.T. 70 ...................................................................................................................................2.18
Addax v. Arcadia Petroleum [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 493 .......................................................................21.33, 21.51, 21.56
Adelfa, The [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 466 ...................................................................................................16.15, 22.6, 22.30
Adelfamar S.A. v. Silos E Mangimi Martini SpA (The Adelfa) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 466 .......................................14.37
Aditya Vaibhav, The [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 63 ................................................................................................66.96, 66.98
Adler v. Dickson (The Himalaya) [1955] 1 Q.B. 158 (C.A.) ..........................................................18.137, 66.224, 66.471
Adolf Leonhardt, The (R. Pagnan & Fratelli v. Finagrain) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 395 ..............................................15.63
Adyard Abu Dhabi v. SD Marine Services [2011] EWHC 848 (Comm) ....................................................................1.119
Aectra Refining & Manufacturing v. Exmar [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 191;
[1994] 1 W.L.R. 1634 ..............................................................................................................................13.63, 66.414
Aegean Dolphin, The (Dolphin Hellas v. Itemslot) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 178 ............................................................3.38
Aegean Sea, The. See Aegean Sea Traders Corp. v. Repsol Petroleo—
Aegean Sea Traders Corp. v. Repsol Petroleo (The Aegean Sea) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 39;
[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68 ...................................................................................................5.7, 5.33, 5.38, 5.40, 18.85,
18.102, 18.103, 18.222, 57.3, 66.353
Aegis Progress, The. See Cargill v. Marpro—
Aegnoussiotis, The [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 208 ...........................................................................................................17.14
Aello [1961] A.C. 135...............................................................................................................................................15A.41
Aello, The. See Sociedad Financiera de Bienes Raices v. Agrimpex—
Aeneas, The..................................................................................................................................................................18.18
Aeolian, The. See ISS Machinery Services v. Aeolian Shipping—
AerCap Partners 1 Ltd v. Avia Asset Management AB (2010) 806 L.M.N. 1,
[2010] EWHC 2431 (Comm) ........................................................................................................21.12, 21.43, 21.56
Aerospace Publishing v. Thames Water Utilities [2006] All E.R. (D) 39 ....................................................................21.58
Afovos, The [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 469 ......................................................................................................................13.57
Afovos, The [1983] Lloyd’s Rep. 335 .........................................................................................................................19.22
Afrapearl, The (Portolana Cia. Nav. v. Vitol S.A.) [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 305 ................................................15.28, 38.16
Agamemnon, The (T.A. Shipping v. Comet Shipping) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 675 .........................................15.31, 15.41

xl
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Aghia Marina, The [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 62 .......................................................................................................63.4, 63.5

Agios Georgis, The [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 192 ...........................................................................................................17.14
Agios Lazarus, The (Nea Agrex S.A. v. Baltic Shipping Co. Ltd.) [1976] Q.B. 933 ................................................66.196
Agios Stylianos Compania Naviera v. Maritime Associates International Ltd. (The Agios Stylianos)
[1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 426 .........................................................................................................................15.40, 15.59
Agios Stylianos, The. See Agios Stylianos Compania Naviera v. Maritime Associates
International Ltd.—
Agip v. Navigazione Alta Italia [1953] Lloyd’s Rep. 353; aff’g [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 333 ........................................1.76
Agrimpex v. Soc. Financiera de Bienes Raices (The Aello) [1961] A.C. 135 .............................................................16.15
Agro v. Parnassos [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 290 .............................................................................................................14.51
Agrosin Pte. v. Highway Shipping (The Mata K) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 614 .................................................18.26, 18.31
Agrosin v. Highway Shipping (The Mata K) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 614 ....................................................66.139, 66.151
Ailsa Craig Shipping Co. v. Malvern Fishing Co. [1983] 1 W.L.R. 964 ...................................................................66.428
Ailsa Craig, The. See Mansel Oil Ltd v. Troon Storage Tankers S.A—
Aiolos, The (Central Insurance v. Seacalf Shipping) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 25 ......................................................66.184
Air Studios (Lyndhurst) Ltd v. Lombard North Central (T/A Air Entertainment Group
[2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 63 ..........................................................................................................................................1.5
Aitken Lilburn v. Ernsthausen [1894] 1 Q.B. 773 .......................................................................................................21.94
Akt. Adalands v. Whitaker (1913) 18 Com. Cas. 229 ................................................................................................66.326
Akt. Danske Sukkerfabrikker v. Bajamar Compania Naviera (The Torenia)
[1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 210 ..................................................................................................................................66.262
Akt. Helios v. Ekman [1897] 2 Q.B. 83 .......................................................................................................................14.18
Akt. Reidar v. Arcos [1927] 1 K.B. 352 (C.A.), [1926] 2 K.B. 83 .................................................. 16.14, 16.14A, 16.14C
Aktiebolaget Nordiska Lloyd v. J. Brownlie & Co. (The Gevalia) (1925) 30 Com. Cas. 307 ....................................19.11
Akties. Steam v. Arcos (1933) 47 Ll. L. Rep. 225 ........................................................................................................ 27.5
Aktieselskabet de Danske Sukkerfabrikker v. Bajamar Compania Naviera S.A. (The Torenia)
[1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 210 ................................................................................ 11.81, 18.118, 66.109, 66.127, 66.128
Aktieselskabet Olivebank v. Danske Svovlsyre Fabrik (The Springbank) [1919] 1 K.B. 338,
[1919] 2 K.B. 162 ......................................................................................................................5.14, 5.24, 5.37, 13.25
Al Jaber v. Al Ibrahim [2019] 1 W.L.R. 885 ................................................................................................................1.122
Al Nehayan v. Kent [2018] EWHC 333 (Comm) .................................................................................................1.87–1.90
Al Taha, The (Lyric Shipping Inc. v. Intermetals Ltd.) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 117...................................................66.359
Alanca Nevegacao e Logistica v. Ameropa SA (The Santa Isabella) [2019] L.M.C.L.Q. 184;
[2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 603 ................................................................................ 6.57, 11.18, 11.33, 12.1, 12.2, 66.111,
66.117, 66.123, 66.126, 66.253, 66.269, 66.317
Alaskan Trader (No. 2), The [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 645 .............................................................................................21.55
Alastor, The [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 581 ......................................................................................................................11.61
Albacora S.R.L. v. Westcott & Laurence Line Ltd [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 53 .................................................... 11.9, 11.20
Albacora Srl v. Westcott & Laurence Line (The Maltasian) [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 53 ...............................66.117, 66.336
Albazero, The [1974] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 38, 44; [1977] A.C. 774 ...........................................................18.78, 18.87, 21.127
Albemarle Supply Co. Ltd. v. Hind & Co. [1928] 1 K.B. 307 .........................................................................17.24, 17.25
Albion Sugar v. William Tankers (The John S. Darbyshire) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 457 .....................................1.23, 1.24
Aldebaran Compania Maritima v. Aussenhandel A.G. (The Darrah) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 359;
[1977] A.C. 157 ..............................................................................................................................15.57, 15.58, 15.77
Alecos M, The (Sealace Shipping v. Oceanvoice) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 120 ...........................................................21.57
Alev, The (Vantage Navigation v. Suhail and Saud Bahwan Building Materials)
[1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 ......................................................................................................................................1.90
Alexander (William) v. Akt. Hansa [1920] A.C. 88 ............................................................................1.63, 15.7, 15.8, 41.4
Alexander v. Rayson [1936] 1 K.B. 169 ........................................................................................................................1.63
Alexandros P, The [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 421 ..................................................................................................14.36, 14.40
Alfa Nord, The (A/S Gunnstein v. Jensen) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 434 .......................................................................13.67
Alfred C. Toepfer Schiffahrtsgesellschaft GmbH v. Tossa Marine Co. Ltd (The Derby)
[1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325; [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 635 .................................................... 11.34, 11.40, 11.65, 21.113
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v. Panatown [1991] 1 A.C. 518 .............................................................................21.1
Alghussein Establishment v. Eton College [1988] 1 W.L.R. 587 .....................................................................1.119, 13.25
Algrete Shipping Co. v. International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund
[2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 327 ......................................................................................................................................66.9
Alhambra, The (1881) 6 P.D. 68 .............................................................................................................................5.3, 5.76
Ali v. Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago [2017] U.K.P.C. 2 ...........................................................1.121–1.123
Aliakmon, The (Leigh and Sillavan v. Aliakmon Shipping) [1986] A.C. 785;
[1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 203 ............................................................................................... 18.91, 18.92, 18.114, 18.115
Alianca Navegacao E Logistica Ltda v. Ameropa SA (The Santa Isabella)
[2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 603 ...............................................................................................................................9.4, 16.5
Alimport v. Soubert Shipping Co. [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 447 ....................................................................................18.42

xli
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Aliza Glacial, The (Handelsbanken Svenska v. Dandridge) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 421..............................66.307, 66.316
Alize 1954 and CMA CGM v. Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG (The CMA CGM Libra)
[2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 565; [2021] U.K.S.C. 51 ............................................ 11.18, 11.23, 11.28, 11.37, 11.63, 66.9,
66.56, 66.95, 66.99, 66.100, 66.269, 66.270
Allan v. Leo Lines [1957] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 127 ..............................................................................................................24.1
Allen v. Coltart (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 782 .......................................................................................................................18.112
Allianz Versicherungs v. Furtuna [1999] 1 W.L.R. 2117 ...........................................................................................66.196
Allied Maples Group v. Simmons & Simmons [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1602 ..............................................................21.6, 21.43
Allison v. Bristol Marine Insurance Co (The Merchant Prince),
(1875) 1 App. Cas. 209 ....................................................................................................13.87, 13.88, 13.100, 13.107
Allscan Services v. Dougland Support Service [2003] All E.R. (D) 199 (Jan) ...........................................................1.102
Alma Shipping Corp. v. Union of India [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 494......................................................20.52, 20.53, 20.60
Almak, The (Rudolf A. Oetker v. I.F.A.) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 557 ...........................................................18.183, 18.235
Almare Seconda, The (Blackgold Trading v. Almare S.p.A.) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 433 ............................................4.15
Alpha Marine Corp v. Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co Ltd (The Smart)
[2021] EWHC 157 (Comm) ......................................................................................................................1.124, 13.43
Alpha Trading v. Dunshaw Patten [1981] 1 Q.B. 290 (C.A.) ......................................................................................24.19
Alpha, The [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 515 ........................................................................................................................20.18
Alquife Mines v. Miller (1919) 1 Ll. L. Rep. 321 .........................................................................................................3.13
Altus, The (Total Transport Corp. v. Amoco Trading Co.) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 423 ............................................ 16.14A
Altus, The [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 423 ................................................................................................................35.8–35.10
Ama Ulgen, The (Galaxy Energy International v. Bayoil) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 512 (C.A.) ..................................66.476
Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. v. Texas Commerce International Bank
[1982] Q.B. 84 ...........................................................................................................................1.12, 1.73, 1.98, 1.103
Amazona, The, and the Yayamaria. See Government of Sierra Leone v. Marmaro Shipping Co—
Ambatielos v. Grace Brothers (1922) 13 Ll. L. Rep. 227 (H.L.) ............................................................................1.2, 19.5
Amer Energy, The (ASM Shipping Ltd of India v. TTMI) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 293 ..............................................21.30
American Express Co. v. British Airways Board [1983] 1 W.L.R. 701 and [1999] L.M.C.L.Q. 393 .......................18.118
American Hoesch v. Aubade [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 423 ............................................................................................10.24
American Motorists Ins. v. Cellstar [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 216 ....................................................................................1.38
American Overseas Marine Corp. v. Golar Commodities Ltd (The LNG Gemini)
[2014] EWHC 1347 (Comm); [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 113 ............................................................................6.52, 6.58
American Trading and Production Corp. v. Shell International Marine (The Washington Trader)
[1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 463 (U.S. District Court) ...................................................................................................22.8
Americas Bulk Transport v. Cosco Bulk Carriers Ltd (The Grand Fortune)
[2020] EWHC 147 (Comm) ..............................................................................................................................1.3, 2.2
Amin Rasheed Shipping v. Kuwait Insurance [1984] A.C. 50 ......................................................................................1.34
Amis Swain v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (1919) 1 Ll. L. Rep. 51 ...................................................................18.43
Amoco Oil Co. v. Parpada Shipping (The George S.) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 369 (C.A.);
rev’g [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 69 .................................................................................................................41.6, 66.130
Amphion, The [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101 .................................................................................................................66.436
Amphion, The. See General Feeds v. Burnham Shipping—
Amstelmolen, The (N.V. Reederij Amsterdam v. President of India) [1960] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 82;
[1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ........................................................................................................................................15.26
Amstelslot, The (Union of India v. N.V. Reederij Amsterdam)
[1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223 (H.L.) ................................................................................................................11.9, 66.98
Anangel Atlas v. Ishikawajima-Harima [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 167 ..............................................................................1.91
Anastassia (Owners) v. Ugle-Export Charkow (1934) 49 Ll. L. Rep. 1 ....................................................................... 27.5
Anders Maersk, The [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 483 (H.K. High Ct.) .........................................................66.49, 66.50, 66.51
Anderson v. Crundall (1898) 14 T.L.R. 256 ................................................................................................................14.53
Anderson v. Ocean SS. Co. (1884) 10 App. Cas. 107 (H.L.) ......................................................................................20.20
Anderson’s (Pacific) v. Karlander New Guinea Line [1989] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 870 .........................................................66.61
Anderton v. Clwyd CC (Cummins v. Shell International Manning Services)
[2002] 1 W.L.R. 3174 .........................................................................................................................................66.187
Andra, The. See DGM Commodities Corporation v. Sea Metropolitan S.A.—
Andreas Lemos, The. See Athens Maritime Enterprises Corp. v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks
Association (Bermuda) Ltd—
Andreas Vergottis v. Robinson, David & Co. Ltd. (1928) 31 Ll. L. Rep. 23....................................................17.18, 18.53
Andrew v. Moorhouse (1814) 5 Taunt. 435 .................................................................................................................13.90
Andrews v. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group [2012] HCA 12,
[2013] L.M.C.L.Q. 233 ......................................................................................................................................21.132
Andros, The (China Ocean Shipping Co. v. Owners of M.V. Andros)
[1987] 1 W.L.R. 1213 (P.C.) ..................................................................................................................66.210, 66.211

xlii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Angelia, The (Trade and Transport v. Iino Kaiun Kaisha) [1973] 1 W.L.R. 210;
[1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 154 .........................................................................................................................21.22, 22.26
Angelos Lusis, The [1964]. See Sociedad Carga Oceanica v. Idolinoele Vertriebs (G.m.b.H.)—
Angelos Lusis, The [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 338 ...........................................................................................................1.109
Angfartygs A/B Halfdan v. Price & Pierce (1939) 64 Ll. L. Rep. 290; (1939) 45 Com. Cas. 23 ........................6.8, 21.93
Anglia Television v. Reed [1972] 1 Q.B. 60 ..................................................................................................................21.3
Angliss (W.) & Co. (Australia) Pty. v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
[1927] 2 K.B. 456 .....................................................................................................................66.102, 66.104, 66.347
Anglo-African Co. v. Lamzed (1866) L.R. 1 C.P. 266 ....................................................................................................6.5
Anglo-African Shipping v. Mortner [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 ...................................................................................21.55
Anglo-Argentine Livestock v. Temperley [(The Edenbridge) 1899] 2 Q.B. 403 .............................................20.27, 20.29
Anglo-Danubian Transport Co. v. Ministry of Food (1949) 83 Ll. L. Rep. 137 ...............................5.5, 5.20, 5.21, 36A.8
Anglo-Grecian v. Beynon (1926) 24 Ll. L. Rep. 122 ..............................................................................20.1, 20.27, 20.28
Anglo-Irish Beef Processors v. Federated Stevedores Geelong [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 207 .....................................66.193
Anglo-Northern Trading v. Emlyn Jones & Williams [1918] 1 K.B. 372 .....................................................................22.9
Anglo-Overseas Transport v. Titan Industrial [1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 152.....................................................................23.9
Anglo-Petroleum v. TFB (Mortgagees) [2007] EWCA Civ 456 ...................................................................................1.57
Anglo-Polish Lines v. Vickers (1924) 19 Ll. L. Rep. 121 ...........................................................................................17.37
Anna Ch., The (Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Royal Bank of Scotland)
[1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 266 ......................................................................................................................................15.8
Anne Holme, The [1893] P. 173 ...................................................................................................................66.325, 66.328
Annefield, The [1971] P. 168 .......................................................................................................................................18.51
Anonima Petroli Italiana v. Marlucidez Armadora S.A. (The Filiatra Legacy)
[1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 337 (C.A.); rev’g [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 354.....................................................................41.6
Ansett (Operations) Pty v. Australian Association of Air Pilots [1991] 2 V.R. 636.....................................................21.27
Antaios Compania Naviera v. Salen Rederierna [1985] A.C. 191 ...............................................................................1.107
Antares, The (Nos. 1 and 2) (Kenya Railways v. Antares Co. Pte.)
[1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 424 (C.A) ...........................................................................6.31, 66.24, 66.71, 66.175, 66.207
Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and Others v. McTrans Cargo (S) Pte Ltd [2012] S.G.H.C. 1;
[2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 117 (High Court of Singapore).................................................................18.8, 18.118, 18.165
Antclizo Shipping Corp. v. Food Corporation of India (The Antclizo) (No. 2)
[1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 558 .................................................................................................15.31, 15.43, 15.45, 66.212
Antclizo, The. See Antclizo Shipping Corp. v. Food Corporation of India—
Ante Topic, The. See Compania Naviera Termar v. Tradax Export S.A.—
Anthony Hordern & Sons v. Commonwealth and Dominion Line [1917] 2 K.B. 420 .............................................66.236
Anticosti Shipping v. Viateur St. Amand [1959] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 352 (Canada) .......................................................66.374
Antigoni, The [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 209 ..................................................................................................................66.109
Antiparos ENE v. SK Shipping Co. Ltd (The Antiparos) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 237 ...................................................5.55
Anton Durbek GmbH v. Den Norske Bank ASA [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 93 .................................................................2.36
Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp. v. Stepanovs [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 647 ..................................................................2.41
Antwerp United Diamonds v. Air Europe [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 224 ...............................66.387, 66.416, 66.419, 66.427
Antwerpen, The [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 213 (Aust. Ct.) .................................................................18.170, 66.131, 66.205,
66.368, 66.423, 66.401
Anwar Al Sabar, The (Gulf Steel v. Al Khalifa Shipping) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 261..................................13. 47, 18.201
Anzen v. Hermes One [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349 .......................................................................................................1.107
Apex Energy International Pte. v. Wanxiang Resources (Singapore) Pte
[2020] S.G.H.C. 138 .......................................................................................................................21.33, 21.51, 21.53
Apollo, The (Sidermar S.p.A. v. Apollo Navigation) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 200 ............................................5.67, 66.204
Apollonius, The (Cosmos Bulk Transport v. China National Foreign Trade Transportation)
[1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 53 ....................................................................................................3.4, 3.26, 3.27, 3.36, 11.80
Apostolis, The (No. 2). See A. Meredith Jones & Co. v. Vangemar Shipping—
Apostolis, The. See A. Meredith Jones & Co. v. Vangemar Shipping—
Appleby v. Myers (1867) L.R. 2 C.P. 651....................................................................................................................13.27
Aprile SpA v. Elin Maritime (The Elin) [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 111;
(2000) L.M.C.L.Q. 295 ............................................................................ 6.23, 6.34, 6.37, 11.10, 11.17, 11.31, 66.75
Aqasia, The [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 530 ............................................................................................................66.9, 66.377
Aquacharm, The (Actis v. Sanko) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 7 (C.A.) ......................................................................9.4, 66.95
Aqualon (UK) v. Vallana Shipping Corp. [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 669 .........................................................................66.60
Aquator Shipping v. Kleimar IV (The Capricorn 1) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 379 .........................................................21.82
Aragon, The [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 343 ......................................................................................................................1.105
Aramis, The [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 213 (C.A.) ............................................................................... 18.111, 18.112, 18.114
Arawa, The [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 135 (C.A.); rev’g
[1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 416 ......................................................................................10.23, 10.26, 66.56, 66.80, 66.326

xliii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Arcadis Consulting (UK) Ltd v. AMEC (BCS) Ltd [2019] B.L.R. 27 ............................................................................1.3
Archbolds (Freightage) v. Spanglett [1961] 1 Q.B. 374 ................................................................................................1.56
Archimidis, The. See AIC Ltd v. Marine Pilot Ltd—
Arcos v. Ronaasen [1933] A.C. 470 ...............................................................................................................................6.22
Arctic Shipping Co. Ltd v. Mobilia A.B. and Others (The Tatra) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 51 ........................................2.31
Arctic Trader, The (Trade Star Line v. Mitsui) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449 (C.A.) ...........................................18.23, 18.89
Ard Shipping AS v. Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd (The Zaliv Baikal) [2017] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 38 ..................................16.15
Ardan SS. Co. v. Weir [1905] A.C. 501 (H.L.) .........................................................................................6.1, 7.1, 7.4, 7.10
Ardennes, The (1950) 84 Ll. L. Rep. 340; [1951] 1 K.B. 55................................1.94, 13.33, 13.44, 18.45, 18.46, 21.123
Argentino, The Cf. (1889) 14 App. Cas. 519 ........................................................................21.99, 21.102, 21.122, 21.129
Argo Systems FZE v. Liberty Insurance (Pte) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 61 ....................................................................1.135
Argobeam, The (Carras v. President of India) [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 282 ..................................................................14.33
Argobec, The. See Argonaut Navigation Co. v. Ministry of Food—
Argonaut Navigation Co. v. Ministry of Food (The Argobec) (1948) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 223;
[1949] 1 K.B. 572 .........................................................................................................14.22, 14.33, 15.6, 15.7, 15.42
Argonaut, The [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 216 ........................................................................................................14.40, 14.45
Arianna, The (Athenian Tankers Management S.A. v. Pyrena Shipping Inc.)
[1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 376 ......................................................................................................................................3.34
Aries Tanker Corp. v. Total Transport (The Aries) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 334 (H.L.) ;
[1977] 1 W.L.R. 185 (H.L.) .............................................................................................13.66–13.68, 66.172, 66.188
Aries, The. See Aries Tanker Corp. v. Total Transport—
Ark Shipping v. Silverburn Shipping (The Arctic) [2019] EWCA Civ 1161 .......................................................1.129, 4.3
Armada Lines v. Naviera Maropan S.A. (The Elexalde) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 485..................................................25.16
Armagas v. Mundogas (The Ocean Frost) [1986] A.C. 717 .................................................................................1.79, 2.27
Armar, The [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 450 ..........................................................................................................................1.31
Armement Adolf Deppe v. John Robinson & Co. [1917] 2 K.B. 204, esp. at p. 208 ..................................................15.41
Armour & Co. v. Leopold Walford (London) [1921] 3 K.B. 473 ..............................................................6.25, 6.33, 66.72
Armstrong v. Strain [1952] 1 K.B. 232 ......................................................................................................................66.429
Arne, The [1904] P. 154 ....................................................................................................................................10.20, 16.10
Arnold v. Britton [2015] A.C. 1619 .....................................................................................1.95, 1.97, 1.105, 1.107, 1.108
Aron (J.) & Co. Inc. v. Comptoir Wegimont [1921] 3 K.B. 435 ......................................................................18.10, 18.39
Arpad, The [1934] P. 189 .................................................................................................................21.119, 21.124, 66.393
Arrospe v. Barr (1881) 8 R. 602 ................................................................................................................................18.197
Arta, The [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 534 .............................................................................................................................1.79
Asfar & Co. v. Blundell [1896] 1 Q.B. 123 (C.A.) ...................................................................13.83, 13.85, 13.86, 66.200
Ashville v. Elmer [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 73 ..................................................................................................................63.1
Asia Star, The (Singapore Court of Appeal) 17 October 2007 (728 L.M.L.N. 2) .........................................................29.6
Asia Star, The [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 121 (Singapore Court of Appeal) .............................................21.47, 21.50, 21.52,
21.110, 21.111, 21.115
Aspen Underwriting Ltd v. Credit Europe Bank NV [2019] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 221;
[2018] U.K.S.C. 229 ...............................................................................................................................................2.13
Assetco PLC v. Grant Thornton [2019] EWHC 150 (Comm) .....................................................................................21.43
Assicurazione Generali v. The SS. Bessie Morris Co. [1892] 2 Q.B. 652; aff’g
[1892] 1 Q.B. 571 ........................................................................................................................................9.10, 22.18
Associated Bulk Carriers v. Shell International Petroleum (The Nordic Navigator)
[1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 182 ......................................................................................................................................49.5
Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v. Credit du Nord [1989] 1 W.L.R. 255................................................1.64
Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. M/V Arktis Sky
(1992) 978 F.2d 47 (2nd Cir.) .....................................................................................................66.86, 66.114, 66.322
Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers v. Houlder (1917) 22 Com. Cas. 279 ........................................................4.6
Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers v. Teigland (The Oakworth) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 581 .....................21.140
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223 ........................................26.30
Assunzione, The [1954] P. 150 ......................................................................................................................................1.34
Astor Management AG v. Atalaya Mining [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 476; upheld
[2018] EWCA Civ 2407 ..................................................................................................................................1.5, 1.10
Astra Trust v. Adams [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 ............................................................................................................1.21
AstraZeneca v. Albemale [2011] EWHC 1574 (Comm) ...............................................................................................1.10
Asty Maritime v. Rocco Guiseppe & Figli (The Astyanax) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 (C.A.);
rev’g [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 459 ...................................................................................................................2.17, 2.23
Astyanax, The. See Asty Maritime v. Rocco Guiseppe & Figli—
Athamas (Owners) v. Dig Vijay Cement Co. Ltd (The Athamas)
[1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 287 ...................................................................................................5.104, 5.106, 5.107, 26.60
Athanasia Comninos, The and the Georges Chr. Lemos [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 277 .................................6.49–6.51, 6.55,
6.57, 6.60, 66.355, 66.431, 66.438–66.440, 66.446

xliv
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Athel Line v. Liverpool & London War Risks Association [1944] K.B. 87 ................................................................20.15
Athelvictor, The [1946] P. 42 .....................................................................................................................................66.273
Athena (No. 2), The (Sea Trade Maritime Corp. v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association
(Bermuda) Ltd) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 280..........................................................................................................18.50
Athenian Harmony, The (Derby Resources A.G. v. Blue Corinth Marine Co.)
[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 410 ..................................................................................................................................21.113
Athenian Harmony, The [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 410..................................................................................................66.120
Athenian Tankers Management S.A. v. Pyrena Shipping Inc. (The Arianna)
[1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 ...........................................................................................................................11.29, 19.19
Athens Maritime Enterprises Corp. v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd
(The Andreas Lemos) [1983] Q.B. 647 ................................................................................................................26.13
Athinoula, The. See Bravo Maritime (Chartering) Est. v. Baroom—
Atisa S.A. v. Aztec A.G. [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 579 .......................................................................................................7.7
Atisa v. Aztec [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 579 ...........................................................................................................22.1, 22.24
Atkins International H.A. v. Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (The A.P.J. Priti)
[1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 ....................................................................................................5.33, 5.36, 5.45, 5.46, 5.74
Atlantic Baron, The (Northern Ocean Shipping v. Hyundai Construction) [1979] Q.B. 705........................................1.92
Atlantic Duchess, The (Atlantic Oil Carriers v. British Petroleum Co.)
[1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 55 ....................................................................................................................6.43, 6.60, 33.15
Atlantic Insurance v. Huth (1880) 16 Ch.D. 474 ...........................................................................................................9.14
Atlantic Lines v. Hallam (The Lucy) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 188 ..................................................................................1.84
Atlantic Maritime v. Gibbon [1954] 1 Q.B. 88 ............................................................................................................22.11
Atlantic Monarch, The 1975 AMC 1991 .......................................................................................................................38.6
Atlantic Mutual v. King [1919] 1 K.B. 307 .................................................................................................................26.10
Atlantic Oil Carriers v. British Petroleum Co. (The Atlantic Duchess)
[1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 54 ..................................................................................................................6.54, 6.55, 66.431
Atlantic Sunbeam, The. See Sunbeam Shipping Co. v. President of India—
Atlas Express v. Kafco [1989] Q.B. 833 ...............................................................................................................1.88, 1.90
Atlas Navios-Navegacao Lda v. Navigators Insurance) (The B Atlantic)
[2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1, [2018] U.K.S.C. 26 ....................................................................................................66.307
Atlas Shipping v. Suisse Atlantique [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 188 .........................................................................24.9, 24.14
Atlas, The (Noble Resources v. Cavalier Shipping) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 642 ..................18.26, 18.142, 66.139, 66.151
Atlas, The [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 642..................................................................................................13.10, 18.82, 66.409
Atrice, The (Vinmar International Ltd. v. Theresa Navigation, S.A.)
[2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (Q.B. (Com. Ct.)) .................................................21.41, 21.50, 21.52, 21.70, 21.73, 21.124
Attica Sea Carriers v. Ferrostaal Poseidon (The Puerto Buitrago) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 250 ...................................21.55
Attorney General v. Liverpool and London War Risk Insurance Association [1921] 2 A.C. 141 ...............................26.21
Attorney-General of Belize v. Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1988..............................................1.121–1.123, 5.33
Attorney-General of Ceylon v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. (The jadaveera)
[1962] A.C. 60 (P.C.) ..........................................................................................................................................66.139
Attorney-General of Hong Kong v. Humphreys Estate (Queen’s Gardens) Ltd [1987] A.C. 114.................................1.16
Attorney-General of the Republic of Ghana v.Texaco Overseas Tankships (The Texaco Melbourne)
[1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 303; [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 471 (C.A.); [1994]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473 (H.L.) ............................................................................. 21.116, 21.119, 21.130, 66.386, 66.389,
66.391, 66.392, 66.394, 66.400, 66.413
Attorney-General of the Virgin Islands v. Global Water Associates Ltd [2020] A.C. 23;
[2020] U.K.P.C. 18; [2020] 3 W.L.R. 584; [2021] L.M.C.L.Q. 46 ..........................21.27, 21.28, 21.30, 21.31, 21.39
Attorney-General v. Blake [2001] 1 A.C. 268 ..................................................................................................6.41, 21.145
Attorney-General v. Liverpool and London War Risk Insurance Association [1921] 2 A.C. 141...............................26.21
Attorney-General v. Smith (1918) 34 T.L.R. 566 ..........................................................................................................12.8
Atwood v. Sellar (1880) 5 Q.B.D. 286 ..........................................................................................................................20.9
Austin Friars SS. Co. v. Spillers & Bakers [1915] 1 K.B. 833, [1915] 3 K.B. 586 ............................................20.1, 20.27
Austin Friars, The (1894) 10 T.L.R. 633......................................................................................................................15.45
Australasian United S.N. Co. v. Hiskens (1914) 18 C.L.R. 646, (1914) 18 C.L.R. 646
(High Court of Australia)......................................................................................10.20, 10.22–10.24, 18.171, 66.200
Australasian United Steam Navigation Co. v. Hunt [1921] 2 A.C. 351 ....................................................................66.228
Australian Coastal Shipping v. Green [1971] 1 Q.B. 456 (C.A.) ..........................................................20.14, 20.20, 20.28
Australian General Electric v. Australian United S.N. [1946] S.A.S.R. 278 .............................................................66.338
Australian Oil Refining Pty. v. R.W. Miller & Co. Pty. [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 448 ....................................................66.13
Austroships v. Armada Lines (unreported, C.A., 29 March 1990) ..............................................................................66.21
Automatic Tube Co. v. Adelaide SS. (The Beltana) [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 531
(Sp. Ct. of Western Australia) .......................................................................................................10.20, 10.24, 66.200
Avery v. Bowden (1856) 6 E. & B. 953 (Ex. Ch.); aff’g (1855) 5 E. & B. 714 (Q.B.) ....................................21.17, 22.34
Avon County Council v. Howlett [1983] 1 W.L.R. 605 .................................................................................................2.27

xlv
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Avon SS. Co. v. Leask (1890) 18 R. 280 .....................................................................................................................14.10

Avraamides v. Colwill [2006] EWCA Civ 1533; [2007] Bus. L.R.76 .....................................................2.38, 18.138, 24.3
Axel Brostrom & Son v. Louis Dreyfus & Co. (1932) 38 Com. Cas. 79 ...........................................5.64, 5.71, 5.72, 5.85
Axel Johnson Petroleum v. M.G. Mineral Group [1992] 1 W.L.R. 270 ......................................................................13.63
Azimut Benetti v. Healey [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473 ................................................................................................21.132
Azur Gaz, The (SHV Gas Supply & Trading v. Naftomar Shipping & Trading)
[2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 163 ........................................................................................................................................4.8
B.&S. Contracts & Design v. Victor Green Publications [1984] I.C.R. 419, rv’d [1980]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 135 (C. A.) ...........................................................................................................1.90, 66.326, 66.327
B.J. Ball New Zealand v. Federal Steam Navigation [1950] N.Z.L.R. 954.................................................................66.86
B.S. & N. Ltd (BVI) v. Micado Shipping Ltd (Malta) (The Seaflower) [2001]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 341 (C.A.); rev’g [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 .......................................................................3.31, 11.27
B.T.P. Tioxide v. Pioneer Shipping [1982] A.C. 724 .................................................................................................21.142
BBC Greenland, The (Sideridraulic Systems SpA v. BBC Chartering & Logistic GmbH & Co. KG)
[2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 230 ................................................................................................................6.38, 66.74, 66.76
BBC Worldwide v. Bee Load [2007] EWHC 134 (Comm) ...........................................................................................1.10
BCCI v. Ali [2002] 1 A.C. 251.......................................................................................................................................1.97
BDW Trading Ltd v. JM Rowe (Investments) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 548 .................................................................1.119
BHP Petroleum v. British Steel [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 583.........................................................................................21.40
BMA Special Opportunity Hub Finance Ltd and others v. African Minerals Finance Ltd
[2013] EWCA Civ 416 .........................................................................................................................................1.107
BNA v. BNB [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 55 .........................................................................................................................1.27
BNP Mellon Corporate Trustee Services v. LBG Capital No.1 PLC [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 119 .................................1.97
BNP Paribas v. Bandung Shipping Pte Ltd [2003] 3 SLR(R) 611.......................................................18.83, 18.97, 18.171
BOCM v. Moor Line (1935) 41 Com. Cas. 53, reversing 40 Com. Cas. 210 ..............................................................14.58
BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd v. Dolphin Drilling Ltd (The Byford Dolphin)
[2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 192 .........................................................................................................................1.105, 1.108
BP Oil International Ltd v. Target Shipping Ltd (The Target) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 24;
[2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 225, reversed on appeal on other grounds [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 561;
[2013] EWCA Civ 196 ..............................................................................................1.3, 1.6, 2.28, 2.31, 13.17, 13.18
BP plc v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. [2004] EWHC (1132) Comm .................................................................1.31
BP Refinery (Westernport) v. Hastings (1978) 52 A.L.J.R. 20 (P.C.) ..........................................................................1.123
BSLE Sunrise, The [2019] EWHC 2860 (Comm) ......................................................................................................20.47
BV Nederlandse Industrie van Eiprodukten v. Rembrandt Enterprises Inc [2020] Q.B. 551 .......................................1.79
Babanaft International Co. v. Avant Petroleum Inc. (The Oltenia) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 448,
affirmed [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 99 (C.A.) ............................................................................................................16.21
Bacon v. Cooper (Metals) [1982] 1 All E.R. 397.........................................................................................................21.59
Badagry, The [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 195 ..............................................................................................................3.9, 22.17
Baerselman v. Bailey [1895] 2 Q.B. 301 ...................................................................................................................66.264
Baghlaf Al Zafer Factory Co. v. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (The Sibi)
[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 229; [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (C.A.) .................66.28–66.30, 66.191, 66.194, 66.228, 66.241
Bailey v. Angove’s PTY Limited [2016] U.K.S.C. 47 ...................................................................................................2.23
Baird Textiles Ltd v. Marks & Spencer plc [2001] EWCA Civ 274m
[2002] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 737 ..................................................................................................................1.12, 18.112
Balder London, The [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 489 ..........................................................................................................26.37
Baleares, The. See Geogas v. Trammo Gas—
Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) v. Scottish Power, 1994 S.L.T. 807 (H.L.);
1994 S.C. 20 ...................................................................................................................................21.32, 21.38, 21.39
Balian v. Joly (1890) 6 T.L.R. 345 .................................................................................................................................12.1
Ball (B.J.) New Zealand v. Federal Steam Navigation [1950] N.Z.L.R. 954 ..............................................................66.86
Ballantyne v. Paton (1912) S.C. 246 .................................................................................................................14.53, 14.55
Balli Trading v. Afalona Shipping Co. (The Coral), [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 158,
[1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ........................................................................................................................................14.39
Baltic Surveyor, The (Voaden v. Champion) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 623 .........................................................21.57, 21.59
Bamfield v. Goole and Sheffield Transport [1910] 2 K.B. 94..................................................................6.49, 6.53, 66.434
Banco de Portugal v. Waterlow [1932] A.C. 452 .........................................................................................................21.52
Banco Santander Totta S.A. v. Compania Carris [2017] 1 W.L.R. 1323 .......................................................................1.28
Bandung Shipping v. Keppel TatLee Bank [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 616 .........................................................18.83, 18.171
Bank Line Ltd v. Arthur Capel & Co. (unreported) in the Court of Appeal
(approved by the House of Lords at [1919] A.C. 435 (H.L.) .........................................19.1, 22.8, 22.9, 22.11, 22.20
Bank of Australia v. Rose [1894] A.C. 687......................................................................................................................9.4
Bank of Nova Scotia v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd
[1990] 1 Q.B. 818 ...........................................................................................................................21.42, 21.64, 21.69
Bannister v. Breslauer (1867) L.R. 2 C.P. 497 ...............................................................................................................17.7

xlvi
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Banque Keyser Ullmann S.A. v. Skandia (UK) Insurance Co. [1990] Q.B. 665 ........................................................21.41
Barber v. Meyerstein (1870) L.R. 4 H.L. 317 ............................................................................................................18.149
Barbour v. South Eastern Railway (1876) 34 L.T. 67 ...................................................................................66.334, 66.337
Barbudev v. Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria EOOD [2012] EWCA Civ 1341;
[2012] 2 All E.R. 963 (Comm) ...............................................................................................................1.5, 1.10, 1.14
Barclays Bank plc v. UniCredit Bank AG [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ............................................................................1.120
Barclays Bank v. Commissioners for Customs and Excise [1963] Q.B. 250;
[1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 ...............................................................................................10.25, 18.149, 18.161, 18.169
Barclays Bank v. Fairclough Building [1995] Q.B. 214 ........................................................................21.64, 21.70, 21.72
Barclays Bank v. UniCredit Bank AG [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 59 .......................................................................26.30, 27.7
Barcore, The [1896] P. 294 .............................................................................................................................13.71, 66.333
Barito, The. See Golden Ocean Group Ltd v. Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK Ltd—
Barker v. Windle (1856) 18 C.B.(N.S.) 759, (1856) 6 E. & B. 675 ......................................................................3.19, 4.18
Barkworth v. Young (1856) Drew. 1 ..............................................................................................................................7.23
Barton v. Armstrong [1976] A.C. 104 ............................................................................................................................1.87
Bartram & Sons v. Lloyd (1904) 90 L.T. 357 ................................................................................................................1.92
Basma v. Weeks [1950] A.C. 441 ....................................................................................................................................2.4
Batis, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 345 ............................................................................................................................36.7
Baughen (2000) L.M.C.L.Q. 295........................................................................................................................6.35, 11.10
Baughen (2010) L.M.C.L.Q. 411 ...............................................................................................................................18.118
Baughen [2004] L.M.C.L.Q. 129; [2005] L.M.C.L.Q. 153 .........................................................................................66.86
Baumwoll v. Gilchrest [1892] 1 Q.B. 253, [1893] A.C. 8 ...........................................................................................18.67
Bayoil S.A. v. Seawind Tankers Corp. (The Leonidas) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 533 ....................................1,115, 3.37, 9.6
Bayoil S.A., Re. [1999] 1 W.L.R. 147 .........................................................................................................................13.69
Bayoil v. Seawind Tankers (The Leonidas) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 533 .............................................................33.5, 66.17
Bayview Motors v. Mitsui Marine & Fire Insurance [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 131......................................................66.307
Bear Stearns Bank plc v. Forum Global Equity Ltd [2007] EWHC 1576 (Comm) ........................................................1.5
Beaverford, The v. The Kafirstan [1938] A.C. 136 ........................................................................................................54.5
Becher (Kurt A.) v. Roplak Enterprises (The World Navigator)
[1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 23 (C.A.) ........................................................................1.124, 9.2, 15.35, 15.47, 21.5, 21.19,
21.21, 21.23, 21.25
Becker, Gray & Co. v. London Assurance Corporation [1918] A.C. 101..................................................................66.295
Bedford Insurance v. Instituto de Reassuguros de Brazil [1985] Q.B. 966 ...................................................................1.54
Bedford Steamship Co. v. Navico (The Ionian Skipper) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 273 ....................................................35.9
Beechwood Birmingham v. Hoyer Group UK [2011] Q.B. 357..........................................................21.46, 21.95, 21.107
Behn v. Burness (1863) 3 B. & S. 751 ......................................................................................................3.3, 3.33, 4.2, 4.3
Behnke v. Bede Shipping [1927] 1 K.B. 649 .............................................................................................................21.144
Bekol BV v. Terracina Shipping Corporation (The Jamie) (13 July 1988, unreported) ..................66.374, 66.377, 66.411
Bela Krajina. The [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 139 ................................................................................................................6.52
Bellina Maritime S.A. v. Menorah Insurance Co. [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 575 (Israel Sup. Ct.) ................................66.210
Belships v. President of India [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 12 ...............................................................................................14.9
Beltana, The (Automatic Tube Co. v. Adelaide SS.) [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 531 ........................................................66.81
Bem Dis A Turk v. International Agri Trade (The Selda) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 729 ...............................................66.385
Ben Shipping Co. (Pte.) v. An-Bord Bainne (The C. Joyce) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285 ............................................66.21
Ben Shipping v. An Bord Bainne (The C. Joyce) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285 ...........................1.71, 1.117, 17.41, 18.202,
18.205, 18.223, 18.227, 18.228, 18.251, 18.253, 21.138, 53.3
Benarty, The (Lister v. Thomson Shipping) [1985] Q.B. 325................................................66.26, 66.29, 66.227, 66.240,
66.367, 66.420, 66.501, 66.191
Bence Graphics Int v. Fasson [1998] Q.B. 87............................................................................................................21.100
Benlawers, The [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 51 ........................................................................................................11.33, 66.96
Benson v. Schneider (1817) 7 Taunt. 272 ........................................................................................................................6.7
Bentsen v. Taylor (1893) 2 Q.B. 274 (C.A.) .............................................................................................................4.2, 4.3
Beoco v. Alfa Laval Co. [1995] Q.B. 137 ....................................................................................................................21.42
Berge Sisar, The (Borealis A.B. v. Stargas Ltd.) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 663 (H.L.);
[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 475 (C.A.) ........................................................................18.78, 18.79, 18.95, 18.103, 18.155
Berge Sund, The [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 453 (C.A.) ......................................................................................................6.52
Bergen, The (No. 2) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 710 ............................................................................................................6.29
Berghoefer v. ASA [1985] E.C.R. I-2699 ....................................................................................................................66.27
Berkeley Community Villages Ltd v. Pullen [2007] 3 E.G.L.R. 101 ..........................................................................1.117
Berkshire, The, [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 185............................................................18.178, 18.179, 18.189, 18.203–18.205
Bernard Schulte v. Nile [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 352 .......................................................................................................1.10
Bernina, The (1886) 12 P.D. 36 .....................................................................................................................................3.16
Bernuth Lines v. High Seas Shipping (The Eastern Navigator) [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 537 ............................5.15, 66.196
Bewise Motors Co. v. Hoi Kong Container Services Ltd [1998] 4 H.K.C. 377 ........................................................18.134

xlvii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Bibby Factors Northwest v. HFD [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 517 .....................................................................................21.77

Biggin & Co. v. Permanite [1951] 2 K.B. 314 ...........................................................................................................66.164
Biggin v. Permanite [1951] 2 K.B. 314 .................................................................................................21.79, 21.83, 21.85
Bijela, The (Marida v. Oswal Steel) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 636 ..........................................................................55.4, 55.5
Bijela, The [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 636; [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .....................................................................20.13, 20.14
Bilgent Shipping Pte Ltd v. ADM International SARL (The Alpha Harmony)
[2019] EWHC 2522 (Comm), [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 409 ..................................................15.54, 19.12, 19.13, 19.21
Bim Kemi AB v. Blackburn Chemicals [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 93 ..............................................................................13.63
Birmingham & District Land Co. v. London and N.W. Rly. Ltd. (1886) 34 Ch.D. 261 ............................................18.223
Bishop & Baxter v. Anglo-Eastern [1944] K.B.12 ..........................................................................................................1.7
Biz, The (Easybiz Investments v. Sinograin) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 688 ..................................................................66.196
Blackburn (2018) L.M.C.L.Q. 482 and Lee [2021] L.M.C.L.Q. 100 ..........................................................................21.47
Blackburn v. Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Co. [1902] 1 K.B. 290 ......................................66.291
Blackgold Trading v. Almare S.p.A. (The Almare Seconda) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 433 ......................................4.6, 4.15
Blackmore v. Communities and Local Government Dept. [2018] Q.B. 471 ....................................................21.62, 21.71
Blanchet v. Powell’s Llantivit Collieries Co. (1874) L.R. 9 Ex. 74.............................................................................13.21
Blandy Bros. v. Nello Simon [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 24; [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 393 (C.A.) ...............................23.3, 23.5
Blane Steamships v. Ministry of Transport [1951] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 155 ......................................................................22.14
Blane Wright & Co. v. Thoressen, Lloyd’s List 10th June 1918 .................................................................................21.19
Blankenstein, The (Damon v. Hapag Lloyd) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 93; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 522............................1.14
Blue Anchor Line v. Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH (The Union Amsterdam)
[1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 432 ........................................................................................11.67, 15.8, 26.28, 38.26, 66.173
Blue Wave, The [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 151......................................................................................................1.31, 66.191
Board of Trade v. Hain SS. Co. [1929] A.C. 534 .........................................................................................................26.22
Boast v. Firth (1868–69) L.R. 4 C.P. 1 .........................................................................................................................15.24
Boliden Ore v. Dawn Maritime [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 247 ........................................................................................18.78
Bolivia (Republic of) v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co. [1909] 1 K.B. 785 ..................................26.14, 66.329
Bolton v. Lancs. & Yorks. Ry (1886) L.R. 1 C.P. 431 ...............................................................................................18.159
Bond, Connolly & Co. v. Federal Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1906) 22 T.L.R. 685; aff’g (1905)
21 T.L.R. 438 ........................................................................................................................................................11.31
Bonde, The [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 136....................................................................................................... 16.14A, 16.14B
Bonython v. Commonwealth of Australia [1951] A.C. 201 (P.C.)...............................................................................13.52
Booth SS. Co. v. Cargo Fleet Iron Co. [1916] 2 K.B. 570 (C.A.) ................................................................18.159, 18.160
Boral Gas, The. See Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers v. Huddart Parker Industries—
Borealis v. Geogas Trading [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 482 ..............................................................21.30, 21.41, 21.42, 21.48
Borealis AB v. Stargas Ltd (The Berge Sisar) [2002] 2 A.C. 205, [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 663 (H.L.),
[1999] L.M.C.L.Q. 161, [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 475 (C.A.) ......................................13.37, 18.1, 18.8, 18.80, 18.100,
18.102, 18.103, 18.105, 66.199
Borgship Tankers v. Product Transport Corp. (The Casco) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 565 ........................66.7, 66.15, 66.180
Borrelli v. Ting [2010] U.K.P.C. 21 [2010] Bus. L.R. 1718; [2011] L.M.C.L.Q. 333...................................................1.88
Borrowman Phillips v. Free & Hollis (1878) 4 Q.B.D. 500 ..........................................................................................6.47
Borvigilant, The and the Romina G [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 520.....................................2.2, 2.10, 2.24, 2.33, 2.38, 66.471
Botnica, The (Oceanografia S.A. de C.V. v. DSND Subsea A.S.) (2006) 695 L.M.L.N. 1,
[2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 ........................................................................................................................................1.16
Bou-Simon v. BGC Brokers [2018] EWCA Civ 1690 ................................................................................................1.121
Boukadora, The [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 393...............................................................................................................66.161
Boukadoura, The. See Boukadoura Maritime Corp. v. S.A. Marocaine
de l’Industrie et du Raffinage—
Boukadoura Maritime Corp. v. S.A. Marocaine de l’Industrie et du Raffinage (The Boukadoura)
[1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 393 ......................................................18.24, 18.181, 18.233, 18.239, 18.251, 18.252, 66.140
Bournemouth University Corp. v. Buckland [2011] Q.B. 323............................................................................21.7, 21.14
Bow Valley Huskey (Bermuda) v. St. John Shipbuilding [1997] 2 S.C.R. 1210 .........................................................21.61
Bowmakers v. Barnet Instruments [1945] K.B. 65 ........................................................................................................1.63
Brabant, The. See Gesellschaft Bürgerlichen Rechts v. Stockholms Rederiaktiebolag Svea—
Bradburn v. Great Western Railway Co (1874) L.R. 10 Ex. 1 .....................................................................................21.47
Bradbury, Re [1943] Ch. 35 ...........................................................................................................................................21.9
Bradley (F.C.) & Sons Ltd. v. Federal Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1927)
27 Ll. L. Rep. 395.............................................................................................................. 11.18–11.20, 66.95, 66.122
Bradley v. Dunipace (1862) 1 H. & C. 521 .................................................................................................................10.12
Bradley v. Goddard (1863) 3 F. & F. 638.....................................................................................................................23.10
Bradley v. Newsom [1919] A.C. 16 .............................................................................................................................13.27
Braganza v. BP Shipping Ltd (The British Unity) [2015] 1 W.L.R. 1661;
[2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 240 .........................................................................................................................1.120, 26.30
Bramwell B. in Merchant Shipping v. Armitage (1873) L.R. 9 Q.B. 99 .....................................................................13.20

xlviii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Brandt v. Liverpool Principle. See The Aramis [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 213 ..............................................................66.467
Brandt v. Liverpool Steam Navigation Co. [1924] 1 K.B. 575 ................................................ 12.8, 18.16, 18.112, 18.114
Brandt v. Morris [1917] 2 K.B. 784 ........................................................................................................................2.2, 2.10
Brankelow SS. Co. v. Canton Insurance [1901] A.C. 462 (H.L.); [1899] 2 Q.B. 178 (C.A.) ...................................18.197
Brass v. Maitland (1856) 6 E. & B. 470....................................................................6.49, 6.53, 6.54, 6.57, 66.434, 66.438
Brauer v. James Clark [1952] 2 All E.R. 497.................................................................................................................1.26
Bravo Maritime (Chartering) Est. v. Baroom (The Athinoula) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 481 ........................................17.36
Brede, The (Henriksens Rederi A/S v. T.H.Z. Rolimpex) [1974] Q.B. 233 ................................................................13.66
Breffka & Hehnke GmbH & Co. KG v. Navire Shipping Co. Ltd (The Saga Explorer)
[2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 401 ...............................................................................................18.14, 18.17, 66.142, 66.219
Breffka & Hehnke GmbH v. Navire Shipping Co [2012] EWHC 3124 (Comm) ....................................................66A.17
Bremen v. Zapata Off Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972) ....................................................................................................2A.2
Bremen Max, The (Farenco Shipping Co. Ltd v. Daebo Shipping Co. Ltd)
[2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 .........................................................................................................................66.81, 66.115
Bremer v. Vanden Avenne [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109.................................................................................................15.53
Bremer Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v. Vanden Avenne-Izegen P.V.B.A.
[1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 ................................................................................................................15.53, 26.45, 38.6
Bremer Oeltransport v. Drewry [1933] K.B. 753 ........................................................................................................21.82
Brenda SS. Co. v. Green [1900] 1 Q.B. 518 ................................................................................................................14.18
Brennan v. Bolt Burdon [2005] Q.B. 303 ......................................................................................................................1.66
Bright Grahame Murray, The [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1360 ...................................................................................................21.41
Brightman v. Bunge y Born [1924] 2 K.B. 619 (C.A.), affirmed sub nom. Bunge y Born v. Brightman
[1925] A.C. 799 (H.L.) .................................................................7.10, 7.15, 7.17, 7.18, 7.22–7.24, 7.28, 15.27, 39.7
Bristol and West of England Bank v. Midland Ry. [1891] 2 Q.B. 653 ......................................................................18.149
Britain SS. Co. v. Dreyfus (1935) 51 Ll. L. Rep. 196..................................................................................................14.34
Britain SS. Co. v. The King [1921] 1 A.C. 99 .............................................................................................................26.20
Britannia Distribution v. Factor Pace [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 420 .................................................................................13.1
British and Beningtons v. North West Cachar Tea [1923] A.C. 48 ..............................................................................21.14
British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co. v. Samuel Sanday & Co. [1916] 1 A.C. 650 (H.L.) ..................66.301, 66.309
British and Mexican Shipping Co. v. Lockett Brothers & Co. [1911] 1 K.B. 264 ......................................................15.55
British Columbia Co. v. Nettleship (1868) L.R. 3 C.P. 499 .............................................................21.120, 21.123, 21.125
British Crane Hire Corp. v. Ipswich Plant Hire [1975] Q.B. 303 ..............................................................................18.110
British Electrical v. Patley Pressings [1953] 1 W.L.R. 280 .............................................................................................1.7
British Imex Industries v. Midland Bank [1958] 1 Q.B. 542 ...........................................................66.220, 66.233, 66.243
British Oil & Cake Mills v. Compania Petrolifera Hispano American (1927) 28 Ll. L. Rep. 50 ..................................49.5
British Shipowners v. Grimond (1876) 3 Rett. 968 ..............................................................................................10.2, 10.6
British Sugar v. NEI (1987) 87 B.L.R. 42 ......................................................................................................21.40, 66.248
British Telecommunications v. Telefonica 02 UK [2014] U.K.S.C. 43 [2014] 4 All E.R. 907 ...................................1.120
British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co. v. Underground Electric Railways Co.
[1912] A.C. 673 ................................................................................................................21.1, 21.47, 21.106, 21A.29
Britoil v. Hunt Overseas Oil [1994] C.L.C. 561 ............................................................................................................1.74
Broadhead v. Yule (1871) 9 S.C. (3rd) 921 ..................................................................................................................23.10
Broere (Gebr.) v. Saras Chimica [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 436 .......................................................................................15.16
Broken Hill v. P. & O. [1917] 1 K.B. 688 ....................................................................................................................12.26
Brostrom (Axel) & Son v. Louis Dreyfus & Co. (1932) 38 Com. Cas. 79 .........................................5.64, 5.71, 5.72, 5.85
Brown v. Byrne (1854) 3 E. & B. 703 .........................................................................................................................13.61
Brown v. Innovators One [2012] EWHC 1321 (Comm) ...........................................................................1.3, 1.12, 18.112
Brown v. K.M.R. Services [1995] 4 All E.R. 598........................................................................................................21.38
Brown v. Muller (1872) L.R. Ex. 319 ..........................................................................................................................21.54
Brown v. Powell (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 562....................................................................................................................18.28
Brown Boveri (Australia) Pty v. Baltic Shipping [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 518 (N.S.W.C.A.) .......................66.370, 66.371
Brown Jenkinson v. Percy Dalton (London) [1957] 2 Q.B. 621..............................................1.55, 18.24, 18.181, 18.222,
18.238, 18.241, 18.243, 66.140, 66.145
Browner International v. Monarch Shipping Co. (The European Enterprise)
[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 166; [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 185 ...............................................................66.44, 66.66, 66.422
Bruce Marriot v. Houlder [1917] 1 K.B. 72. 33 (1935) 51 Ll. L. Rep. 196.................................................................14.29
Brunner v. Webster (1900) 5 Com. Cas. 167 ................................................................................................66.314, 66.317
Brys & Gylsen v. Drysdale (1920) 4 Ll. L. Rep. 24 .........................................................................................14.54, 14.55
Bua International v. Hai Hing (The Hai Hing) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 300 ...............................................................66.186
Buckle v. Knoop (1867) L.R. 2 Exch. 125, 333...........................................................................................13.4, 13.5, 13.9
Bucknall v. Tatem (1900) 83 L.T. 121 ..........................................................................................................21.140, 21.142
Budgett v. Binnington [1891] 1 Q.B. 35 ........................................................................................................................15.7
Bukhta Russkaya, The (Lauritzen Reefers v. Ocean Reef Transport Ltd. S.A.)
[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 744 ......................................................................................................................................66.4

xlix
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Bulgaris (N.T.) v. Bunge (1933) 38 Com. Cas. 103 ...................................................................................................66.271

Bulk & Metal Transport v. Voc Bulk Ultra Handymax (The Voc Gallant)
[2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 418 .....................................................................................................................66.195, 66.196
Bulk Chile, The (Dry Bulk Handy Holding Inc. v. Fayette International Holdings Ltd)
[2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 38; [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 47 ..................................................................................17.1, 17.20
Bulk Ship Union S.A. v. Clipper Bulk Shipping Ltd (The Pearl C) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 533 .....................................9.5
Bulk Shipping v. Ipco Trading (The Jasmine B) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 39 ................................................5.20, 36.2, 36.7
Bulk Uraguay, The [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 66 ..............................................................................................................21.55
Bulkhaul v. Rhodia Organique Fine Ltd [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 353 ..............................................................21.53, 66.393
Bulman & Dickson v. Fenwick & Co. [1894] 1 Q.B. 179 .........................................................................................66.326
Bunga Melaati, The [2016] SGCA 20 (Singapore Court of Appeal) .............................................................................2.26
Bunga Melati Dua, The (Masefield AG v. Amlin Corporate Mmember) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 630;
[2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 630 ....................................................................................................................................22.11
Bunga Seroja, The. See Great China Metal Industries v. Malaysian International
Shipping Corp—
Bunge v. ADM do Brasil (The Darya Radhe) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 175 ......................................66.431, 66.433, 66.434
Bunge v. Nidera [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 469; 2017 L.M.C.L.Q. 1222 .......................................................21.6, 21.9, 21.14
Bunge v. Tradax [1981] 1 W.L.R. 711 .............................................................................................................................4.3
Bunge Corp. v. Vegetable Vitamin Foods (Private) Ltd [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 613 ...................................................21.17
Bunge Edible Oil Corp. v. M/V Tormrask and Fortsteele, 949 F.2d 786, 788, 1992 AMC 2227, 2229
(5th Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................................................................66A.24
Bunge S.A. v. ADM Do Brasil Ltda (The Darya Radhe) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 175 ...................................................6.52
Bunge S.A. v. Kyla Shipping Co. (The Kyla) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 565 ..............................22.1, 22.2, 22.4, 22.7, 22.18
Bunge y Born v. Brightman. See Brightman v. Bunge y Born—
Burnett v. Bouch (1840) 9 C. & P. 620 ..........................................................................................................................24.1
Burnett & Co. v. Danube and Black Sea Shipping Agencies [1933] 2 K.B. 438 ..........................................................15.5
Burnett SS. Co. v. Olivier & Co. (1934) 48 Ll. L. Rep. 238 ..............................................................................15.30, 38.6
Burton v. English (1883) 12 Q.B.D. 218 ...................................................................................................6.35, 6.40, 20.51
Busiris, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 569 .......................................................................................................................33.23
Bwllfa and Merthyr Dawr Steam Collieries 1891 Ltd. v. Pontypridd Water Works Co.
[1903] A.C. 426 ......................................................................................................................................................21.9
Byford Dolphin, The. See BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd v. Dolphin Drilling Ltd—
Byrne v. Schiller (1871) L.R. 6 Ex. 20 ........................................................................................................................13.90
C. & P. Haulage v. Middleton [1983] 3 All E.R. 98; [1983] 1 W.L.R. 98 .....................................................................21.3
C Challenger, The. See SK Shipping Europe plc v. Capital VLCC Corporation and Another—
C. Itoh v. Cia. de Nav. Lloyd Brasileiro (The Rio Assu) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201 ..................................................66.61
C. Joyce, The. See Ben Shipping v. An Bord Bainne—
C.C.C. Films v. Impact Quadrant Films [1985] Q.B. 16 ...............................................................................................21.3
C.H.Z. Rolimpex v. Eftavrysses Compania Naviera (The Panaghia Tinnou)
[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 586 .......................................................................................................................14.54, 66.461
C.H.Z. Rolimpex v. Eftavrysses Compania Naviera S.A. (The Panaghia Tinnou)
[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 586 ..................................................................................................................................66.262
C.P.C. Gallia, The. See C.P.C. v. C.T.M—
C.P.C. v. C.T.M. (The C.P.C. Gallia) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68 ..................................................................1.13, 1.18, 1.20
C.V. Sheepv. Flintermar v. Sea Malta Company Ltd (The Flintermar) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 409 ............................14.36
CCC Films v. Impact Quadrant Films [1985] Q.B. 16 .........................................................................................21.3, 21.4
CHS Inc. Iberia SL v. Far East Marine S.A. (The Devon) [2012] EWHC 3747 (Comm)..................................9.5, 21.124
CMA CGM Libra [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 565..............................................................................................................66.95
CMA CGM S.A. v. Classica Shipping Co [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 460 (C.A.) ......................................................57.3, 66.9
CMA CGM SA v. Beteiligungs-Kommandit Gesellschaft MS Northern Pioneer
Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Co. (The Northern Pioneer) [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 212 .........................25.12, 26.76
CMR, Sandeman Coprimar v. Transitos y Transportes Integrales [2003] Q.B. 1270..................................................21.33
CRS GT Ltd. v. MacLaren Automotive Ltd [2018] EWHC 3209 (Comm).....................................................................1.5
CSSA Chartering and Shipping Services SA v. Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd (The Pacific Voyager)
[2019] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 370 ..................................................................................................4.12, 4.16, 4.18, 19.3, 33.9
CTI Group v. Transclear (The Mary Nour) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 526 ...............................................................22.24, 7.7
CTN Cash & Carry v. Gallaher [1994] 4 All E.R. 714 ..................................................................................................1.87
CV Scheepvaartonderneming Ankergracht v. Stemcor (Australasia) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s
Law Rep. Plus 68..........................................................................................................................11.18, 66.98, 66.338
CV Scheepvaartonderneming Flintermar v Sea Malta Company Ltd (The Flintermar)
[2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 409 ....................................................................................................................................14.36
Cadogan Petroleum Holdings v. Global Process Systems [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 26 ................................................21.132
Caffin v. Aldridge [1895] 2 Q.B. 366.............................................................................................................................6.20
Caltex Singapore v. B.P. Shipping [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 286 ......................................................................................1.50

l
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Camelia, The, and the Magnolia [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 182 ............................................................................15.16, 15.58
Canada Rice Mills v. Union Marine and General Insurance [1941] A.C. 55...................................66.288, 66.292, 66.297
Canada Shipping Co. v. British Shipowners’ Mutual Protection Association (1889) 23 Q.B.D. 342 .......................66.273
Canada Steamship Lines v. The King [1952] A.C. 192 .................................................................................... 1.112, 1.113
Canada Trust v. Stolzenberg (No. 2) [2002] 1 A.C. 1 ................................................................................................66.187
Canada, The, (1897) 13 T.L.R. 238.....................................................................................18.197, 18.204, 18.210, 18.215
Canadian and Dominion Sugar Co. Ltd v. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Ltd
[1947] A.C. 46 (P.C.) ................................................................18.17, 18.18, 66.133, 66.135, 66.142, 66.219, 66.489
Canadian case H. Paulin & Co. Ltd v. A Plus Freight Forwarder Co. Ltd [2009] F.C. 727 ......................................13.118
Canadian Pacific (Bermuda) Ltd v. Lagon Maritime Overseas (The Fort Kipp)
[1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 168 ....................................................................................................................................13.78
Canadian Pacific v. Belships (1996) 111 F.T.R. 11 (Fed. Ct. Can.) .............................................................................1.113
Canadian Transport v. Court Line [1940] A.C. 934 .............................................................................14.42, 14.43, 66.112
Canary Wharf v. European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 335 (Ch) ......................................................................22.1
Canavangh v. Sec of State for Dept of Work and Pensions [2016] EWHC 1136 (Q.B.) ...............................................21.1
Cance v. L.&.N.W. Ry. (1864) 3 H. & C. 343 ...........................................................................................................66.417
Cantiere Navale Triestina v. Russian Soviet Naphtha Export Agency (The Dora)
[1925] 2 K.B. 172 (C.A.)......................................................................................................................................15.71
Cantor Fitzgerald International v. Horkulak [2004] EWCA Civ 1287 ........................................................................21.20
Cape Equinox, The (Frontier International Shipping Corp.v. Swissmarine Corporation Inc.)
[2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 390 ......................................................................................................................................25.5
Capper v. Forster ((1837) 3 Bing. N.C. 938.................................................................................................................21.19
Capper v. Wallace (1880) 5 Q.B.D. 163 ........................................................................................................................5.77
Capricorn, The (Aquator Shipping v. Kleimar IV) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 379 ...........................................................21.82
Captain v. Far Eastern Steamship [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 595 (Sp Ct of British Columbia.) ........................................6.53
Captain Gregos, The (No. 1). See (Compania Portorafti Commerciale S.A. v. UItramar Panama Inc—
Captain Gregos, The (No. 2). See (Compania Portorafti Commerciale S.A. v. UItramar Panama Inc—
Captain Stefanos, The [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 46 .........................................................................................................26.91
Carboex S.A. v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 177,
[2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 379 (C.A.) .............................................................................................25.6, 7.10, 7.14, 15.26
Carbopego-Abastecimento v. AMCI Export Corp. [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 736 ............................................................21.7
Caresse Navigation v. Zurich Assurance Maroc (The Channel Ranger)
[2015] Q.B. 366, [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 256 .......................................1.78, 18.48, 18.49, 18.51, 18.52, 18.54, 18.56
Caresse Navigation. v. L’Office National de L’Electricité (The Channel Ranger)
[2013] EWHC 3081 (Comm); [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 337.............................................................18.50, 18.51, 18.56
Cargill International v. C.P.N. Tankers (The Ot Sonja) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 435 (C.A.) .................................................................................................1.37, 66.174, 66.177, 66.178, 66.180,
66.201, 66.249, 66.260
Cargill v. Marpro (The Aegis Progress) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 570 ............................................................................15.12
Cargo ex Argos, Gaudet v. Brown (1872–73) L.R. 5 P.C. 134 ..............................................................1.57, 17.28, 18.171
Cargo ex Galam (1863) 2 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) .................................................................................................................13.25
Cargo ex Laertes, The (1887) 12 P.D. 187 .....................................................................................................................54.5
Cargo Ships “El-Yam” v. “Invotra” [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 39 ......................................................................3.2, 3.19, 3.24
Caribbean Sea, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 338 .........................................................................................................66.347
Carlos Soto Sau SA v. AP Moller-Maersk AS (The SFL Hawk) [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 537 ..................21.41, 21.42, 18.6
Carlsberg v. Wemyss (1915) S.C. 616 .......................................................................................................................18.162
Carlton SS. Co. v. Castle Mail Co. [1898] A.C. 486; (1897) 3 Com. Cas. 207;
2 Com. Cas. 173, 286 ...........................................................................................................................5.85, 6.10, 6.16
Carmichael v. Liverpool Sailing Ship Owners’ Mutual Indemnity Association (1887)
19 Q.B.D. 242 (C.A.) .........................................................................................................................................66.273
Carmichael v. National Power [1999] 1 W.L.R. 2042 .................................................................................................1.102
Carnival Cruise Lines Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 113 L.Ed. 2d 622, 1991 AMC 1697 (1991) .................................2A.2
Caroline P, The (Telfair Shipping Corp. v. Inersea Carriers S.A.) [1985] 1 W.L.R. 553;
[1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 440, 466 ...................................................................................13.118, 18.225, 18.244, 18.246
Carr v. Jackson (1852) 7 Exch. 382 ...............................................................................................................................2.18
Carras v. London & Scottish Assurance. See Yero Carras (Owners) v. London & Scottish Assurance Corp.—
Carras v. President of India (The Argobeam) [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 282 ...................................................................14.33
Carron Park, The (1890) 15 P.D. 203..............................................................................................................20.40, 66.270
Carslogie v. Royal Norwegian Government [1952] A.C. 292 ........................................................................21.41, 21.108
Casco, The (Borgship Tankers v. Product Transport) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 565 .....................................................66.180
Caspian Sea, The (Montedison S.p.A. v. Icroma S.p.A.) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 91 ........................................13.84–13.86
Cassa di Risparmio della Republica di San Marino v. Barclays Bank [2011] EWHC 484 (Comm).............................1.79
Castle Alpha, The [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 383.......................................................................................................1.36, 1.38
Castle Insurance v. Hong Kong Shipping Co. [1984] A.C. 226 (P.C.) ............................20.46, 20.49, 20.50, 20.53, 20.54

li
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Catherine Chalmers, The (1875) 32 L.T. 847 ...................................................................................................14.54, 14.55

Cator v. Great Western Insurance Corp. of New York (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 552 ..........................................................66.296
Cavendish Square Holding v. Makdessi [2016] A.C. 1172...........................................................................21,131, 21.132
Cehave v. Bremer Handels (The Hansa Nord) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445; [1976] 1 Q.B. 44 (C.A.) .........................1.133
Celtic King, The [1894] P. 175 ......................................................................................................................................2.37
Cemp Properties v. Dentsply [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 197 ....................................................................................................1.83
Cendor Mopu, The (Global Process Systems Inc. v. Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad)
[2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 560 ........................................................................................................66.285, 66.333, 66.334
Cenk Kaptanoglu, The. See Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd v. Tube City IMS LLC—
Center Optical (Hong Kong) v. Jardine Transport Services [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 678
(Hong Kong High Court) .....................................................................................................................18.168, 18.170
Central Argentine Railway v. Marwood [1915] A.C. 981 ...........................................................................................15.26
Central Insurance v. Seacalf Shipping (The Aiolas) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 25 .........................................................66.184
Cerberus Software v. Rowley [2001] I.C.R. 376 .........................................................................................................21.54
Cero Navigation Corp. v. Jean Lion (The Solon) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 292 .........................................1.112, 15.24, 50.3
Ceval Alimentos v. Agrimpex Trading (The Northern Progress) (No. 2) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 319.........................18.55
Ceval v. Cefetra [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 464 ................................................................................................................14.60
Chanda, The (Wibau Maschinenfabrik Hartman S.A. v. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co.)
[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 494 ...................................................................................................6.31, 12.45, 66.71, 66.423
Chandris v. Argo [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 65 ......................................................................................................20.49, 20.53
Chandris v. Dreyfus (1934) 50 Ll. L. Rep. 141 ....................................................................................................1.78, 6.18
Chandris v. Govt. of India [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 11 (C.A.) .......................................................................................26.70
Chandris v. Isbrandtsen-Moller [1951] 1 K.B. 240 ..............................................................1.109, 1.110, 6.46, 6.47, 6.64,
16.13, 66.433, 66.436, 66.447
Chandris v. Union of India (The Eugenia Chandris) [1956] 1 W.L.R. 147;
[1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 11 (C.A.)................................................................................................................14.32, 14.33
Channel Island Ferries v. Cenargo Navigation (The Rozel) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 161 .............................................21.57
Channel Island Ferries v. Sealink [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 323 ...................................................................................66.315
Channel Ranger, The (Caresse Navigation v. L’Office National de l’Electricite)
[2013] EWHC 3081 (Comm) .........................................................................................................18.50, 18.51, 18.56
Chaplin v. Boys [1971] A.C. 356 .................................................................................................................................21.70
Chaplin v. Hicks [1911] 2 K.B. 786 .............................................................................................................................21.43
Charles Goodfellow Lumber Sales v. Verreault, Hovington and Verreault Navigation Inc.
[1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 185 (Can. Sup. Ct.).........................................................................................................66.293
Charles M. Willie Shipping v. Ocean Laser (The Smaro) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 225 ..............................................66.196
Charlotte, The (1921) 9 Ll. L. Rep. 341 ......................................................................................................................11.54
Chartbrook v. Persimmon Homes [2009] A.C. 1101 ...............................................................1.73, 1.74, 1.97, 1.98, 1.101
Charter Reinsurance v. Fagan [1997] A.C. 313 ...........................................................................................................1.106
Charter Shipping v. Bowring (1930) 36 Ll. L. Rep. 272 .............................................................................................20.22
Charter v. Sullivan [1957] 2 Q.B. 117 .........................................................................................................................21.12
Chartered Bank of India v. British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd
[1909] A.C. 369 (P.C.) ..................................................................................................................10.2, 18.167–18.169
Chartered Mercantile Bank of London, India and China v. Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co.
(1883) 10 Q.B.D. 521 .........................................................................................................................................66.265
Chartered Mercantile Bank v. Netherlands India Steam Navigation Co. (1883) 10 Q.B.D. 521 .................66.265, 66.297
Chasca, The (1875) L.R. 4 A. & E. 446 ........................................................................................................66.267, 66.291
Chatenay v. Brazilian Submarine Telegraph [1891] 1 Q.B. 79......................................................................................1.42
Cheall v. Association of Professional Executive Clerical and Computer Staff [1983] 2 A.C. 180 .............................1.119
Cheikh Boutros Selim El-Khoury and Others v. Ceylon Shipping Lines Ltd (The Madeleine)
[1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 224 ....................................................................................................................................19.21
Chellaram (P.S.) v. China Ocean Shipping Co. (The Zhi Jiang Kou)
[1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 493 (Aust. Ct.) ................................................................................................................66.205
Chellew v. Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply [1922] 1 K.B. 12; aff’g [1921] 2 K.B. 627 ...............................20.38
Chemical Venture, The. See Pearl Carriers v. Japan Line—
Cherry, The (Glencore International AG v. Owners of the Cherry, the Epic and the Addax)
[2002] S.G.H.C. 68; [2003] 1 S.L.R. 471...........................................................................................................18.171
Chief Controller of Chartering of the Government of India v. Central Gulf Steamship Corporation
(The Mosfield) [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 173...........................................................................................................15.18
Chiemgauer Membran und Zeltbau GmbH v. The New Millennium Experience Co. Ltd
(unreported 15 December 2000)...........................................................................................................................21.14
Chikuma, The (A/S Awilco v. Fulvia S.p.A. di Navigazioni) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 371...........................................13.58
Child, Re, Ex parte Nyholm (1873) 29 L.T. 634 .......................................................................................................13.106
China Coal Solution (Singapore) v. Avra Commodities [2020] SGCA 81 ...............................................................1.3, 1.5

lii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

China Ocean Shipping Co. v. Owners of M.V. Andros (The Andros)

[1987] 1 W.L.R. 1213 (P.C.) ..................................................................................................................66.210, 66.211
China Pacific v. Food Corporation of India (The Winson) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 117;
[1982] A.C. 939 ..................................................................................................................................................18.123
Chios Breeze, The (Pteroti v. National Coal Board) [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 245;
[1958] 1 Q.B. 469 .................................................................................................................................................15.56
Cho Yang Shipping v. Coral (U.K.) Ltd. [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 641 ..........................13.33, 13.34, 13.118, 18.78, 18.213
Choil Trading S.A. v. Sahara Energy Resources Ltd [2010] EWHC 374 (Comm);
(2010) 793 L.M.L.N. 1 ..................................................................................15.13, 15.72, 21.31, 21.33, 21.40, 21.51
Christie & Vesey Ltd v. Maatschappij tot Exploitatie van Schepen en Andere Zakea Helvetia N.V.
(The Helvetia-S) [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 540 .........................................................................4.16, 19.31, 19.34, 24.20
Christofferson v. Hansen (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 709 .........................................................................................................17.7
Christos, The. See E.G. Cornelius & Co. v. Christos Maritime—
Christy v. Row (1808) 1 Taunt. 300 .......................................................................................................13.28, 13.40, 13.78
Chrysalis, The (Finelvet A.G. v. Vinava Shipping Co.) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 503....................................................22.13
Chrysovalandou Dyo, The. See Santiren Shipping Ltd. v. Unimarine S.A.—
Chubb Fire Ltd v. Vicar of Spalding [2010] C.L.C. 277..............................................................................................21.42
Chudley v. Clydesdale Bank [2019] 3 W.L.R. 661 ...........................................................................................1.16, 18.138
Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com [2005] 1 S.L.R. 502 ..............................................................................1.67, 1.72
Chyebassa, The (Leesh River Tea Co. v. British India Steam Navigation Co.)
[1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 193; [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 450 ..........................................................66.280, 66.291, 66.297,
66.322, 66.350, 66.113
Cia Maritima Basilio v. Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (The Eurysthenes)
[1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 ..................................................................................................................................66.425
Cia. Argentina de Pesca v. Eagle Oil (1939) 65 Ll. L. Rep. 168 ...................................................................................41.3
Cia. Portorafti Commerciale S.A. v. Ultramar Panama Inc. (The Captain Gregos). See Compania
Portorafti Commerciale S.A. v. Ultramar Panama Inc. (The Captain Gregos)—
Cia. See Compania—
Ciampa v. British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1915] 2 K.B. 774 ........................ 5.67, 11.18, 11.65, 66.315, 66.317
Cie. See Compagnie—
Ciechocinek, The (Ismail v. Polish Ocean Lines) [1976] Q.B. 893 (C.A.) ...............................................................18.200
Citati. See Universal Cargo Carriers v. Citati—
Citi Group Inc. v. Transclear SA (The Mary Nour) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 526 ...................................................7.7, 22.24
Citi-March v. Neptune Orient Lines [1996] 1 W.L.R. 1367 ......................................................................................66.191
Cito, The (1887) 7 P.D. 5 .............................................................................................................................................13.27
City Inn (Jersey) v. 10 Trinity Square [2008] EWCA Civ 156 .........................................................................2.38, 18.138
City of Athens, The [1995] L.M.C.L.Q. 23 (C.A. of Malta).........................................................................66.227, 66.244
City of Baroda, The (1926) 25 Ll. L. Rep. 437..........................................................................................................66.349
City of Peking, The (1890) 15 App. Cas. 438 ............................................................................................................21.104
Clan Gordon, The (Standard Oil Company of New York v. Clan Line Steamers Ltd.)
[1924] A.C. 100 (H.L.) .............................................................................................................................. 11.35, 11.63
Clan Line Steamers v. Liverpool and London War Risks Assurance Association [1943] K.B. 209............................26.20
Clark v. B.E.T. [1997] I.R.L.R. 348 .............................................................................................................................21.24
Clarkson Booker v. Andjel [1964] 2 Q.B. 775 ...............................................................................................................2.21
Classic Maritime Inc v. Limbungan Makmur Sdn Bhad Makmur [2018] EWHC 2389 (Comm);
[2019] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349; [2019] EWCA Civ 1102 (C.A.);
[2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 178............................................................6.1, 7.1, 7.6, 7.10, 7.14, 7.16, 7.17, 21.6, 21.9, 21.14, 22.1
Classic Maritime v. Lion Diversified Holdings [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 59 .....................................21.30, 21.38, 22.1, 22.2
Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd v. Privocean Shipping Ltd (The Privocean)
[2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 551 ..............................................................................................................8.5, 66.279, 66.283
Cleobulos Shipping v. Intertanker (The Cleon) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 586 ................................................................13.67
Cleon, The. See Cleobulos Shipping v. Intertanker—
Clerco Compania Naviera v. Food Corporation of India (The Savvas) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 22 .............................15.43
Clink v. Radford [1891] 1 Q.B. 625...............................................................................................................................17.7
Clippens Oil v. Edinburgh and District Water Trustees [1907] A.C. 291 ....................................................................21.35
Clipper San Luis, The [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 645 ............................................................................................11.12, 20.45
Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding v. Yzquierdo y Castaneda [1905] A.C. 6 ................................................21.132
Coast Lines v. Hudig Chartering [1972] 2 Q.B. 34 ..............................................................................................1.34, 1.38
Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v. Swissmarine Services S.A. (The Lowlands Orchid)
[2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357 ....................................................................................................................................1.106
Cobelfret M.V. v. Cyclades Shipping Co. Ltd (The Linardos)
[1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 28 .....................................................................................................15.24, 15.31, 15.39, 15.79
Cockburn v. Alexander (1848) 6 C.B. 791............................................................................................................6.7, 21.19

liii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Coggs v. Bernard (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 909 at pp. 912–913 .......................................................................................18.120

Cohn v. Davidson (1877) 2 Q.B.D. 455 .......................................................................................................................11.46
Coker v. Limerick SS. Co. (1918) 87 L.J.K.B. 767 ...................................................................................................13.105
Cole v. Meek (1864) 15 C.B.(N.S.) 795 ..........................................................................................................................6.5
Colen v. Cebrian [2003] EWCA Civ 1676.....................................................................................................................1.51
Coles v. Hetherton [2015] 1 W.L.R. 160...........................................................................................................21.46, 21.57
Collier, The (1866) L.R. 1 A. & E. 83 ...........................................................................................................................59.7
Colman J. in The David Agmashenebeli [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 92 ..........................................................................18.181
Colonial Bank v. European Grain & Shipping (The Dominique) [1989] 2 W.L.R. 440;
[1989] A.C. 1056 (H.L.) .........................................................................................13.65–13.67, 13.87, 13.112, 26.65
Colonial Bank v. European Grain & Shipping [1989] 2 W.L.R. 440;
[1989] A.C. 1056 (H.L.) .......................................................................... 2.36, 13.69, 13.107, 13.112, 13.113, 13.121
Comalco Aluminium v. Mogul Freight Services 113 A.L.R. 677 ................................................................................66.36
Commercial Steamship Co. v. Boulton (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B. 346 ...............................................................................16.15
Commissioner for New Towns v. Cooper (G.B.) [1995] Ch. 259 .................................................................................1.76
Commonwealth of Australia v. Amann Aviation (1991) 66 A.L.J.R. 123 ...................................................................21.16
Commonwealth Smelting v. Guardian Royal Exchange Insurance [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 121; aff’g
[1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 608 ......................................................................................................................................39.5
Compagnie Algerienne v. Katana Soc. (The Nizeti) [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 132 (C.A.);
[1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325 ................................................................................................... 1.124, 11.41, 11.45–11.47
Compagnie Commerciale Sucres et Denrées v. Czarnikow (The Naxos) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 29 ..............................7.2
Compagnie Continentale d’Importation v. U.S.S.R. Handelsvertretung in Deutschland (1928)
30 Ll. L. Rep. 140.................................................................................................................................................15.53
Compagnie Noga d’Importation et d’Exportation SA v. Abacha (No 3) [2002] C.L.C. 207.......................................21.17
Compagnie Tunisienne de Navigation v. Compagnie d’Armement [1971] A.C. 572 (H.L.) ...............................1.30, 1.36
Compania Argentina de Pesca v. Eagle Oil & Shipping (1939–1940) 65 Ll. L. Rep. 168 ............................................15.8
Compania Colombiana de Seguros v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co. [1965] 1 Q.B. 101..........................................66.185
Compania Crystal de Vapores v. Herman & Mohatta (India) (The Maria G) [1958] 2 Q.B. 196;
[1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 616 ..............................................................................................................15.17, 15.19, 15.71
Compania de Naviera Nedelka S.A. v. Tradax International (The Tres Flores)
[1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 247; [1974] Q.B. 264 ...........................................................15.39, 15.41, 15.42, 19.16, 19.18
Compania Importadora de Arroces Collette y Kamp v. P.& O. Steam Navigation (1927)
28 Ll. L. Rep. 63.................................................................................................................................................66.137
Compania Maritima Basilio v. Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (The Eurysthenes)
[1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 ..................................................................................................................................66.425
Compania Naviera Azuero v. British Oil and Cake Mills [1957] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 312 ................................................15.17
Compania Naviera General S.A. v. Kerametal (The Lorna I) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 559,
[1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 373 (C.A.) ................................................................................................13.88, 13.115, 26.65
Compania Naviera Maropan S.A. v. Bowaters Lloyd Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd (The Stork)
[1955] 2 Q.B. 68 ......................................................................................... 5.2, 5.33, 5.41, 5.98, 5.113, 5.114, 21.136
Compania Naviera Termar v. Tradax Export S.A. (The Ante Topic)
[1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 566 .........................................................................................................................15.68, 38.23
Compania Naviera Vasconzada v. Churchill & Sim [1906] 1 K.B. 237 (C.A.) ..................................13.118, 18.16, 18.24,
18.181, 18.188, 18.236
Compania Portorafti Commerciale S.A. v. UItramar Panama Inc. (The Captain Gregos)
(No. 1) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 310 (C.A.) .......................................................................12.32, 66.84, 66.119, 66.205
Compania Portorafti Commerciale S.A. v. UItramar Panama Inc. (The Captain Gregos)
(No. 2) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 395; (1989) L.M.C.L.Q. 162, (1989) 105 L.Q.R. 174 .......................................18.112
Compania Primera v. Compania Arrendataria [1940] 1 K.B. 362 ...............................................................................12.36
Compania Sud Americana de Vapores S.A. v. Sinochem Tianjin Import and Export Corp.
(The Aconcagua) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 683 ............................... 6.55, 11.18, 11.28, 11.31,
11.34, 21.83, 66.98, 66.276, 66.277, 6
6.431, 66.446, 66.458, 66.459
Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v. Hin-Pro International Logistics
[2014] EWHC 3632 (Comm) .................................................................................................................................21.1
Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v. Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd (2018)
Chinese Maritime and Commercial Law Reports: Volume 4 .............................................................................18.162
Compania Sud Americana de Vapores v. E.R. Hamburg Schiffs. [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 66;
[2006] EWHC 483 (Comm), [2007] L.M.C.L.Q. 1 .................................................. 6.35, 11.10, 11.11, 11.17, 11.31,
14.43, 66.16, 66.100, 66.277
Compania. Portorafti Commerciale S.A. v. Ultramar Panama Inc. (The Captain Gregos)
(No. 1) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 310; [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 395 ...............................................66.188, 66.467–66.469
Compass Group UK and Ireland v. Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 300 ......................1.10
Comyn Ching v. Oriental Tube [1979] B.L.R. 56 ........................................................................................................21.83

liv
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Concordia C., The (Rheinoel v. Huron Liberian) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 55 ...............................................................21.97
Connolly Shaw v. Nordenfjeldske (1934) 49 Ll. L. Rep. 183 ..........................................................................12.25, 12.26
Constantine Steamship Co. v. Imperial Smelting Corp. See Joseph Constantine Steamship Co. v.
Imperial Smelting Corp—
Constanza M, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 505 ..................................................................................................13.32, 13.35
Container Pioneer, The [1994] 2 A.C. 324.................................................................................................................66.468
Continental Fertilizer v. Pionier Shipping (The Pionier) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 223 ...................................66.183, 66.193
Continental Grain v. Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (The Iran Bohonar)
[1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 620 ..................................................................................................................................21.143
Cook v. Jennings (1797) T.R. 381 ..................................................................................................................................9.11
Cooke v. Wilson (1856) 1 C.B.(N.S.) 153 ............................................................................................................2.10, 2.12
Cooper Ewing & Co. v. Hamel & Horley (1923) 13 Ll. L. Rep. 590 ..........................................................................21.14
Cooperative Bank v. Freehold [2017] EWHC 1820 (Ch) ..............................................................................................1.64
Cooperative Retail Services v. Taylor Young Partnership [2002] 1 W.L.R. 11419 .......................................................5.50
Copley v. Lawn [2009] Bus. L.R. 558 .........................................................................................................................21.52
Coral Rose, The [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 563 .......................................................................................2.23, 2.39, 2.40, 2.43
Coral, The (Balli Trading v. Afalona Shipping Co.) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1;
[1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 158 .......................................................................................................................66.86, 66.112
Corcoran v. Gurney (1853) 1 E. & B. 456 .................................................................................................................66.294
Coreck Maritime v. Handelsveem [2000] E.C.R. I–9337 ............................................................................................66.27
Corkling v. Massey (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 395 .....................................................................................................................4.6
Cornelius (E.G.) & Co. v. Christos Maritime (The Christos) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 106 .............................................3.16
Corrado Societa Anonima di Navigazione v. Exporthleb (1932) 43 Ll. L. Rep. 509 ..................................................15.18
Corrie v. Coulthard (1877) 3 Asp. M.L.C. 546n ..........................................................................................................20.21
Cory Bros. v. Baldan [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 58.............................................................................................................23.9
Cory v. Burr (1893) 8 App. Cas. 393 .........................................................................................................................66.307
Cory v. Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Co. (1868) L.R. 2 Q.B. 181 .................................................................21.27
Cosco Bulk Carrier Co Ltd v. Tianjin General Nice Coke and Chemicals (The Jia Li Hai) Co.
[2017] EWHC 2509 (Comm) ..............................................................................................................................11.35
Cosemar v. Marimarna Shipping Co. (The Mathew) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 323 ............................................13.39, 13.40
Cosmar Compania Naviera S.A. v. Total Transport Corporation (The Isabelle)
[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 366; aff’g [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 ...................................................5.6, 5.85, 38.11, 66.355
Cosmos Bulk Transport v. China National Foreign Trade Transportation
(The Apollonius) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 53 ...........................................................................................................3.35
Costello v. Calgary (No. 1) (1995) 163 A.R. 241 ........................................................................................................21.52
Cottonex Anstalt v. Patriot Spinning Mills [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 615 .......................................................................1.107
Coulthurst v. Sweet (1866) L.R. 1 C.P. 649 ...................................................................................................................13.9
Count, The (Independent Petroleum Group Ltd v. Seacarriers Count Pte. Ltd) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 72 ...................5.93
County v. Girozentrale Securities [1996] 3 All E.R. 834.............................................................................................21.41
Court Line v. Canadian Transport [1940] A.C. 934 .........................................................14.22, 14.36, 14.37, 14.40, 14.54
Courtney v. Tolaini [1975] 1 W.L.R. 297.......................................................................................................................1.10
Couturier v. Hastie (1856) 5 H.L.C. 673........................................................................................................................1.65
Coventry Sheppard & Co. v. Larrinaga Steamship Co. (1942) 73 Ll. L. Rep. 256 ...................................................66.250
Cox v. Bruce (1886) 18 Q.B.D. 147 (C.A.) ...........................................................................................18.31, 18.37, 18.38
Cox, Peterson & Co. v. Bruce (1886) 18 Q.B.D. 147 ................................................................................................66.142
Coxwold, The [1942] A.C. 691 ....................................................................................................................................26.33
Craig v. Blackater [1923] S.C. 472 ..................................................................................................................................2.5
Crawford & Law v. Allen [1912] A.C. 130..................................................................................................................18.21
Crema v. Cenkos Securities [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2066 .......................................................................................................1.97
Cremer v. General Carriers [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 366 ..................................................................................18.17, 18.109
Crippen (G.E.) & Associates v. Vancouver Tug Boat Co. [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 207 ...................................66.337, 66.34
Croockewit v. Fletcher (1857) 1 H. & N. 893 .................................................................................................................4.4
Crooks v. Allen (1879) 5 Q.B.D. 38 ...........................................................................................18.45, 20.48, 20.49, 20.51
Crossfield v. Kyle [1916] 2 K.B. 885...........................................................................................................................18.33
Croudace v. Cawoods [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 55 ............................................................................................21.40, 66.248
Crudesky, The [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .....................................................................................................................66.307
Crudesky, The. See Great Elephant Corp. v. Trafigura Beheer BV—
Crusader, The [1907] P. 196 ...........................................................................................................................................1.89
Cullen v. Butler (1816) 5 M. & S. 461.......................................................................................................................66.286
Cullinane v. British Rema Manufacturing [1954] 1 Q.B. 292 .......................................................................................21.4
Cummins v. Shell International Manning Services. See Anderton v. Clwyd CC—
Cunard SS. Co. v. Buerger [1927] A.C. 1 .........................................................................................................12.25, 12.26
Cunard v. Hyde (1859) 29 L.J.Q.B. 6 ............................................................................................................................1.56
Cunningham v. Dunn (1878) 3 C.P.D. 443 ...........................................................................................................7.8, 11.41

lv
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Curfew, The [1891] P. 131 .............................................................................................................................................6.12

Curtis v. Wild [1991] 4 All E.R. 172..........................................................................................................................66.273
Cuthbert v. Cumming (1855) L.R. 11 Ex. 405 .................................................................................................................6.6
Czarnikow v. Koufos (The Heron II) [1969] 1 A.C. 350 (H.L.) ..................................21.32, 21.33, 21.39, 21.122, 21.123
DC Merwestone, The (Versloot Dredging BV v. HDI-Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG)
[2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 131 ................................................................................66.98, 66.285, 66.287, 66.288, 66.291
DGM Commodities Corporation v. Sea Metropolitan S.A. (The Andra)
[2012] Lloyd’s Rep. 587 ..............................................................................................................................14.37, 22.6
DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v. Gemini Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd.
[2022] EWHC 181 (Comm) ........................................................................................................1.16, 1.20, 1.23, 1.26
DSND Subsea Ltd v. Petroleum Geo-Services ASA [2000] B.L.R. 530;
[2000] EWHC 185 (TCC) .............................................................................................................................1.89, 1.92
Dadourian Group International Inc. v. Simms [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 601 ...........................................................1.80, 1.82
Daewoo Heavy Industries v. Klipriver Shipping (The Kapitan Petko Voivoda)
[2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ..........................................................6.31, 12.32, 12.40, 12.45, 66.7, 66.9, 166.119, 66.174,
66.175, 66.207, 66.364, 66.368, 66.380, 66.401, 66.423
Daffodil B., The (Danae Shipping Co. v. T.P.A.O. and Guven Turkish Insurance Co.)
[1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 498 .......................................................................................................................12.15, 66.359
Dagmar, The (Tage Berglund v. Montoro Shipping Corp.) [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 563 ..............................5.83, 5.84, 5.97
Dahl v. Nelson (1880) 6 App. Cas. 38; rev’g Nelson v. Dahl (1879)
12 Ch. D. 568 ...................................................................................................................5.24, 5.28, 5.90–5.92, 5.102
Dainford Navigation Inc v. PDVSA Petroleo S.A. (The Moscow Stars) [2017] EWHC 2150 (Comm) ....................17.28
Dairy Containers Ltd. v. Tasman Orient Line (The Tasman Discoverer) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 528
(N.Z.C.A.); [2003] 3 N.Z.L.R. 353; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 647; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 215, 216.....................1.112, 66.2,
66.86, 66.223, 66.226, 66.238, 66.371
Dakin v. Oxley (1864) 15 C.B.(N.S.) 646 ...........................................................................13.2, 13.5, 13.27, 13.63, 13.80
Dalwood Marine Co. v. Nordana Line A/S (The Elbrus)
[2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 315 ............................................................................................21.1, 21.7, 21.47, 21.91, 21.97
Damon v. Hapag Lloyd (The Blankenstein) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 93; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 522.............................64.3
Dampsk. S/S Svendborg v. L.M.S. Railway [1930] 1 K.B. 83 ....................................................................................10.11
Dampskib. “Norden” v. Andre [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 287 ......................................................................21.7, 21.12, 21.56
Dana Gas PJSC v. Dana Gas Sakuk [2018] EWHC 277 (Comm) ......................................................1.47, 1.66, 1.69, 22.1
Danae Shipping Co. v. T.P.A.O., and Guven Turkish Insurance Co. (The Daffodil B)
[1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 498 .......................................................................................................................12.15, 66.359
Danah, The (Kuwait Maritime Transport v. Rickmers Line) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 351.....................................6.34, 6.35
Daneborg v. White Sea Timber (1935) 51 Ll. L. Rep. 338 ........................................................................................... 27.5
Daniels v. Harris (1874) L.R. 10 C.P. 1. ........................................................................................................................6.33
Daniolos v. Bunge (1938) 62 Ll. L. Rep. 65, aff’g (1937) 59 Ll. L. Rep. 175 ............................................................20.22
Dany Lions v. Bristol Cars [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 281 .................................................................................................1.69
Darfur, The [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 469..........................................................................................................................57.3
Darling v. Raeburn [1907] 1 K.B. 846 (C.A.); [1906] 1 K.B. 572 ................................................................................6.10
Darrah, The. See Aldebaran Compania Maritima v. Aussenhandel A.G.—
Darya Radhe, The (Bunge S.A. v. ADM Do Brasil Ltda) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 175 .........................................6.58, 6.62
Darya Tara, The (L.D. Seals v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 42 ...........................................................6.40
Data Card Corporation v. Air Express International Corporation [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 ....................................66.404
Data Direct v. Marks & Spencer [2009] EWHC 97 (Ch) ............................................................................................1.115
Datec Electronics Holdings v. United Parcels Services (UPS) [2007] 1 W.L.R. 1325,
[2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 279 .......................................................................................................................18.45, 66.236
Daval Aciers d’Usinor v. Armare S.R.L. (The Nerano) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (C.A.) ............................................18.56
Davenport [2000] L.M.C.L.Q. 455 ............................................................................................................................18.164
Daventry D.C. v. Daventry Housing [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1333 ..........................................................................................1.74
David Agmashenebeli, The [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 92.................................................................5.10, 18.23, 18.24, 18.97,
18.179, 66.140, 66.144, 66.338
Davies v. Taylor [1974] A.C. 297 ................................................................................................................................21.43
Davis v. Capel [1959] N.Z.L.R. 825 ..............................................................................................................................2.16
Davis v. Garrett (1830) 6 Bing. 716 .........................................................................................................12.1, 12.30, 12.42
Davis Contractors v. Fareham U.D.C. [1956] A.C. 696 ..........................................................................22.1, 22.14, 26.80
Dawson Line v. AG Adler fur Chemische Industrie of Berlin
[1932] 1 K.B. 433 ........................................................................................................18.201, 18.207, 18.219, 18.232
De Lassalle v. Guildford [1901] 2 K.B. 215 ..................................................................................................................1.94
De Mattos v. Gibson (1858) 4 De G. & J. 276.....................................................................................2.36, 21.141, 21.144
De Meza v. Apple [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 508; [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 498 (C. A.) .....................................................21.69
De Wolf Maritime Safety BV v. Traffic-Tech International Inc. 2017 F.C. 23
(Fed Ct of Canada) ..................................................................................................................................66.73, 66.421

lvi
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Debtor, a, Re [1927] 2 Ch. 367 ......................................................................................................................................1.91

Decoma UK Ltd v. Haden Drysis International Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 723 ..............................................................1.119
Deep Sea Maritime Ltd v. Momjasa AS Maritime Ltd (The Alhani)
[2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 563 .....................................18.60, 18.165, 18.166, 66.9, 66.28, 66.80, 66.82, 66.115, 66.174,
66.175, 66.178, 66.186, 66.190, 66.194, 66.199, 66.200,
66.204, 66.205, 66.207, 66.223, 66.226, 66.368, 66.401
Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemicals v. I.C.I. [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 38 .......................................................21.40, 66.248
Delfini, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 252; [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 599..................................................................1.38, 18.94
Delian Spirit, The. See Shipping Developments Corp. v. Sojuzneftexport—
Delos, The [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 703 .........................................................................................18.51, 18.56, 27A.4, 63.1
Democritos, The. See Marbienes Compania Naviera S.A. v. Ferrostaal A.G.—
Demosthenes V, The (No 2) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 282 ..................................................................................................2.1
Demosthenes V, The. See Gerani Compania Naviera v. General Organisation
for Supply Goods—
Den Norske Afrika Linie v. Port Said Salt Association (1924) 20 Ll. L. Rep. 184 ............................................19.7, 19.29
Den Norske Bank v. Acemex Management (The Tropical Reefer) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ........................................2.36
Den of Airlie v. Mitsui (1912) 17 Com. Cas. 116 ......................................................................................................21.126
Dene SS. Co. Ltd v. Mann, George & Co. (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 846 .........................................................................13.93
Denfleet International v. TNT Global SpA [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 504 .....................................................................66.422
Dennis v. Cork SS. Co. [1913] 2 K.B. 393 .......................................................................................................10.20, 13.74
Denny, Mott & Dickson v. Lynn Shipping Co. [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 339....................................................66.89, 66.199
Denny, Mott v. Fraser [1944] A.C. 265........................................................................................................................22.11
Dent v. Glen Line (1940) 45 Com. Cas. 244 ..................................................................................................18.18, 66.142
Dera Commercial Estate v. Derya (The Sur) [2019] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 57 ........................................6.31, 12.39, 12.40, 59.1,
66.206, 66.269, 66.358
Derby Resources A.G. v. Blue Corinth Marine Co. (The Athenian Harmony)
[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 410 ..............................................................................21.110, 21.124, 66.386, 66.389, 66.392
Derby, The (Alfred C. Toepfer Schiffahrtsgesellschaft G.m.b.H. v. Tossa Marine Co. Ltd.)
[1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325; [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 635 .................................................... 11.34, 11.40, 11.65, 21.113
Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App. Cas. 337 .........................................................................................................................1.80
Despina R, The. See Services Europe Atlantique Sud v. Stockholms Rederiaktiebolaget—
Deutsche Bank (Suisse) v. Khan [2013] EWHC 482 (Comm) ......................................................................................1.46
Deutsche Schachtbau v. S.I.T. [1990] 1 A.C. 295, 312–316 (CA); rev’d on another ground, ibid. 323 .......................1.29
Deutsche Trustee v. Duchess [2019] EWHC 7789 (Ch); approved in appeal at [2020] EWCA Civ 521 .....................1.95
Devani v. Wells [2020] A.C. 129 ..............................................................................................................1.5, 1.6, 1.8, 1.10
Deverill v. Burnell (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 475 ..................................................................................................................21.22
Devon, The (CHS Inc. Iberia SL v. Far East Marine S.A.) [2012] EWHC 3747 (Comm) .................................9.5, 21.124
Dexia Crediop v. Communie di Prato [2017] EWCA Civ 428 ......................................................................................1.28
Dhanani v. Crasnianski [2011] EWHC 926 .....................................................................................................................1.5
Diamond (1978) L.M.C.L.Q. 225. .............................................................................................................................66.467
Diamond Alkali v. Bourgeois [1921] 3 K.B. 443.......................................................................................................18.147
Diamond, The [1906] P. 282 .........................................................................................................................66.263, 66.283
Diana Prosperity, The. See Reardon Smith Line v. Hansen Tangen—
Dias Compania Naviera v. Louis Dreyfus (The Dias) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 325 ........................................................16.3
Dias, The. See Dias Compania Naviera v. Louis Dreyfus—
Dickenson v. Lano (1860) 2 F. & F. 188 ...........................................................................................................13.33, 13.35
Didymi v. Atlantic Lines [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 108 ............................................................................................1.10, 1.11
Didymi, The, and The Leon [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 583 ................................................................................................4.20
Die Elbinger A.G. v. Armstrong (1874) L.R. 9 Q.B. 473 ............................................................................................21.80
Dimech v. Corlett (1858) 12 Moo. P.C. 199 ..........................................................................................21.92, 21.134, 64.2
Dimitris L, The. See Global Maritime Investments Ltd v. STX Pan Ocean Co. Ltd—
Dimond v. Lovell [2002] 1 A.C. 384 ...........................................................................................................................21.46
Dimskal Shipping v. International Transport Workers’ Federation (The Evia Luck)
[1992] 2 A.C. 152 .................................................................................................................................1.87, 1.88, 1.93
Dixon v. Sadler (1839) 5 M. & W. 305 ........................................................................................................................11.48
Dobell v. Rossmore [1895] 2 Q.B. 408 .................................................................................................................1.37, 53.2
Dollar v. Blood, Holman (1920) 4 Ll. L. Rep. 343 ........................................................................................................39.7
Dolphin Hellas v. Itemslot (The Aegean Dolphin) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 178 .............................................................3.38
Dolphin Maritime & Aviation Services Limited v. Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening
[2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 123; [2009] EWHC 716 (Comm) .........................................................................2.38, 18.138
Dolphin Tanker SRL v. Westport Petroleum Inc. (The Savina Caylyn) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 550 .............................3.29
Dolphina, The [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 304 ........................................................................1.27, 18.48, 18.50, 18.83, 18.97,
18.52, 18.169, 66.27
Domett v. Beckford (1883) 5 B. & Ad. 521 .................................................................................................................13.33

lvii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Dominator, The (Louis Dreyfus v. Parnaso Compania Naviera S.A.) [1960] 2 Q.B. 49;
[1959] 1 Q.B. 498; [1959] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 125 ....................................................................................................1.106
Domingo de Larrinaga, The (1928) AMC 64; The City of Colombo (1986) 26 D.L.R. 161 ......................................20.31
Dominion Coal v. Roberts (1920) 4 Ll. L. Rep. 434 ...................................................................................................22.32
Dominion Mosaics v. Trafalgar Trucking [1990] 2 All E.R. 246 .....................................................................21.57, 21.58
Dominique, The, See Colonial Bank v. European Grain & Shipping—
Donaldson J. in Golodetz & Co. v. Czarnikow-Rionda Inc. (The Galatia) [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 450 ....................66.142
Dora, The (Cantiere Navale Triestina v. Russian Soviet Naphtha Export Agency)
[1925] 2 K.B. 172 (C.A.)......................................................................................................................................15.71
Double Happiness, The (Front Carriers v. Atlantic & Orient Shipping Corp.) [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 131 ....................2.3
Dow Chemical (Nederland) v. B.P. Tanker Co. (The Vorras) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 579 (C.A.)................................15.16
Dow Europe S.A. v. Novoklav Inc. [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 306 .............................................................................5.9, 5.47
Downs v. Chappell [1997] 1 W.L.R. 426 .......................................................................................................................1.82
Doyle v. Olby (Ironmongers) [1969] 2 Q.B. 158 ...........................................................................................................1.82
Dresser U.K. v. Falcongate Freight Management [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 557...........................................................66.187
Dreyfus (Louis) v. Parnaso Compania Naviera S.A. (The Dominator) [1960] 2 Q.B. 49 (C.A.);
rev’g [1959] 1 Q.B. 498; [1959] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 125 ...........................................................................................1.106
Dreyfus v. Lauro (1938) 60 Ll. L. Rep. 984 ................................................................................4.9, 4.10, 4.14, 4.15, 4.19
Dreyfus v. Parnaso, [1960] 2 Q.B. 49 ............................................................................................................................3.25
Dreyfus v. Tempus Shipping [1931] A.C. 762 .............................................................................................................20.42
Drughorn v. Red. Transatlantic [1919] A.C. 203 ...........................................................................................................2.17
Dry Bulk Handy Holding Inc. v. Fayette International Holdings Ltd (The Bulk Chile)
[2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 47 ......................................................................................................................................13.45
Du Pont de Nemours (E.I.) v. Agnew [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 585 .................................................................................1.31
Duden, The (Sotrade Denizcilik v. Amadou Lo) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 145 ...................................................18.60, 18.67
Dugdale v. Lovering (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 196 ...........................................................................................................18.223
Dumbrell v. The Regional Group of Companies Inc (2007) D.L.R. (4th) 201 ..............................................................1.67
Dumford Trading A.G. v. OAO Atlantrybflot [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 289 ..............................................................1.73, 2.3
Duncan v. Koster (The Teutonia) (1872) L.R. 4 P.C. 171 ..............................................................................................5.54
Dunelmia, The. See President of India v. Metcalfe Shipping Co.—
Dunlop v. Lambert (1839) 6 Cl. & F. 600 ..................................................................................................................21.127
Dunlop v. New Garage & Motor Co. [1915] A.C. 79 ................................................................................................21.132
Dunn v. Bucknall Bros. [1902] 2 K.B. 614 ...................................................................................................21.123, 66.316
Dupont de Nemours v. SS. Mormacvega [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 296 .......................................................................66.358
Durham Tees Valley Airport Ltd v. bmiBaby Ltd [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68 ............................................21.1, 21.5, 21.19,
21.22, 21.23, 21.25
Duthie v. Hilton (1868) L.R. 4 C.P. 138 ................................................................................................13.75, 13.82, 13.83
E. Clemens Horst v. Norfolk S.N. Co. (1906) 11 Com. Cas. 141 ................................................................................10.10
E.B. Aaby’s Rederi v. LEP Transport (1948) 81 Ll. L. Rep. 465.................................................................................22.23
E.B. Aaby’s Rederi v. Union of India (The Evje) (No. 2) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 714 ..................................................54.3
E.B. Aaby’s Rederi v. Union of India [1975] A.C. 797 ....................................................................................20.52–20.54
E.D. & F. Man v. Unicargo (The Lady Tramp) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 660, upheld an appeal
[2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412 ....................................................................................................................................38.16
E.D.& F. Man Sugar Ltd. v. Unicargo Transport GmbH (The Ladytramp) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 660;
[2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412 .........................................................................................................................1.105, 15.28
E.G. Cornelius & Co. v. Christos Maritime (The Christos) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 106 ......................................3.12, 3.16
E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Agnew [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 585.....................................................................................1.31
ENE 1 Kos Ltd v. Petroleo Brasiliero SA (No. 2), (The Kos) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 292;
[2012] 2 A.C. 164 .....................................................................................................9.10, 17.37, 17.38, 18.171, 22.36
ENE v. SK Shipping Co. Ltd (The Antiparos) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 237 ..........................................................36.6, 36.8
E.L. Oldendorff & Co. v. Tradax Export (The Johanna Oldendorff) [1974] A.C. 479, at p. 557 .....................15.36, 15.37
E.D. Sassoon & Co. v. Western Assurance Co [1912] A.C. 561.....................................................................19.14, 66.289
Eagle Valencia, The (AET v. Arcadia Petroleum Ltd.) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 257 (C.A.)...............................15.45, 16.21
Ease Faith Ltd v. Leonis Marine Management Ltd (The Kent Reliant) [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 673 ...............................9.5
East Asia Co. Ltd v. PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo (Bermuda) [2019] U.K.P.C. 30...........................2.1, 2.22, 2.27, 2.28
East West Corp. v. DKBS 1912 [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 182;
[2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 239 ......................................................1.47, 18.78, 18.80, 18.83, 18.85, 18.89, 18.92, 18.115,
18.118, 18.127, 18.128, 18.135, 18.145, 18.169, 18.171
Eastern City, The (Leeds Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Société Française Bunge)
[1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127 (C.A.); aff’g [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 153 .....................................................................5.71
Eastern Navigator, The (Bernuth Lines v. High Seas Shipping) [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 537 ...........................5.15, 66.196
Easybiz Investments v. Sinograin (The Biz) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 688...................................................................66.196
Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch.D. 459 .............................................................................................................1.79
Edler v. Auerbach [1950] 1 K.B. 359.............................................................................................................................1.57

lviii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Edmond, The (1860) Lush. 57 .....................................................................................................................................13.54

Edwards v. Soughtgate 1862) W.R. 528 ......................................................................................................................17.28
Edwinton Commercial Corp. v. Tsavliris Russ (Worldwide Salvage & Towage) Ltd (The Sea Angel)
[2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 517 ...........................................................................................................................22.1, 22.21
Eeems Solar, The (Yuzhny Zavod Metall Profil LLC v. Eems Beheerder B.V.)
Queen’s Bench Division, Admiralty Court, 5 June 2013 ........................................ 11.31, 11.33, 14.39, 14.42, 14.43,
18.50, 66.86, 66.100, 66.112
Eehmann Castleton Commodities Shipping Co PteE LTD v. Silver Rick Investments
[2015] EWHC 2584 (Comm) ...............................................................................................................................17.28
Effort Shipping Co. v. Linden Management S.A. (The Giannis NK) [1998] A.C. 605 ............................................66A.56
Effort Shipping v. Linden Management (The Giannis N.K.) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 337 (H.L.);
[1998] A.C. 605; [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 577 (C.A.); [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 .............................5.66, 6.49, 18.79,
18.100, 18.105, 66.158, 66.431, 66.433, 66.434, 66.443, 66.447
Efploia Shipping Corp. v. Canadian Transport (The Pantanassa) [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449 ........................................4.8
Egon Oldendorff v. Libera Corporation [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 64;
[1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 380 ..................................................................................................1.29, 1.30, 1.35, 1.36, 1.47
El Ajou v. Dollar Land Holdings [1994] 2 All E.R. 666 .................................................................................11.55, 66.284
El Amria, The [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 119 ....................................................................................................................66.25
El Greco (Australia) Pty. v. Mediterranean Shipping Co. (2004) L.M.C.L.Q. 153;
[2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 537 (F.C. Aust.) ; (2005) L.M.C.L.Q. 1 .....................................66.9, 21.124, 66.139, 66.237,
66.377, 66.378, 66.379, 66.381, 66.385,
66.395, 66.402, 66.408, 66.409, 66.411
Elbe Maru, The (Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. International Import and Export Co.)
[1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 206 ..................................................................................................................................66.472
Elbrus, The (Dalwood Marine v. Nordana Line A/S) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 315 ...............21.1, 21.7, 21.47, 21.91, 21.97
Elder Dempster v. Dunn (1909) 15 Com. Cas. 49 (H.L.) ...................................................18.201, 18.219, 18.231, 66.138
Elder Dempster & Co. Ltd. v. Paterson Zochonis & Co. Ltd. See Paterson Zochonis & Co. Ltd. v.
Elder Dempster & Co. Ltd.—
Elderslie SS. Co. v. Borthwick [1905] A.C. 93.............................................................................1.112, 49.6, 50.3, 66.261
Electrosteel Castings v. Scan-Trans Shipping and Chartering [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 190 ......................................2.2, 2.7
Elena d’Amico, The (Koch Marine v. D’Amico Soc. di Nav.) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 75................................21.53, 21.98
Elena Shipping v. Aidenfield Ltd (The Elena) [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 425 ......................13.21, 13.23, 13.63, 13.64, 13.67
Elena, The. See Elena Shipping v. Aidenfield Ltd.—
Eleni P, The [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 461 .................................................................................................1.106, 1.107, 1.115
Elexalde, The (Armada Lines v. Naviera Maropan S.A.) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 485 .................................................25.16
Elikon, The (Internaut Shipping v. Fercometal Sarl) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 430 ..........................................................2.10
Ellawood v. Ford & Co. (1922) 12 Ll. L. Rep. 347 .....................................................................................................13.97
Ellerman v. Lancaster (The Lancaster) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 497 ...............................................................................17.1
Elli 2, The [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 107 ..........................................................................................................18.109, 18.112
Elli and the Frixos, The (Golden Fleece Maritime v. ST Shipping & Transport)
[2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 262, upheld [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 119............................................................................11.40
Ellis Shipping Corp. v. Voest Alpine Intertrading (The Lefthero) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 (C.A.);
[1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 599 .............................................................................13.79, 13.113, 15.38, 15.72, 38.27, 50.3
Elpidoforos Shipping Corp. v. Furness Withy (Australia) (The Oinoussian Friendship)
[1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 258 ....................................................................................................................................21.48
Elpidoforos v. Furness Withy (The Oinoussian Friend- ship) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 258 .............................15.73, 21.108
Elpis v. Marti [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 311.........................................................................................................................2.5
Elvin & Powell v. Plummer Roddis (1933) 33 T.L.R. 158 ........................................................................................18.122
Embiricos v. Tradax [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 464 ..........................................................................................................14.50
Emeraldian Ltd Partnership v. Wellmix Shipping Ltd (The Vine) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301;
[2011] L.M.C.L.Q. 23...........................................................5.15, 5.64, 5.88, 5.93, 5.116, 15.14, 15.28, 15.29, 15.49
Emilien Marie, The (1875) 44 L.J. Adm. 9 ....................................................................................................................1.71
Emirates Trading Agency LLC v. Prime Mineral Exports [2015] 1 W.L.R. 1145 ..................................................1.5, 1.10
Emmanuel C., The [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 310 ............................................................................................................1.113
Empresa Cubana Importada de Alimentos v. Iasmos Shipping Co. S.A. (The Good Friend)
[1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 586 ............................................................................................................ 11.18, 11.23, 21.124
Empresa Exportadora De Azucar v. Industria Azucarera Nacional (The Playa Larga)
[1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 ......................................................................................................................................22.1
Encounter Express, The (Sellers Fabrics Pty. v. Hapag-Lloyd) (1998) N.S.W.S.C. 646;
[1999] L.M.C.L.Q. 412 ......................................................................................................................................66.423
Energy Progress, The [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 355 ........................................................................................................24.16
Eng v. Harper [2009] Ch. 91 ........................................................................................................................................21.43
Englehart CTO (US) v. Lloyd’s Syndicate 1221 [2018[ 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 24 ..............................................................66.130
Enka Insaat ve Sanayi v. OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449 ..............1.28–1.31, 1.33, 1.36, 1.42

lix
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Epaphus, The. See Eurico S.p.A. v. Philipp Bros—

Epsilon Rosa, The (No. 2) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 701; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509 ......................................................1.47
Epsilon Rosa, The [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 .............................................................................................1.3, 18.61, 18.64
Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Hyman [2002] 1 A.C. 408..................................................................................1.123
Equitas Insurance v. Municipal Insurance [2019] EWCA Civ 718, [2019] 3 W.L.R. 613 ..........................................1.122
Equity & Law Life Assurance Society v. Bodfield Ltd (1987) 1 E.G.L.R. 134 ..........................................................1.108
Equity Syndicate Management Ltd v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC [2015] EWHC 2163; (Comm)
[2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 155 ...............................................................................................................................1.74
Erechthion, The. See Newa Line v. Erechthion Shipping—
Eridania SpA v. Rudolf A. Oetker (The Fjord Wind) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 307,
[2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 191 ..................................................................9.10, 11.29, 33.5, 66.95, 66.97, 66.102, 66.254
Eriksen v. Barkworth (1858) 3 H. & N. 601 ................................................................................................................10.20
Erin Schulte, The (Standard Chartered Bank v. Dorchester LNG (2)) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 654;
[2013] EWHC 808 (Comm) ...............................................................................................................................18.169
Ert Stefanie, The [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 371; [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349 (C.A.) ................................. 11.56, 11.58, 11.61
Esmail v. J. Rosenthal & Sons [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 447 ..........................................................................................21.14
Esmeralda I, The (Ace Imports v. Lloyd Brasileiro) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 206 (Aust. Ct.) .......................66.112, 66.139
Esso Petroleum v. Mardon [1976] Q.B. 801 ..................................................................................................................4.19
Esso Petroleum v. Niad [2001] All E.R.(D) 324 ........................................................................................................21.146
Estasis Salotti v. RUWA [1976] E.C.R. I–1831 ...........................................................................................................66.27
Estor Limited v. Multifit (UK) Limited [2009] EWHC 2565 (TCC) ..............................................................................2.2
Et . Biret v. Yukiteru Kaiun K.K. (The Sun Happiness) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 381 ............................................2.11, 2.12
Eternity, The. See Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v.
FR8 Singapore Pte Ltd—
Ethel Radcliffe SS. Co. v. Barnett (1926) 23 Ll. L. Rep. 279..........................................................................................9.3
Ethiopian Oilseeds v. Rio del Mar [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 86 ........................................................................................63.1
Ethniki, The. See AIG Europe v. Anonymous Greek Co. of General Insurance—
Ets . Georges et Paul Levy v. Adderley Navigation (The Olympic Pride) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 67 ...........................1.74
Ettrick, The (1881) 6 P.D. 127 .....................................................................................................................................20.41
Eugenia Chandris, The (Chandris v. Union of India) [1956] 1 W.L.R. 147;
[1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 11 (C.A.)...........................................................................................................................14.32
Eugenia, The [1964] 2 Q.B. 226 (C.A.) ..................................................................22.3, 22.14, 22.21, 22.27, 22.28, 22.35
Eurasian Dream, The (Papera Traders v. Hyundai Merchant Marine)
[2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 719; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 692 ...............................................................21.77, 21.78, 66.109
Eurico S.p.A. v. Philipp Bros. (The Epaphus) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 215;
[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 387 ..................................................................................................................5.25, 6.11, 15.44
Euronav NV v. Repsol Trading SA (The Maria) [2022] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 247 ..............................................................16.21
Europa, The [1908] P. 84 ................................................................................................................................12.11, 66.254
Europea Plus SCA SIF v. Anthracite Investments (Ireland) Plc [2016] EWHC 437 (Comm) ....................................1.121
European Enterprise, The (Browner International v. Monarch Shipping Co.)
[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 185 ..................................................................................................................................66.436
EuroStem Maritime Ltd [1987] B.C.C. 190 ..................................................................................................................2.45
Eurus, The, Total Transport Corp. v. Arcadia Petroleum (The Eurus) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 351
(C.A.); aff’g [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 408 ...................... 5.10, 5.18, 11.64, 18.245, 21.80, 21.122, 38.11, 40.4, 66.461
Eurymedon, The (New Zealand Shipping Co. v. A.M. Satterthwaite & Co.)
[1975] A.C. 154; [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 534 (P.C.) ....................................................66.224, 66.225, 66.471, 66.472
Eurysthenes, The (Compania Maritima Basilio v. Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association)
[1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 ..................................................................................................................................66.425
Evaggelos Th., The (Vardinoyannis v. The Egyptian General Petroleum Corp.)
[1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 200 ......................................................................................................................................5.40
Evans & Son (Southampton) v. Andrea Merzario [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 165; [1976] 1 W.L.R. 1078 .......................66.71
Evans v. Cunard (1902) 18 T.L.R. 374 .................................................................................................................12.6, 12.7
Evans v. Merzario [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 165 ......................................................................................................6.26, 6.31
Evans v. Webster (1928) 34 Com. Cas. 172......................................................................................................18.13, 18.34
Evera S.A. Commercial v. North Shipping [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 367 ...........................................4.14, 4.15, 4.22, 4A.5,
4A.6, 4.A9, 11.74
Evera v. North Shipping [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 367 .....................................................................................4.4, 4.11, 4.18
Evergreen v. Aldgate Warehouse [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 597 ...........................................................................13.34, 18.78
Evia (No. 2), The [1983] 1 A.C. 736..........................................................................................................................21.109
Evia Luck, The (Dimskal Shipping v. International Transport Workers’ Federation)
[1992] 2 A.C. 152 .................................................................................................................................1.87, 1.88, 1.93
Evia, The. See Kodros Shipping Corp. v. Empresa Cubana de Fletes—
Evje, The (Aaby’s Rederi v. Union of India) (No. 2) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 714;
[1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 351 (C.A.) ........................................................................................................................11.37

lx
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Evje, The [1975] A.C. 797 .............................................................................................................................................63.1

Evpo Agnic, The [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 411 .................................................................................................................2.46
Evryalos Maritime Ltd v. China Pacific Insurance Co. Ltd.( The Michael S) Q.B.D. (Com. Ct.), 20
Exercise Shipping v. Bay Maritime Lines (The Fantasy) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 235 ................6.35, 66.75, 66.79, 66.106
Exfin Shipping Ltd v. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 389 .......................................................63.2, 13.64
Eximenco Handels A.G. v. Partrederiert Oro Chief (The Oro Chief) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509..................19.40, 21.144
Exmar BV v. National Iranian Tanker Co. (The Trade Fortitude) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 169 ....................................13.64
Experience Hendrix v. PPX Enterprises [2003] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 830 ..................................................................21.146
Expofrut SA v. Melville Services Inc. [2015] EWHC 1950 (Comm) ......................................................................66.197
Export Agency (The Dora) [1925] 2 K.B. 172 ............................................................................................................15.71
Exportadora Valle de Colina SA (t/a Exportadora Santa Elena v. AP Moller - Maersk A/S
(t/a Maersk Line) [2010] EWHC 3224 (Comm) ................................................................................................66.125
Express, The (1872) L.R. 3 A. & E. 597 ...........................................................................................................12.12, 12.15
Exxonmobil Sales & Supply Corp. v. Texaco (The Helene Knutsen) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 686 .....................1.124, 49.2
F.C. Bradley & Sons Ltd v. Federal Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1926) 24 Ll. L. Rep. 446;
(1927) 27 Ll. L. Rep. 395 .................................................................................................. 11.18–11.20, 66.95, 66.122
F.R. Lurssen Werft v. Halle [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 20..........................................................................................1.33, 1.38
FHR European Ventures v. Cedar Capital Partners [2015] 1 A.C. 520..........................................................................1.92
FSHC Group Holdings v. GLAS [2019] EWCA Civ 1361; (2020) L.M.C.L.Q. 1 ........................................1.5, 1.73, 1.74
Faghirzadeh v. Wolff [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 630...........................................................................................................63.1
Falck v. Williams [1900] A.C. 176 (P.C.) ......................................................................................................................1.69
Falconbridge Nickel Mines v. Chimo Shipping (The Tindefjell) [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277;
[1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 253 (Can. Ct.) ....................................................................................................66.374, 66.378
Falkonera Shipping Co v. Arcadia Energy Pte Ltd (The Falkonera) [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 406 ..................................41.9
Famosa Shipping v. Armada Bulk Carriers (The Fanis) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 633 ...................................................21.49
Fanis, The. See Famosa Shipping v. Armada Bulk Carriers—
Fantasy, The (Exercise Shipping v. Bay Maritime Lines) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 391;
[1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 235 (C.A.) ..................................................................................................11.83, 14.36, 14.55
Farenco Shipping Co. Ltd v. Daebo Shipping Co. Ltd (The Bremen Max)
[2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 ..............................................................................................10.4, 18.173, 18.173A, 21.139
Fearns (t/a Autopaint International) v. Anglo-Dutch Paint & Chemical Co. Ltd
[2011] 1 W.L.R. 366 ..................................................................................................................................13.63, 21.77
Featherston v. Wilkinson (1873) L.R. 8 Ex. 122 ..........................................................................................21.112, 21.121
Federal Bulk Carriers v. C. Itoh (The Federal Bulker) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 103 .............................18.49, 18.51, 18.129
Federal Bulker, The. See Federal Bulk Carriers v. C. Itoh—
Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Molena Alpha (The Nanfri) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201;
[1979] A.C. 757; [1978] Q.B. 927; [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 581 ..................................... 13.117, 13.118, 17.49, 18.61,
18.201, 18.203, 18.204, 18.215
Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Tradax Export S.A. (The Maratha Envoy)
[1978] A.C. 1; [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 301; [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 217 ...............................................................1.124
Federal Commerce v. Tradax Export (The Maratha Envoy) [1978] A.C. 1......................................................15.37, 15.57
Federal Court of Canada in de Wolf Maritime Safety BV v. Traffic-Tech International Inc.
2017 F.C. 23 ...........................................................................................................................................................6.71
Federal Huron, The [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 189 .........................................................................................................21.130
Federazione Italiana v. Federal Commerce (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 717..........................................................................1.78
Fehn Schiffahrts GMBH & Co KG v. Romani SPA (The Fehn Heaven)
[2018] EWHC 1606 (Comm) ........................................................................................................21.1, 21.46, 21.126
Felix, The (1868) L.R. 2 A. & E. 273 ..............................................................................................................................5.5
Fercometal S.A.R.L. v. Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A (The Simona)
[1989] A.C. 788 ..................................................................................19.29, 19.30, 19.32, 21.14, 21.16, 24.19, 21.54
Ferdinand Retzlaff, The [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 120 .......................................................................................21.48, 21.108
Fermin v. Standard Chartered Bank [2010] S.G.H.C. 119................................................................................21.18, 21.23
Ferro, The [1893] P. 329 and Hayn, Roman & Co. v. Culliford (1879) C.P.D. 182 ..................................................66.265
Ferruzzi France v. Oceania Maritime (The Palmea) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 261.........................................................21.18
Ferryways v. Associated British Ports [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 639 ........................................................2.15, 21.40, 66.248
Fetim B.V. v. Oceanspeed Shipping (The Flecha) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 612 .................................................18.69, 18.74
Fibria Celulose S/A v. Pan Ocean Co. Ltd, Mr You Sik Kim [2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch) ............................................1.138
Fibrosa v. Fairbairn [1943] A.C. 32 ....................................................................................................................22.8, 22.34
Fidelitas Shipping Co. Ltd. v. V/O Exportchleb [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 246,
[1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 113 ...........................................................17.2, 17.12, 17.14, 17.16, 17.7, 17.45, 18.52, 18.64
Field v. Metropolitan Police Receiver [1907] 2 K.B. 853 .........................................................................................66.329
Filatona Trading Ltd v. Navigator Equities [2020] EWCA Civ 109.......................................................2.1, 2.4, 2.13, 2.15
Filiatra Legacy, The (Anonima Petroli Italiana v. Marlucidez Armadora S.A.)
[1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 337 (C.A.); rev’g [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 354.................................................................66.130

lxi
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Filikos Shipping Corp. v. Shipmair B.V. (The Filikos)

[1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 9 ............................................................................................13.3, 14.54, 66.81, 66.89, 66.115
Filikos, The. See Filikos Shipping Corp. v. Shipmair B.V.—
Fimbank PLC v. Discover Investment Corp (The Nika)
[2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 ..................................................................................18.161, 18.162, 18.164, 18.171, 52.5
Fina Samco, The (International Fina Services v. Katrina Shipping) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 344 ................................1.106
Financial Conduct Authority v. Arch Insurance [2021] U.K.S.C. 1 ........................................................21.6, 21.41, 21.42
Finelvet A.G. v. Vinava Shipping Co. (The Chrysalis) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 503 ....................................................26.31
Finix, The [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 415..........................................................................................................................15.34
Finlay (James) & Co. v. Kwik Hoo Tong [1929]1 K.B. 400; aff’g [1928] 2 K.B. 604 .........................18.39, 18.43, 21.52
Finlay v. Liverpool and Great Western Steamship Co (1870) 23 L.T. 251................................................................66.307
Finmoon Ltd v. Baltic Reefers Management Ltd [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 388 .........................1.2, 1.3, 2.7, 2.9, 2.10, 18.2,
18.45, 18.60, 18.81–18.83, 66.195
Finnrose, The (Fort Sterling v. South Atlantic Cargo Shipping) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 559 .......................66.191, 66.194
Fiona [1998] A.C. 605 ...............................................................................................................................................66.355
Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 254;
[2010] EWHC 3199 (Comm) .................................................................................................1.91, 12.35, 27A.5, 63.1
Fiona, The. See Mediterranean Freight Services v. B.P. Oil International—
Firm PI ltd v. Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd. [2014] NZSC 147 .........................................................1.97, 1.105, 1.107
First Energy v. Hungarian International Bank [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 194 ...........................................................2.28, 2.31
First Tower Trustees v. CDS (superstores International) [2019] 1 W.L.R. 632 .............................................................1.79
Fish and Fish Ltd v. Sea Shepherd (The Steve Irwin) [2015] A.C. 1229 ......................................................................2.39
Fisher v. Val de Travers Asphalte (1876) 45 L.J.C.P. 479............................................................................................21.83
Fitzgerald v. Lona (Owners of The Varing) (1932) 44 Ll. L. Rep. 212 ............................................................5.103, 14.62
Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v. Mentmore Towers Ltd [2009] EWHC 1552 (TCC)................................................................1.79
Fjord Wind, The (Eridania v. Rudolf A. Oetker) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 191;
[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 307 (C.A.) .............................................................................. 9.10, 9.11, 11.25, 22.18, 66.109
Fjordaas, The (K/S Arnt J. Moerland v. Kuwait Petroleum Corp.)
[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 336 ....................................................................................................38.9, 38.10, 40.3, 40A.11
Flame S.A. v. Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 653;
[2013] EWHC 3153 (Comm) ...............................................................................................................1.2, 21.1, 21.14
Flecha, The. See Fetim B.V. v. Oceanspeed Shipping—
Fletcher v. Alexander (1868) L.R. 3 C.P. 375 ..............................................................................................................20.35
Fletcher v. Sigurd Haavik (The Vikfrost) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 560 .......................................................................18.203
Flint v. Tittensor [2015] 1 W.L.R. 4370 .........................................................................................................................1.51
Flintermar, The (C V Scheepvaartonderneming Flintermar v Sea Malta Company Ltd)
[2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 409 ....................................................................................................................................14.36
Florida, The [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1..................................................................................................................5.29, 26.79
Flowergate, The (John v. Turnbull Scott Shipping Co.) [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ..........................................66.98, 66.333
Foley v. Classique Coaches [1934] 2 K.B. 1 .................................................................................................................1.10
Folias, The. See Services Europe Atlantique Sud v. Stockholms Rederiaktiebolaget—
Fontevivo, The (Gem Shipping v. Babanaft) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 339 ....................................................................26.30
Food Corporation of India v. Achilles Halcoussis (The Petros Hadjikyriakos)
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 56 ......................................................................................................................................15.43
Ford v. Cotesworth (1810) 5 Q.B. 127...........................................................................................................................15.5
Foreman and Ellams v. Federal Steam Navigation Co. [1928] 2 K.B. 424 ........................66.264, 66.277, 66.358, 66.360
Fornyade Red. Commercial v. Blake & Co. (The Varing) [1931] P. 79 ......................................................................5.103
Fors. Vesta v. Butcher [1989] A.C. 852 (C.A.) .........................................................................................................66.461
Forsikrings. Vesta v. Butcher [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 179 ............................................................................................21.62
Forsikringsaktieselskapet Vesta v. Butcher [1989] A.C. 852 (C.A.); [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 179 ...............................5.100
Fort Kipp, The (Canadian Pacific (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Lagon Maritime Overseas)
[1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 168 ....................................................................................................................................17.34
Fort Shipping v. Pedersen (1924) 19 Ll. L. Rep. 26 .......................................................................................18.53, 66.151
Fort Sterling v. South Atlantic Cargo Shipping (The Finnrose) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 559 .....................................66.186
Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLC v. Blue Skye Special Opportunities Fund LP
[2013] EWCA Civ 367; [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 606, (2013) L.M.C.L.Q. 304 ........................2.38, 18.141, 24.4, 24.6
Forum Craftsman, The [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 291 ....................................................................................................18.130
Forum Craftsman, The (Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Ierax Shipping Co.)
[1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 ....................................................................................................................15.3, 15.8, 15.23
Forward v. Pittard (1785) 1 T.R. 2 .............................................................................................................................66.298
Foster v. Driscoll [1929] 1 K.B. 47 ................................................................................................................................1.58
Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines [1981] A.C. 251 ........................................................................................................66.426
Fowler v. Knoop (1878) 4 Q.B.D. 299 ...........................................................................................................10.20, 18.171
Fox & Gibson Pty. v. Holyman & Sons Pty. (1946) 79 Ll. L. Rep. 339 ....................................................................66.236

lxii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Foxton Hall, The ........................................................................................................................................................18.231

Fragano v. Long (1825) 4 B. & C. 219 ........................................................................................................................13.33
Frank Hammond v. Huddart Parker [1956] V.L.R. 496 .............................................................................................66.429
Frans Maas (UK) Ltd v. Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 251 .................................................1.112
Fratelli Sorrentino v. Buerger [1915] 3 K.B. 367 (C.A.) ...............................................................................................3.13
Frayes v. Worms (1865) 19 C.B.(N.S.) 159 .................................................................................................................20.33
Freedom General Shipping v. Tokai Shipping (The Khian Zephyr)
[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 73 ..................................................................................................................6.59, 66.15, 66.22
Freedom Maritime Corp. v. International Bulk Carriers (The Khian Captain (No. 2))
[1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 429 ....................................................................................................................................13.68
Freeman v. Taylor (1831) 8 Bing. 124 .........................................................................................................................12.46
Freight Connect (S) Pte Ltd v. Paragon Shipping Pte Ltd [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 184 (C.A. of Singapore) ............... 5.2, 15.34
Freights Queen [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 140 ....................................................................................................................1.37
Freijo, The (Logs & Timber Products (Singapore) v. Keeley Granite Pty.) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .......................115.45
French v. Leeston Shipping [1922] 1 A.C. 451......................................................................................1.124, 24.16, 24.19
French v. Newgass (1878) 3 C.P.D. 163 ....................................................................................................3.26, 3.27, 11.27
Frenkel v. MacAndrews [1929] A.C. 545 ..................................................................................................12.6, 12.7, 12.18
Fresno City, The. See Minister of Food v. Reardon Smith (The Fresno City)—
Frio Chile, The [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 182 ................................................................................................................66.398
Front Carriers v. Atlantic & Orient Shipping Corp. (The Double Happiness) [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 131 .....................2.3
Front Commander, The (Tidebrook Maritime Corp. v. Vitol) [2006]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 251 ..................................................................................................9.5, 15.32, 15.56, 37.2, 38.1, 38.2
Frontier International Shipping Corp. v. Swissmarine Corporation Inc. (The Cape Equinox)
[2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 390 ......................................................................................................................................25.5
Frost Express, The (Seatrade Groeningen v. Geest Industries) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 375 ..........................2.7, 2.11, 2.12
Fry v. Chartered Mercantile Bank of India (The Her Majesty) (1866) L.R. 1 C.P. 689 ...................................17.21, 18.58
Fujitsu Services Ltd v. IBM United Kingdom Ltd [2014] EWHC 752 (TCC); 153 Con LR 203 ....................1.112, 21.40
Fulton Shipping v. Globalia Business Travel [2014] EWHC 1629 (Comm); [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 30;
(2014) L.M.C.L.Q. 481, [2016] L.M.C.L.Q. 202; [2017] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 177; [2017]
1 W.L.R. 2581; [2018] L.M.C.L.Q. 171 ...............................................................................................................21.47
Furness Bridge, The (Seabridge v. Antco) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 367 ...............................................................7.20, 15.27
Furness v. Forwood (1897) 2 Com. Cas. 223 ................................................................................................................7.12
Furness Withy & Co. v. Black Sea Shipping (The Roman Karmen) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 644...........................6.9, 6.13
Furness, Withy & Co. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Banco [1917] 2 K.B. 873 ...........................................................1.57, 66.311
Future Express, The [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 279, in C.A. at [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 542 ..............................18.150, 18.155
Fyffes Group Ltd v. Reefer Express Lines (The Kriti Rex) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 ................... 1.2, 1.112, 9.4, 11.18,
11.19, 11.29
Fyffes Group Ltd v. Templeman [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 643 .........................................................................................1.92
Fyffes Group v. Reefer Express Lines (The Kriti Rex)
[1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 .................................. 21.32, 21.39, 21.47, 21.110, 21.116, 66.95, 66.102, 66.108, 66.392
G.E. Crippen & Associates v. Vancouver Tug Boat Co. [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 207 ....................................66.337, 66.341
G.H. Renton & Co. v. Palmyra Trading Corp. of Panama [1956] 1 Q.B. 462; [1957] A.C. 149.....................26.54, 26.55,
66.85, 66.111, 66.116, 66.117, 66.177,
66.230, 66.249, 66.359, 66.361, 66.362
G.W. Grace & Co. v. General Steam Navigation Co. (The Sussex Oak)
[1950] 2 K.B. 383 .....................................................................................5.72, 5.74, 5.89, 26.39, 27.18, 27.19, 27.20
GB Gas Holdings Limited v. Accenture (UK) Limited [2009] EWHC 2734 (Comm);
[2010] EWCA Civ 912 .........................................................................................................................................21.40
GDE LLC v. Anglia Autoflow Ltd [2020] 1 W.L.R. 2381; [2020] EWHC 105 (Comm) .....................................1.28, 1.39
Gadd v. Houghton (1876) L.R. 1 Ex. D. 357 .................................................................................................................2.10
Gadsden (J.) v. Australian Coastal Shipping Commission [1977] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 575 ...............................................66.171
Galatia, The (Golodetz & Co. v. Czarnikow-Rionda Inc.) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 453;
[1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 450 ..................................................................................................................................13.109
Galaxy Energy International v. Bayoil (The Ama Ulgen) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 512 (C.A.) ...................................66.476
Galaxy Energy International v. Novorossiysk Shipping (The Petr Schmidt)
[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1, aff’g [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 284 ..................................................................................15.54
Galaxy Special Maritime Enterprise v. Prima Ceylon Ltd. (The Olympic Galaxy) (C.A.)
[2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 27 (C.A.) ...................................................................................................................20.2, 20.4
Galeries Segoura v. Bonakdarian [1976] E.C.R. I-1851 ..............................................................................................66.27
Galileo, The [1914] P. 9 .................................................................................................................................................6.34
Galoo Ltd v. Bright Grahame Murray [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1360 ..........................................................................21.41, 21.42
Garbis Maritime Corp. v. Philip- pine National Oil Co. (The Garbis) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 283 ...........................66.140
Garbis Maritime v. Philippine National Oil (The Garbis) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 283 .....................18.53, 18.186, 18.187,
18.191, 18.201, 18.239, 51.3

lxiii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Garbis, The. See Garbis Maritime v. Philippine National Oil—

Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v. China National Chartering Co. Ltd (The Ocean Victory)
[2013] EWHC 2199; [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 59; [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 521 .............................5.50, 5.58, 5.82, 5.87,
5.94–5.96, 5.98, 5.99, 26.78, 66.9
Garden City, The [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 382 ......................................................................................... 11.56, 11.62, 11.63
Gardner & Sons v. Trechmann (1884) 15 Q.B.D. 154 .................................................................................................17.20
Gardner v. Marsh & Parsons [1996] 1 W.L.R. 489 ......................................................................................................21.49
Gardner v. Trechmann (1884) 15 Q.B.D. 154..............................................................................................................18.58
Garnac Grain Co. v. Faure & Fairclough [1968] A.C. 1130; [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 495...................................2.23, 21.53
Garnat Trading and Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Baominh Insurance Corp.
[2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 589 .............................................................................................................. 11.25, 11.26, 11.50
Garnat Trading v. Baominh Insurance Corp. [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 589 ............................................66.95, 66.98, 66.109
Garston SS. Co. v. Hickie Borman & Co. See Sailing Ship “Garston” Company v. Hickie,
Borman & Co.—
Gatewhite v. Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana [1990] 1 Q.B. 326 ................................................................................18.92
Gatliffe v. Bourne (1838) 4 Bing. N.C. 314; (1841) 3 M. & G. 643; (1844) 7 M. &
G. 850, 11 Cl. & F. 45.............................................................................................................................................10.4
Gatoil International v. Tradax Petroleum (The Rio Sun) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 350....................................................5.14
Gebr. Broere v. Saras Chimica [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 436..........................................................................................15.16
Geipel v. Smith (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 404 .........................................................................................................22.13, 66.312
Geldof Metaalconstructie v. Simon Carves [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 517 ...........................................................13.63, 21.77
Gem Shipping v. Babanaft (The Fontevivo) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 339 .....................................................................15.72
General Average Ltd. v. Oswal Steel (The Bijela), [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 411 .............................................................9.11
General Capinpin, The (President of India v. Jebsens (U.K.)) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1;
[1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 232 .........................................................................................................................15.12, 15.43
General Feeds Inc. v. Slobodna Plovidba (The Krapan J.) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 688 ...............................................21.86
General Feeds v. Burnham Shipping (The Amphion) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101 ..................................6.48, 6.60, 18.222
General Steam Navigation Co. v. Guillou (1843) 11 M. & W. 877 .............................................................................11.54
General Trading Co. v. Richmond Corp. [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 475 ........................................................................21.132
Generator Developments Ltd v. Lidl UK GmbH [2018] EWCA Civ 396 .....................................................................1.16
Geofizika DD v. MMB International Ltd Greenshields Cowie & Co. Ltd (The Green Island)
[2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ...............................................................................................................................6.25, 66.72
Geogas v. Trammo Gas (The Baleares) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 215 (C.A.);
[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 130 ...................................................................................4.5, 4.11, 4.19, 21.32, 21.121, 33.12
George Moundreas v. Navimpex [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 515 ......................................................................................24.19
George S., The (Amoco v. Parpada Shipping) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 369 (C.A.); rev’g
[1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 69 ...............................................................................................................................41.5, 41.6
George Whitechurch Ltd v. Cavanagh [1902] A.C. 117 ..............................................................................................18.28
Georges C. Lemos, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 296, [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 107 ......................................................18.222
Georgian Maritime Corporation v. Sealand Industries (Bermuda) (The North Sea)
[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 324; [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 21 (C. A.) .........................................................19.8, 19.25, 19.32
Gerani Cia. Nav. S.A. v. Alfred C. Toepfer (The Demosthenes V (No. 2) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 282 .......................16.18
Gerani Compania Naviera v. General Organisation for Supply Goods (The Demosthenes V)
[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 275 ....................................................................................................................................15.43
Gerani, see Demosthenes V, The (No 2) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 282 ...............................................................................2.1
Gesellschaft Bürgerlichen Rechts v. Stockholms Rederiaktiebolag Svea (The Brabant)
[1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 546 ................................................................................................... 1.115, 11.33, 11.52, 11.77
Gevalia, The (Aktiebolaget Nordiska Lloyd v. J. Brownlie & Co.) (1925) 30 Com. Cas. 307 ...................................19.11
Gewa Chartering B.V. v. Remco Shipping Lines Ltd (The Remco) [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 205...................................2.20
Giannis N.K., The (Effort Shipping v. Linden Management) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 337 (H.L.);
[1998] A.C. 605; [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 577 (C.A.); [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 ...........................6.52, 66.9, 66.354,
66.355, 66.439, 66.449
Gibaud v. Great Eastern Railway [1921] 2 K.B. 426...................................................................................................12.44
Gibraltar (Government of) v. Kenney [1956] 2 Q.B. 410 ..............................................................................................63.1
Gibson v. Crick (1862) 1 H. & C. 142 and Burnett v. Bouch (1840) 9 C. & P. 620 ......................................................24.1
Gibson v. Sturge (1855) 10 Exch. 622 ..................................................................................................................13.4, 13.5
Gilbert-Ash (Northern) Ltd v. Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd [1974] A.C. 689 ....................................................1.118
Gilford Motor Company Limited v. Horne [1933] 1 Ch. 935 .......................................................................................2.43
Gill & Duffus S.A. v. Rionda Futures Ltd [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 67 ..........................................................................15.47
Gill & Duffus S.A. v. Scruttons [1953] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 545 ........................................................................................10.17
Giovanna, The (Gulf Interstate Oil v. Ant Trade & Transport) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 867 ........................................18.87
Girvin [2017] I.M.C.L.Y. § 179 .................................................................................................................................66.178
Giulia, The (1914) 218 F. 744 ....................................................................................................................................66.288
Glaholm v. Hays (1841) 2 M. & G. 257 ..........................................................................................................................4.4

lxiv
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Glasgow Navigation v. Howard (1910) 15 Com. Cas. 88 ...........................................................................................14.18

Gledstanes v. Allen (1852) 12 C.B. 202.....................................................................................................................18.208
Glencore Energy UK Ltd v. Freeport Holdings Ltd (The Lady M) [2017] EWHC 3348 (Comm);
[2019] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 (C. A.) ..............................................................26.12, 50.4, 66.9, 66.261, 66.269, 66.280,
66.283, 66.284, 66.349, 66.350
Glencore Energy UK Ltd v. OMV Supply & Trading Ltd [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223 ...............................................16.15
Glencore Energy UK Ltd v. Transworld Oil Ltd (The Narmada Spirit) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 91;
[2010] EWHC 141 (Comm) ......................................................................................................................21.51, 21.56
Glencore Energy v. Cirros Oil Services [2014] Lloyd’s Plus 42 ...............................................................................66.248
Glencore Grain Ltd. v. Agros Trading Co. [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 410 ..........................................................13.63, 66.414
Glencore Grain Ltd. v. Flacker Shipping Ltd. (The Happy Day) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 754;
[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 487 ...................................................................................................15.31, 15.49, 15.52, 15.56
Glencore Grain Ltd. v. Goldbeam Shipping Inc. (The Mass Glory)
[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 244 ........................................................................................15.31, 15.62, 21.35, 21.78, 21.82
Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. v. Lebanese Organisation for International Commerce
[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 386 ..................................................................................................................................13.116
Glencore International AG v. Owners of the Cherry, the Epic and the Addax (The Cherry)
[2003] 1 S.L.R. 471 ............................................................................................................................................18.165
Glencore International v. PT Tera Logistic Indonesia [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 527 ....................................................66.195
Glendarroch, The [1894] P. 226 .............................................................................66.113, 66.123, 66.127, 66.261, 66.290
Glenfruin, The (1885) 10 P.D. 103.................................................................................................................................54.5
Glenochil, The [1896] P. 10 ..........................................................................................................................66.264, 66.270
Global Maritime Investments Ltd v. STX Pan Ocean Co. Ltd (The Dimitris L)
[2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 354 ......................................................................................................................................43.2
Global Process Systems Inc. v. Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad (The Cendor Mopu)
[2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 560 ........................................................................................................66.285, 66.333, 66.334
Global Santosh, The. See NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v. Cargill International S.A.—
Globalink Transportation and Logistics Worldwide LLP v. DHL Project & Chartering Ltd
[2019] EWHC 225 (Comm) ................................................................................................................................13.66
Globe Motors v. TRW Lucas Varity Electric Steering [2016] EWCA Civ 396
[2017] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 601 ....................................................................................................................... 1.3, 1.97
Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd v. Flame SA [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 571 ....................................................................21.92
Glory Wealth Shipping Pte. v. Korea Line Corp. (The Wren) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 370 ...............................21.7, 66.393
Glyn Mills Currie & Co. v. East and West India Dock Co. (1882) 7 App. Cas. 591 .......................18.142, 18.149, 18.162
Glynn v. Margetson [1893] A.C. 351 (H.L.) ...............................................1.116, 6.26, 12.7, 12.17–12.19, 18.168, 26.53,
26.54, 26.55, 59.2, 66.230, 66.359
Godard v. Gray (1870) 6 Q.B.D. 139 .........................................................................................................................21.134
Gold Group Properties v. BDW Trading [2010] B.L.R. 235 ................................................................................22.1, 22.7
Golden Endurance Shipping SA v. RMA Watanya SA [2016] EWHC 2110 .............................................................66.185
Golden Endurance, The [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 266 ....................................................................................................18.51
Golden Fleece Maritime Inc.v. ST Shipping & Transport Inc. (The Elli and the Frixos)
[2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 262, upheld at [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 119 .................................................. 11.18, 11.27, 11.40
Golden Ocean Group v. Salgaocar Mining Industries [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 542 .................................1.3, 1.39, 1.73, 2.2
Golden Ocean Group Ltd v. Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK Ltd (The Barito)
[2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 421 .......................................................................................................................................2.2
Golden Strait Corp. v. Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory)
[2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 443; [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 747; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 533;
[2007] 2 A.C. 353 .................................................................21.1, 21.5, 21.6, 21.7, 21.9–21.12, 21.17, 21.21, 66.312
Goldman v. Thai Airways [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1186 .........................................................................................66.424, 66.429
Golodetz & Co. v. Czarnikow-Rionda Inc. (The Galatia) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 453;
[1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 450 ..................................................................................................................................13.109
Good Friend, The (Empresa Cubana Importada de Alimentos v. Iasmos Shipping Co.)
[1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 586 .........................................................................................................................11.30, 66.96
Good v. London Steamship Owners’ Mutual Protecting Association (The Severn)
(1871) L.R. 6 C.P. 563 ........................................................................................................................................66.273
Goodwin, Ferreira & Co. v. Lamport & Holt Lines (1929) 34 Ll. L. Rep. 192 ..........................10.7, 66.77, 66.80, 66.89,
66.337, 66.399, 66.341
Goodwood Investments v. Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (my Palladium)
[2018] EWHC 1056 (Comm) .................................................................................................1.3, 1.5, 1.12, 1.13, 1.16
Gorris v. Scott (1874) L.R. 9 Ex. 125 ..........................................................................................................................11.67
Gosse Millerd (Millard) v. Canadian Government Merchant Marine [1927] 2 K.B. 432; [1928]
1 K.B. 717 (C.A.); [1929] A.C. 223 (H.L.) ............................ 66.89, 66.113, 66.115, 66.127, 66.275, 66.276, 66.278
Goulandris Brothers v. B. Goldman & Sons [1958] 1 Q.B. 74.....................20.39, 20.59, 66.173, 66.177, 66.249, 66.484
Gould v. Oliver (1840) 2 M. & G. 208 .................................................................................................................6.27, 6.33

lxv
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Gould v. South Eastern & Chatham Railway [1920] 2 K.B. 186 ....................................................66.336, 66.337, 66.338
Government of Ceylon v. Chandris [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 204 .............................................14.53–14.55, 66.262, 66.461
Government of Ceylon v. Société Franco-Tunisienne d’Armement-Tunis (The Massalia) (No. 2)
[1960] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 352; [1962] 2 Q.B. 416 .........................................................................................15.40, 15.59
Government of Gibraltar v. Kenney [1956] 2 Q.B. 410 ................................................................................................63.1
Government of India v. India SS. Co. (The Indian Grace) (No. 2) [1998] A.C. 878;
[1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .........................................................................................................................66.253, 66.171
Government of Sierra Leone v. Marmaro Shipping Co. (The Amazona and the Yayamaria)
[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 130 ........................................................................................................66.185, 66.186, 66.228
Government of the Republic of Spain v. North of England Steamship Co. Ltd (The Hartbridge)
(1938) 61 Ll. L. Rep. 44 ..........................................................................................................26.6, 26.8, 26.30, 26.44
Govt. of Ceylon v. Chandris [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 204 .................................................................................................8.2
Grace Shipping v. Sharp [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 207 ............................................................................................1.13, 23.5
Gran Gelato v. Richcliffe (Group) [1992] Ch. 560 ........................................................................................................1.83
Grand Champion Tankers Ltd. v. Norpipe A/S (The Marion) [1984] A.C. 563 ......................... 11.39, 11.56, 11.58, 11.63
Grand Fortune, The. See Americas Bulk Transport v. Cosco Bulk Carriers Ltd—
Grand Met v. William Hill [1997] 1 B.C.L.C. 390 ........................................................................................................1.75
Grange v. Taylor (1904) 9 Com. Cas. 223 ...................................................................................................................10.18
Granit v. Benship [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 526 ................................................................................................................1.15
Grant v. Coverdale (The Mennythorpe) (1884) 9 App. Cas. 470 .........................................................................7.10, 7.11
Grant v. Norway (The Belle) (1851) 10 C.B. 665 ..........................................................18.27, 18.28, 18.30–18.32, 18.38,
18.42, 29.4, 66.152, 66.156,
Granvias Oceanicas Armadora S.A. v. Jibsen Trading Co. (The Kavo Peiratis)
[1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 344 ..............................................................................................................17.12, 17.13, 17.22
Gratitudine, The (1801) 3 C. Rob. 244 ........................................................................................................................20.20
Gray v. Carr (1871) L.R. 6 Q.B. 522 ...........................................................................................................................17.17
Gray v. Thames Trains Ltd [2009] A.C. 1339................................................................................................................1.53
Great China Metal Industries Co. Ltd v. Canadian Government Merchant Marine
(The Bunga Seroja) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 512 (H Ct of Australia) ..................................................................66.122
Great China Metal Industries Co. Ltd v. Malaysian International Shipping Corp. (The Bunga Seroja)
(1998) 196 CLR 161; [1999] L.M.C.L.Q. 406; [1999] L.M.C.L.Q. 406; [1999]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 512 (Aust High Ct.) ...................................................................66.6, 66.113, 66.267, 66.285, 66.288
Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd v. Far East Chartering Ltd (The Jag Ravi) [2012]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 638 ....................................................10.2, 10.4, 18.161, 18.172, 18.172A, 18.173A, 18.240, 18.243
Great Elephant Corp. v. Trafigura Beheer B.V. (The Crudesky) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 503;
[2013] EWCA Civ 905; [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1...................................1.112, 6.58, 7.14, 15.23, 15.28, 15.49, 21.42
Great Northern Railway v. L.E.P. Transport [1922] 2 K.B. 742 ...........................................................................6.49, 6.57
Great Peace Shipping v. Tsavliris (International) [2003] Q.B. 679 .............................................................1.65, 1.69, 1.72
Grebert-Borgnis v. J. & W. Nugent (1885) 15 Q.B.D. 85 ............................................................................................21.80
Greek Fighter, The (Ullises Shipping Corporation v. Fal Shipping Co. Ltd)
[2006] 2 C.L.C. 497.....................................................................................................................5.46, 5.48, 5.67, 6.58
Green Island, The (Geofizika DD v. MMB International Ltd Greenshields Cowie & Co. Ltd)
[2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ......................................................................................................................................66.112
Green Star Shipping v. London Assurance [1933] 1 K.B. 378 ....................................................................................20.38
Greenmast Shipping v. Jean Lion & Cie. (The Saronikos) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277 ..............................................13.30
Greenock Corporation v. Caledonian Railway [1917] A.C. 556 ...............................................................................66.299
Greenshields v. Stephens & Sons [1908] A.C. 431..................................................................................6.57, 20.43, 20.51
Greenwich Marine v. Federal Commerce & Navigation Co. (The Mavro Vetranic)
[1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 580 .............................................................................................................................3.6, 21.47
Gregos, The. See Torvald Klaveness v. Arni Maritime Corp.—
Greta Holme, The [1897] A.C. 596....................................................................................................21.95, 21.104, 21.107
Grey v. Butler’s Wharf Ltd. (1898) 3 Com. Cas. 67 .............................................................................................5.3, 14.61
Greystoke Castle, The [1947] A.C. 265 ..........................................................................................................20.45, 66.455
Grieve v. Konig (1880) 17 Sc. L.R. 325 ......................................................................................................................18.42
Griffith v. Brymer (1903) 19 T.L.R. 434 ........................................................................................................................1.66
Grimaldi Compania di Navigazione SpA v. Sekihyo Lines (The Seki Rolette)
[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 638 ................................................................66.2, 66.8, 66.13, 66.16, 66.180, 66.182, 66.197
Gripaios v. Kahl, Wallis & Co. (1928) 32 Ll. L. Rep. 328 ............................................................................................14.6
Gudermes, The (Mitsui v. Novorossiysk Shipping) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 311; rev’g in part
[1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 456 ..................................................................................................................................18.114
Gudermes, The [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 456; [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 311 ..........................................................33.22, 33.24
Gulf Interstate Oil v. Ant Trade & Transport (The Giovanna) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 867 .........................................18.87
Gulf Steel v. Al Khalifa Shipping (The Anwar Al Sabar) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 261 .................................18.189, 18.190
Gulf Venture, The [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445 ...............................................................................................................23.6

lxvi
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Gullischen v. Stewart (1882) 11 Q.B.D. 186, (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 317 .........................................17.17, 17.45, 18.52, 18.57
Gumm v. Tyrie (1865) 6 B. & S. 298 ...........................................................................................................................13.17
Gunda Brovig, The. See A/S Brovigtank v. Transcredit—
Gurtner v. Beaton [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 369 ............................................................................................................66.424
H. Parsons (Livestock) v. Uttley Ingham [1978] Q.B. 791..........................................................................................21.38
H.R. & S. Sainsbury v. Street [1972] 1 W.L.R. 834 ....................................................................................................22.24
H.R. Macmillan, The [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 27; [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 331 ..............................................................38.16
HBC Hamburg Bulk Carriers GmbH & Co KG v. Huyton Inc (The Glory Sanye)
[2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 310 ........................................................................................................................................9.4
HIH Casualty Insurance v. Manhattan [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 61 ................................................................................1.113
Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. Sometal SAL [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 661,
[2010] EWHC 29 (Comm) ...................................................................................................................................18.50
Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi v. VSC Steel Co. Ltd
[2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 479 ...........................................................................................................1.12, 1.36, 2.23, 2.28
Habibsons Bank v. Standard Chartered Bank [2011] Q.B. 943 .......................................................................................1.3
Habton Farms v. Nimmo [2004] Q.B. 1.........................................................................................................................1.21
Hadji v. Anglo-Arabian (1906) 11 Com. Cas. 219............................................................................................12.24, 12.26
Hadjitsakos, The (State Trading Corp. of India v. Pilgrim Shipping) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 356 .......................5.18, 5.19
Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341 .........................................21.28, 21.30, 21.38–21.40, 21.125, 21A.13–21A.15,
21A.23, 21A.73, 21A.75, 66.248, 66.385
Haeger v. Mutuelles [2015] Q.B. 319 and (2015] L.M.C.L.Q. 194......................................................................1.32, 1.43
Hai Hing, The (Bua International v. Hai Hing) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 300 .....................................................18.48, 18.59
Hain Steamship Co. v. Herdman & McDougal (1922) 11 Ll. L. Rep. 58..................................................................66.148
Hain Steamship Co. v. S.A. Comercial de Exportacion e Importacion (The Trevarrack)
(1934) 49 Ll. L. Rep. 86 .......................................................................................................................................15.19
Hain Steamship Co. v. Tate & Lyle (1936) 55 Ll. L. Rep. 159; (1936) 41 Com. Cas. 350,
363 (H.L.) ; aff’g in part 39 Com. Cas. 259 ...................................................12.3, 12.30, 12.33, 12.38, 12.40, 12.42,
18.84, 20.46, 20.47, 59.1, 66.175, 66.206, 66.269, 66.358
Halcyon Steamship Co. v. Continental Grain (1943) 75 Ll. L. Rep. 57 ............................................18.39, 18.204, 18.207
Hale Brothers Steamship Co v. R. & W. Paul (1914) 19 Com Cas 384 ...............................................5.3, 5.60, 5.73, 5.78
Halki Shipping v. Sopex Oils [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 465 (C.A.); [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 49 .............................13.64, 63.2
Hall v. Johnson (1855) 4 E. & B. 500 ..........................................................................................................................13.91
Hall v. Pim (1927) 33 Com. Cas. 324 ..........................................................................................................................21.39
Halpern v. Halpern [2008] Q.B. 195 ............................................................................................................1.28, 1.65, 1.87
Hamburg Houtimport v. Agrosin (The Starsin) [2004] 1 A.C. 715, [2000] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 85 (C.A.) ...............................................................................................................................................18.8, 18.9
Hamid v. Francis Bradshaw Partnership [2013] EWCA Civ 470 ....................................................................................2.2
Hamilton Fraser & Co. v. Pandorf & Co. (1887) 12 App. Cas. 518 (H.L.) ..................................................66.286, 66.287
Hamilton v. Mackie (1888) 5 T.L.R. 677 ...............................................................................................18.51, 18.54, 66.10
Hanak v. Green [1958] 2 Q.B. 9 .......................................................................................................................13.63, 21.77
Handelsbanken Svenska v. Dandridge (The Aliza Glacial) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 421 ...............................66.307, 66.316
Hang Fung Shipping Co. v. Mullion [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 511 .................................................................................14.49
Hanjin Marseilles, The (Trane v. Hanjin Shipping) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 735 (H.K.) ..............................................66.42
Hanjin Shipping v. Zenith Chartering (The Mercedes Envoy) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 559 .........................1.20, 1.25, 2.31
Hannah Blumenthal, The (Paal Wilson v. Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal) [1983] 1 A.C. 854 .............................22.2
Hanno (Heinrich) & Co. B.V. v. Fairlight Shipping Co. (The Kostas K.)
[1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 231 ....................................................................................................................5.9, 5.16, 26.57
Hansa Murcia, The. See Wuhan Ocean Economic and Technical Cooperation Co. Ltd v. Schiffs.
Hansa Murcia GmbH KG—
Hansa Nord, The. See Cehave v. Bremer Handels—
Hansen v. Dunn (1906) 11 Com. Cas. 100.....................................................................................................................3.17
Hansen v. Harrold Brothers [1894] 1 Q.B. 612 (C.A.) .............................................17.2, 18.198, 18.208, 18.210, 18.212
Happy Day, The (Glencore Grain Ltd. v. Flacker Shipping) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 754;
[2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 487 ...................................................................................................15.31, 15.49, 15.52, 15.56
Happy Fellow, The [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 130; [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 13 ...................................................................65.4
Happy Ranger, The (Parsons Corporation v. CV Scheep.) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 530;
[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 356; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 357 ...................................................................18.143, 65.4, 66.5
Happy Ranger, The [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 649 .........................................................................................................66.105
Harbour Assurance Co. v. Kansa General International Insurance Co. Ltd.
[1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 455 (C.A.) ..........................................................................................................................63.1
Hare v. Nicol [1966] 2 Q.B. 132 ....................................................................................................................................19.6
Hariette N., The (Statoil v. Louis Dreyfus Energy Services) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 685 .........................1.67, 1.72, 16.21
Harland & Wolff v. Burns & Laird Lines (No. 2) (The Laidselm) (1931) 40 Ll. L. Rep. 286 .....................66.490, 66.493
Harlow & Jones v. Walker [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 141 ....................................................................................................8.2

lxvii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Harmony Innovation Shipping Pte ltd v. Caravel Shipping Inc (The Universal Bremen)
[2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 208 ............................................................................................................................... 18.173A
Harper v. Vigers [1909] 2 K.B. 549 .............................................................................................................1.68, 2.16, 2.19
Harper Versicherungs AG [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 263 .....................................................................................................2.3
Harris v. Best, Ryley & Co. (1892) 68 L.T. 76; (1892) 7 Asp. M.L.C. 272...........................14.1, 14.31, 14.53, 15.6, 15.7
Harris v. Dreesman (1854) 23 L.J. (Ex.) 210 ...................................................................................................................7.3
Harrison v. Bank of Australasia (1872) L.R. 7 Ex. 39 .................................................................................................20.12
Harrison v. Garthorne (1872) 26 L.T.(N.S.) 508............................................................................................................4.18
Harrison v. Huddersfield SS. Co. (1903) 19 T.L.R. 386 ..............................................................................................18.73
Harrower v. Hutchinson (1869) L.R. 5 Q.B. 584 .............................................................................................................5.3
Harrowing SS. Co. v. Thomas. See Thomas v. Harrowing SS. Co.—
Hartbridge, The. See Government of the Republic of Spain v. North of England SS. Co—
Hartog v. Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All E.R. 566 ..........................................................................................................1.67
Hassan v. Runciman (1904) 10 Com. Cas. 19 ...............................................................................................................1.94
Hassel, The [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 139 .....................................................................................................................21.108
Hassneh Insurance v. Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243 ...............................................................................................21.82
Hastie & Jenkerson v. McMahon [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1575 .............................................................................................26.45
Haugesund Kommune v. Depfa ACS Bank [2012] Q.B. 549; [2011] EWCA Civ 33 ..........................................2.1, 21.52
Haversham Grange, The [1905] P. 307 ......................................................................................................................21.108
Havhelt, The [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 523 ...................................................................................................................66.191
Hawk, The (Oceanfocus Shipping v. Hyundai Merchant Marine) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 176 .................................18.182
Hayn v. Culliford (1879) C.P.D. 182 .........................................................................................................................66.269
Hayn, Roman & Co. v. Culliford (1879) C.P.D. 182 .................................................................................................66.273
Hayton v. Irwin (1879) 5 C.P.D. 130 .............................................................................................................................5.78
Health & Care Management v. Physiotherapy Network [2018] EWHC 869 (Q.B.) .....................................................1.21
Heath Steele Mines v. The Erwin Schroder [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 370 ....................................................................66.438
Heather Bell, The [1901] P. 143.....................................................................................................................................2.36
Hector v. Lyons (1988) 58 P. & C.R. 156 ........................................................................................................................2.2
Hector, The. See International Packers London v. Ocean SS. Co.—
Hector, The. See Sunrise Maritime Inc. v. Uvisco—
Hedley Byrne v. Heller [1964] A.C. 465 .......................................................................................................................23.4
Hedley v. Pinkney [1894] A.C. 222 .............................................................................................................................11.28
Heidberg, The [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 287 .............................................................................................13.44, 18.61, 18.64
Heilbut, Symons v. Buckleton [1913] A.C. 30 ..............................................................................................................1.94
Heimdal v. Questier (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 452 ............................................................................... 21.110, 21.115, 21.116
Heinrich Hanno & Co. B.V. v. Fairlight Shipping Co. Ltd (The Kostas K)
[1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 231 ....................................................................................................................5.9, 5.16, 26.57
Heinrich, The (1871) L.R. 3 A. & E. 424 ....................................................................................................................12.12
Helen Miller, The [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 95 ...................................................................................................21.109, 27.18
Helen, The (1865) 1 A. & E. 1 ..............................................................................................................................26.3, 26.7
Helene Knutsen, The. See Exxonmobil Sales & Supply Corp v. Texaco—
Helene, The (1865) B. & L. 415 ..................................................................................................................................14.53
Helle Skou, The (Sofial v. Ove Skou) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 205.........................................................15.20, 15.49, 15.50
Hellenic Steel Co. v. Svolamar Shipping Co. (The Komninos S.)
[1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 370 ..................................................................................................................1.36, 1.38, 66.48
Helvetia S, The. See Christie & Vesey Ltd. v. Maatschappij tot Exploitatie Van Schepen en
Andere Zaken—
Henderson v. Bilton (1856) 6 E. & B. 565.................................................................................................................13.104
Henderson v. Comptoir d’Escompte (1873) L.R. 5 P.C. 253, 259–260 (P.C.) ...........................................................18.143
Henderson v. Merrett Syndicates [1995] 2 A.C. 145 (H.L.) ...........................................................................18.126, 21.68
Henriksens Rederi A/S v. T.H.Z. Rolimpex (The Brede) [1974] Q.B. 233 .................................................................13.66
Henry Smith & Co. v. Bedouin Steam Navigation Co. [1896] A.C. 70 ....................................................................66.148
Herald of Free Enterprise, The (R. v. Coroner for South-East Kent, Ex parte Spooner)
(1987) 88 Cr. App. Rep. 10 ................................................................................................................................66.429
Herceg Novi, The [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 454 (C.A.) ....................................................................................................1.50
Herculito Maritime v. Gunvor International (The Polar) [2020] EWCH 3318 (Comm) ......................18.48, 18.50, 18.55,
18.56, 20.52, 26.15, 26.32, 26.60, 26.78
Herculito Maritime v. Gunvor International (The Polar), CA [2022]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 375 ...................................................................................................18.48, 18.55, 18.56, 18.64, 26.78
Hermes One v. Everbread Holdings [2016] 1 W.L.R. 4098 ......................................................................................66.190
Hermine, The. See Unitramp v. Garnac Grain Co. Inc.)
Herne Bay Steamboat Co. v. Hutton [1903] 2 K.B. 683 ..............................................................................................22.10
Heron II, The. See Czarnikow v. Koufos—
Herroe, The, and the Askoe. See Red. Gustav Erikson v. Ismail—

lxviii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Heskell v. Continental Express (1950) 83 Ll. L. Rep. 438; [1950] 1 All E.R. 1033 ...............18.12, 18.29, 18.45, 18.176,
21.41, 21.119, 23.4, 66.89
Heyman v. Darwins [1942] A.C. 356 .............................................................................12.35, 12.38, 63.1, 66.175, 66.207
Heyn v. Ocean Steamship (1927) 137 L.T. 158 .........................................................................................................66.350
HF Clarke, Cf. v. Thermidaire Corp (1974) [1976] 54 D.L.R. (3d) 383 ...................................................................21.132
Hibbert v. Owen (1859) 2 F. & F. 502 .........................................................................................................................23.10
Hick v. Raymond [1893] A.C. 22 ................................................................................................................................15.13
Hick v. Rodocanachi [1891] 2 Q.B. 626 ......................................................................................................................10.20
Hicks v. Shield (1857) 7 E. & B. 633 ..........................................................................................................................13.90
Higgins v. Senior (1841) 8 M. & W. 834 ................................................................................................................2.4, 2.15
Hildron Finance v. Sunley Holdings [2010] EWHC 1681 ............................................................................................22.1
Hill Harmony, The (Whistler International v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha) [2001] 1 A.C. 638;
[2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 147; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 1954 (H.L.)....................................................9.4, 9.5, 9.8, 12.5, 66.360
Hill v. Kitching (1846) 3 C.B. 299.................................................................................................................................24.1
Hill v. Showell (1918) 82 L.J.K.B. 1106 .....................................................................................................................21.47
Hill v. Wilson (1879) L.R. 4 C.P.D. 329 ........................................................................................................................9.11
Hillas v. Arcos (1932) 43 Ll. L. Rep. 359 ........................................................................................................................1.6
Hillas v. Red. A/B Aeolus (1926) 32 Com. Cas. 69 (H.L.); aff’g 31 Com. Cas. 59;
aff’g 30 Com. Cas. 271 .............................................................................................................................14.12, 14.14
Hillstrom v. Gibson (1870) 8 S.C. (3rd) 463 .................................................................................................................5.77
Himalaya, The (Adler v. Dickson) [1955] 1 Q.B 158 (C.A.)...........................................................18.137, 66.224, 66.471
Hiort v. Bott (1874) L.R. 9 Ex. 86 .............................................................................................................................18.122
Hirji Mulji v. Cheong Yue [1926] A.C. 497 .................................................................................................................12.38
Hispanica de Petroleos S.A. v. Vencedora Oceanica Navegación S.A. (The Kapetan Markos)
[1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 211 (C.A.)..........................................................................................................66.185, 66.205
Hockley Mint v. Ramsden [2019] 1 W.L.R. 1617 .........................................................................................................2.27
Hofflinghouse v. C-Trade (The Intra Transporter) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132;
[1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 158 ......................................................................................................................................1.13
Hogarth Shipping Co. v. Blythe, Green, Jourdain & Co. Ltd [1917] 2 K.B. 534 ...........................................18.52, 66.151
Hogarth v. Walker [1899] 1 Q.B. 401; [1900] 1 Q.B. 283 ...............................................................................................8.2
Holland Colombo Trading Society Ltd. v. Alawdeen and Others
[1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 45 (P.C.)..................................................................................................66.15, 66.230, 66.243
Hollandia, The [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; [1983] 1 A.C. 565 (H.L.) ..........................................66.9, 66.25–66.27, 66.191,
66.227, 66.228, 66.236, 66.244
Hollandia, The [1983] A.C. 565, 574–575 (H.L. 1982)..............................................................................................66A.1
Hollins v. Fowler (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 616 .................................................................................................................18.119
Holman v. Dasnieres (1886) 2 T.L.R. 607 .....................................................................................................................6.43
Holman v. Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp. 341........................................................................................................................1.51
Holmes v. Alfred McAlpine Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd [2006] EWHC 110 (Q.B.) ............................................................2.1
Homburg Houtimport B.V. v. Agrosin (The Starsin) [2004] A.C. 715, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 571 (H.L.),
reversing [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 437 (C.A.); restoring [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85 .....................................1.73, 1.115,
18.28, 18.30, 18.42, 18.69, 18.70, 18.72, 18.74, 18.76, 18.77,
18.115, 18.174, 21.128, 66.24, 66.61, 66.62, 66.171, 66.174,
66.224–66.226, 66.229, 66.466, 66.468, 66.471
Hongkong Fir Shipping Co. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha [1962] 2 Q.B. 26;
[1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 478; [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 159 ...................................... 1.133, 1.134, 3.2, 3.37, 11.27, 11.34
Hopkinson v. Towergate Financial (Group) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2744 ...........................................................1.73, 1.74
Hopper v. Burness (1876) 1 C.P.C. 137 .......................................................................................................................13.27
Horlock v. Beal [1916] A.C. 486 ...................................................................................................................................22.1
Horn Line v. Panamericana Formas e Impresos (The Hornbay) [2006] EWHC 373;
[2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 44 ...........................................................................................................................1.30, 18.128
Hornal v. Neuberger Products [1957] 1 Q.B. 247 ......................................................................................................66.130
Horne v. Midland Railway (1872) L.R. 7 C.P. 583 ......................................................................................................21.27
Horsley v. Price (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 244 ..........................................................................................................................5.90
Horst (E. Clemens) v. Norfolk Steam Navigation Co. (1906) 11 Com. Cas. 141 .......................................................10.10
Hosanger, The (A/S Westfal-Larsen v. Russo-Norwegian Transport) (1931) 40 Ll. L. Rep. 259 ...............................15.18
Hoszig KFT v. Alstom Power Thermal Services Case C-222/15, - 7 July 2016 ................................................1.47, 1.138
Hotel Services v. Hilton International Hotels [2000] B.L.R. 235 ................................................................................21.40
Houda, The (Kuwait Petroleum Corp. v. I. & D. Oil Carriers)
[1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 541 .............................................................................................5.108, 18.119, 18.162, 18.172
Houghland v. R.R. Low (Luxury Coaches) [1962] 1 Q.B. 694 .................................................................................18.120
Houghton & Co v. Nothard, Lowe & Wills Ltd [1927] 1 K.B. 246 ..............................................................................2.28
Houlder v. General Steam Navigation Co. (1862) 3 F. & F. 170; Nelson v. Dahl (1879) 12 Ch.D. 568 .......................10.9
Houlder v. Weir [1905] 2 K.B. 267 ..............................................................................................................................15.72

lxix
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Hourani v. T. & J. Harrison (1927) 32 Com. Cas. 305.....................................................................66.253, 66.276, 66.348

Houston City, The (Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Australian Wheat Board) [1956]
A.C. 226 (P.C.); [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 148 (H.C. Aust.) .............................................................................5.35, 5.38
Howard Houlder & Partners v. Marine General Transporters (The Panaghia P) [1983]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 653 .........................................................................................................24.2, 24.5, 24.9, 24.12, 24.13
Howard Houlder v. Manx Isles Steamship Co., [1923] 1 K.B. 110 .............................................................................24.16
Howard Marine v. Ogden [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 334 ...................................................................................................1.16
Howard v. Knight [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 364 ...............................................................................................................1.24
Howard v. Pickford Tool [1951] 1 K.B. 417 ................................................................................................................21.15
Howell v. Coupland (1876) 1 Q.B.D. 258 .......................................................................................................................7.6
Hubbersty v. Ward (1853) 8 Ex. 330....................................................................................................18.32, 18.82, 18.142
Hudson Bay, The (1997) 131 F.T.R. 241 .....................................................................................................................66.61
Hudson v. Ede (1868) L.R. 3 Q.B. 412; aff’g (1867) L.R. 2 Q.B. 566 .......................................................14.4, 7.11–7.13
Hudson v. Hill (1874) 43 L.J.C.P. 273 ..................................................................................................................4.13, 4.18
Hudson’s Bay Co. v. Domingo Mumbru S.A. (1922) 10 Ll. L. Rep. 476 .............................................19.14, 19.25, 19.26
Hugh Mack & Co. v. Burns & Laird Lines (No. 2) (C.A. (N.I.)) (1944) 77 Ll. L. Rep. 377 .......................66.489, 66.496
Hughes v. Pendragon Sabre (t/a Porsche Centre Bolton) [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 311 .................................1.5, 1.10, 21.12
Hulthen v. Stewart [1903] A.C. 389) ..........................................................................................................................15.13
Humble v. Hunter (1848) 12 Q.B. 310...........................................................................................................2.7, 2.15–2.17
Hunter Grain v. Hyundai Merchant Marine (1997) 117 A.L.R. 507............................................................................66.86
Hunter v. Fry (1819) 2 B. & Ald. 421 ...................................................................................................................3.19, 6.13
Hurst v. Usborne (1856) 18 C.B. 144 ...................................................................................................................3.26, 3.27
Hurstanger v. Wilson [2007] 1 W.L.R. 2351.........................................................................................................1.91, 1.92
Hussey v. Eels [1990] 2 Q.B. 227 ................................................................................................................................21.49
Hussey v. Horne-Payne (1879) 4 App. Cas. 311 ............................................................................................................1.13
Hut Group Nobahar v. Cookson [2016[ EWCA Civ 128.............................................................................................1.112
Huth v. Lamport (1866) 16 Q.B.D. 735 .......................................................................................................................20.47
Huyton S.A. v. Distribuidora Internacional de Productos Agricolas [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 780 .........................1.81, 1.84
Huyton v. Inter Operators (The Stainless Emperor) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 298 .........................................................15.60
Huyton v. Peter Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 620 .............................................................................................1.87, 1.90
Hydraulic Engineering v. McHaffie (1878) 4 Q.B.D. 670 .............................................................................................21.4
Hydrodan (Corby) Ltd, Re [1994] B.C.C. 161 ..............................................................................................................2.45
Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd v. Americas Bulk Transport Ltd (The Pacific Champ)
[2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 320 ......................................................................................................................................1.26
Hyundai v. Karander Maritime (The Nizuru) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 66 .......................................................................4.20
ICC Ltd v. COSCO (UK) Ltd. (C.A., 5 December 2001) (2002) L.M.L.N. 578, 9 November 2002 ..........................18.78
I.F.P. & C. Insurance v. Silversea Cruises [2004] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 696 .....................................................66.301, 66.303
IMT Shipping & Chartering v. Chansung Shipping (The Zenovia) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 139 ...................................4.20
ING Bank v. Ros Roca [2012] 1 W.L.R. 472 ....................................................................................1.12, 1.73, 1.98, 1.103
ISS Machinery Services v. Aeolian Shipping (The Aeolian) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 641...................................1.35, 13.63
I.C.S. Ltd v. West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 W.L.R. 896 ...........................................................................1.97
Ignazio Messina & Co v. Polskie Linie Oceoniczne (Ignatio Messina v. Polish Ocean Lines)
[1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 566 ...........................................................................................................1.12, 1.16, 1.18, 1.20
Ikariada, The (Orinoco Navigation v. Ecotrade) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 365;
[1999] All E.R. (D.) 727 ........................................................................................................................18.187, 18.229
Ikerigi Compania Naviera v. Palmer (The Wondrous) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 400 ...................................................66.310
Immingham Storage Co. Ltd v. Clear plc [2011] EWCA Civ 89 ....................................................................................1.5
Imvros, The. See Transocean Liners v. Euxine Shipping—
In Williams v. Manissalian Frères (1923) 29 Com. Cas. 42 ..........................................................................................6.22
Inca Compania Naviera v. Monofil Inc. (The President Brand) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 338 ..............................16.15, 40.2
Inchmaree, The (Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co. v. Hamilton Fraser & Co.)
(1887) 12 App. Cas. 484 ........................................................................................................................66.281, 66.286
Independent Petroleum Group Ltd v. Seacarriers Count Pte. Ltd (The Count)
[2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 72 ........................................................................................................................................5.93
India Steamship Co. v. Louis Dreyfus Sugar Ltd (The Indian Reliance)
[1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 52 .........................................................................13.41, 13.42, 13.119, 18.62, 18.193, 18.212
Indian Grace, The. See Government of India v. India SS. Co.) (No. 2)—
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Greenstone Shipping S.A. (The Ypatianna) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 286;
[1988] 1 Q.B. 345 ...................................................................................................................................................65.3
Indian Oil v. Greenstone Shipping [1988] 1 Q.B. 345.................................................................................................10.19
Indian Reliance, The. See India Steamship Co. v. Louis Dreyfus Sugar Ltd—
Induna Co. Ltd v. British Phosphate Commissioners [1949] 2 K.B. 430 ....................................................................15.19
Induna v. British Phosphate Commissioners [1949] 2 K.B. 430 ...............................................................................66.315
Industrial & General Mortgage Co v. Lewis [1949] 2 All E.R. 573 ..............................................................................1.91

lxx
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Industrie Chimiche Italia Centrale S.p.A. v. Nea Ninemia Shipping Co. [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 310.......................66.274
Industrie, The [1894] P. 58 .............................................................................................................................................1.38
Ines, The (M.B. Pyramid Sound N.V. v. Briese Schiffahrts G.m.b.H.) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 144 .................10.4, 18.169
Ingram & Royle v. Services Maritimes du Treport [1914] 1 K.B. 541........................................................................11.17
Innisboffin, The. See Limerick SS. v. Stott)—
Integral Petroleum SA v. SCU-Finanz AG [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 545 ..................................................................2.1, 2.23
Interbulk Ltd v. Ponte dei Sospiri Shipping Co. (The Standard Ardour)
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 159 ...............................................................................................66.16, 66.13, 66.179, 66.195
Intercontainer Interfrigo SC v. Balkende Oosthuizen [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 400................................................1.41, 1.43
International Air and Sea Cargo GmbH v. Chitral (Owners) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 529..........................................18.143
International Bulk Carriers (Beirut) SARL v. Evlogia Shipping Co SA (The Mihalis Xilas)
[1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 186 ....................................................................................................................................17.29
International Fina Services v. Katrina Shipping (The Fina Samco) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 344 ...................................33.2
International Ore & Fertilizer v. East Coast Fertilizer [1987] 1 N.Z.L.R. 9 ................................................................66.86
International Packers London v. Ocean Steamship Co. (The Hector)
[1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 218 ...........................................................................................66.108, 66.113, 66.279, 66.322
Internationale Guano en Superphosphaatwerken v. Robert MacAndrew & Co.
[1909] 2 K.B. 360 .........................................................................................................................12.30, 12.38, 66.335
Internaut Shipping v. Fercometal Sarl (The Elikon) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 430...............................................2.3, 2.7, 2.9
Internet Broadcasting Corp v. Mar [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 295 ...................................................................................1.113
Interpods Ltd v. De La Rue [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 540 .............................................................................................27A.5
Intra Transporter, The (Hofflinghouse v. C-Trade) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132;
[1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 158 ......................................................................................................................................1.13
Inverkip Steamship Co. v. Bunge [1917] 2 K.B. 193 (C.A.) .................................................................16.12, 12.13, 13.30
Investec Bank (UK) Ltd v. Zulman [2010] EWCA Civ 536..........................................................................................1.16
Investors Compensation Scheme v. West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 W.L.R. 896.......................................1.97
Ion, The (Unicoopjapan and Marubeni-Iida Co. v. Shipping Co.) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 541 ....................66.228, 66.243
Ionian Navigation v. Atlantic Shipping (The Loucas N.) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 215 (C.A.) ......................................15.57
Ionian Skipper, The (Bedford SS. Co. v. Navico) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 273 ..............................................................35.9
Iran Bohonar, The (Continental Grain v. Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines)
[1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 620 ..................................................................................................................................21.143
Iran Vojdan, The [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 380 .................................................................................................................1.31
Irbenskiy Proliv, The. See Mitsubishi v. East Wind—
Irini M., The [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 253........................................................................................................................41.6
Iron Gippsland, The [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 335 (Aust. Ct. Supreme Court of New South Wales) ............................49.10,
66.117, 66.275, 66.279
Irving v. Clegg (1834) 1 Bing. N.C. 53 ...........................................................................................................................6.4
Isaacs v. McAllum (1921) 6 Ll. L. Rep. 289 ..........................................................................................................3.4, 3.32
Isabella Shipowner SA v. Shagang Shipping Co Ltd (The Aquafaith)
[2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 61 ................................................................................................................14.68, 21.55, 21.92
Isabelle, The (Cosmar Compania Naviera S.A. v. Total Transport Corp.)
[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 366; aff’g [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 .........................................................................5.10, 23.1
Ishag v. Allied Bank [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 92..........................................................................................................18.147
Isis SS. Co. v. Bahr [1900] A.C 340; aff’g [1899] 2 Q.B. 365 ........................................................................................6.8
Isla Fernandina, The (Rey Banano del Pacifico C.A. v. Transportes Navieros Ecuatorianos)
[2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 15 ......................................................................................................................................66.95
Islamic Investment v. Transorient Shipping (The Nour) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ......................................................12.17
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Ierax Shipping Co. (The Forum Craftsman )
[1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 .......................................................................................................15.14, 15.21, 16.5, 21.38
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association
(Bermuda) Ltd (The Zoorik) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 195 .......................................................................................22.1
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. The Royal Bank of Scotland (The Anna Ch)
[1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 266 .....................................................................................................5.28, 5.103, 26.59, 26.71
Island Archon, The [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 227................................................................................18.222, 18.223, 18.254
Islander Shipping Enterprises S.A. v. Empresa Maritima Del Estado S.A. (The Khian Sea)
[1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 545 ......................................................................................................................................5.82
Ismail v. Polish Ocean Lines (The Ciechocinek) [1976] Q.B. 893 (C.A.) ......................................6.5, 11.64, 14.25, 49.4,
66.120, 66.239, 66.319
Israel (Jack L.) v. Ocean Dynamic Lines. See Jack L. Israel v. Ocean Dynamic Lines—
Istros v. Dahlstroem [1931] 1 K.B. 247 ................................................................................................................9.8, 11.78
Itoh (C.) v. Cia. de Nav. Lloyd Brasileiro (The Rio Assu) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201 ...............................................66.61
J. Aron v. Comptoir Wegimont [1921] 3 K.B. 435, 437 ...................................................................................18.10, 18.39
J. Lauritzen v. Wijsmuller (The Super Servant Two) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1, aff’g
[1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 148 ......................................................................................................................................22.4

lxxi
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

J. Gadsden v. Australian Coastal Shipping Commission [1977] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 575 ..................................................66.171

J.H. Rayner. See Rayner, (J.H. ) (Mincing Lane) v. Dept. of Trade & Industry—
J.I. MacWilliam Co. v. Mediterranean Shipping Co. (The Rafaela S) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 113 (C. A.);
[2004] Q.B. 702 (C.A.); [2005] 2 A.C. 423 ........................66.23, 66.36, 66.43, 66.50, 66.64, 66.66, 66.134, 66.489
JN Hipwell v. Szurk [2018] EWCA Civ 674 ...............................................................................................................1.122
Jack L. Israel v. Ocean Dynamic Lines (The Ocean Dynamic)
[1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 88 ...............................................................................................21.31, 21.117, 21.123, 21.124
Jackson v. Mumford (1902) 8 Com. Cas. 61 .............................................................................................................66.347
Jackson v. Union Marine Insurance (1874) L.R. 10 C.P. 125 (Exch. Ch.) .......................................................22.19, 22.20
Jaederen, The [1892] P. 351 ...........................................................................................................................................10.2
Jag Ravi, The. See Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd v. Far East Chartering Ltd—
Jahn v. Turnbull Scott Shipping Co. (The Flowergate) [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ......................................................66.336
Jalamohan, The [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 443 ...........................................................................................18.45, 18.205, 64.1
Jamal v. Moolla Dawood [1916] 1 A.C. 175, 179 (P.C.) .............................................................................................21.56
James Buchanan v. Babco Forwarding and Shipping [1978] A.C. 141 (H.L.) .............................................66.386, 66.398
James Finlay v. Kwik Hoo Tong [1929] 1 K.B. 400, aff’g [1928] 2 K.B. 604......................................18.39, 18.43, 21.52
James Miller v. Whitworth Street Estates [1970] A.C. 572 ...........................................................................................1.98
James v. Chinecrest [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 126...........................................................................................................13.67
Janentzky v. Langridge (1895) 1 Com. Cas. 90 .........................................................................................................18.215
Japy Frères v. Sutherland (1921) 26 Com. Cas. 227 ......................................................................................................3.40
Jardine Matheson & Co. v. Clyde Shipping (1910) 15 Com. Cas. 193 .........................................................6.3, 6.16, 6.19
Jascon 5, The (Talbot Underwriting v. Nausch, Hogan & Murray) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.195.....................................2.14
Jasmine B, The. See Bulk Shipping v. Ipco Trading—
Jay (William A.) & Sons v. Veevers [1946] 1 All E.R. 646 .........................................................................................21.77
Jay Ganesh, The (United Nations/Food and Agriculture Organisation-World Food Programme v.
Caspian Navigation Inc.) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 358...........................................................................................15.82
Jebsen v. East and West India Dock Co. (1874) L.R. 10 C.P. 300 ..................................................................21.48, 21.106
Jenkins v. Hutchinson (1839) 13 Q.B. 744 .............................................................................................................2.8, 2.18
Jennensen v. Secretary of State for India [1916] 2 K.B. 702 ..............................................................................17.3, 17.14
Jet 2.com Ltd v. Blackpool Airport Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 417 ............................................................................1.5, 1.10
Jetivia v. Bilta [2016] A.C. 1......................................................................................................................1.51, 1.52, 11.55
Jia Li Hai, The [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 396 .....................................................................................................11.23
Jiangsu Shagang Group v. Loki Owning Co (The Pounda) [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 359;
[2018] EWHC 330................................................................................................................................2.23, 2.24, 2.29
Jindal Iron & Steel Co. Ltd v. Islamic Solidarity Shipping Co. Jordan Inc. (The Jordan II)
[2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 87 (C.A.); [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 57; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 1363;
[2005] L.M.C.L.Q. 1 ................................. 11.8, 11.11, 11.15, 13.3, 14.36–14.38, 14.43, 14.52, 14.54, 14.55, 15.13,
66.9, 66.79, 66.86, 66.100, 66.111, 66.112, 66.131, 66.224, 66.230, 66.322, 66.336
Jocelyne, The [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 121 ......................................................................................................................17.8
Jogoo, The [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 513.........................................................................................................................22.36
Johanna Oldendorff, The (E.L. Oldendorff & Co. v. Tradax Export) [1974] A.C. 479 (H.L.);
[1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285 .......................................................................................................................19.14, 66.289
John F. Hunt Demolition v. Asma Engineering Ltd [2008] 1 All E.R. 180,
[2007] EWHC 1507 (TCC) .................................................................................................................................21.83
John Grimes Partnership Ltd v. Gubbins [2013] EWCA Civ 37; (2013) L.M.C.L.Q. 284 .........................................21.30
John Michalos, The (President of India v. N.G. Livanos Maritime) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 188 ..................................16.4
John S. Darbyshire, The. See Albion Sugar v. William Tankers—
John v. Turnbull Scott Shipping Co. (The Flowergate) [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ...........................................66.98, 66.333
Johnson v. Agnew [1980] A.C. 367 .........................................................................................................6.39, 21.7, 21.139
Johnson v. Chapman (1865) 19 C.B.(N.S.) 563.............................................................................................................6.39
Johnson v. Gore Wood [2002] A.C. 1 ............................................................................................................................21.1
Johs Stove, The (Sametiet M/T Johs Stove v. Istanbul Petrol Rafinerisi) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 38 ..........................15.24
Johs. Thode v. Vda. de Gimeno y Cia. SL [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 ...............................................................5.14, 19.23
Joint Danube & Black Sea Shipping Agencies v. Rederi A/B Iris (1932) 43 Ll. L. Rep. 97 .........................................1.78
Joint Frost, The [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 311 ...............................................................................................................66.398
Joker, The [2021] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 4 .........................................................................................................1.29, 1.30, 1.35
Jolley v. Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1082...............................................................................21.38
Jones (A. Meredith) & Co. v. Vangemar Shipping (The Apostolis) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 241 .................................15.28
Jones (A. Meredith) & Co. v. Vangemar Shipping (The Apostolis) (No. 2) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 292 ....................21.57
Jones Ltd. v. Green & Co. [1904] 2 K.B. 275...........................................................................................................7.3, 7.4
Jones v. Hough (1879) L.R. 5 Ex. D. 115 ..................................................................................................................18.189
Jones v. Lipman [1962] 1 W.L.R. 832 ...........................................................................................................................2.43
Jordan II, The. See Jindal Iron & Steel Co. Ltd v. Islamic Solidarity Shipping Co. Jordan Inc—
Joseph Constantine Steamship v. Imperial Smelting Corp. [1942] A.C. 154 (H.L.) ..............................................7.6, 22.4

lxxii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Joyner v. Weeks [1892] 2 Q.B. 31 ...............................................................................................................................21.47

Juffrow Maria Schroeder, The (1801) 3 C. Rob. 154 ....................................................................................................26.3
Junior K, The. See Star Steamship Society v. Beogradska Plovidba—
Jute Express, The [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 55 ................................................................................................................20.47
K.H. Enterprise, The. See Pioneer Container, The—
K.K.K.K. v. Belships (1939) 63 Ll. L. Rep. 175 ..............................................................................................26.37, 26.76
K/S Arndt J. Moerland v. Kuwait Petroleum Corp. (The Fjordaas)
[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 336 ..................................................................................................................38.9, 38.10, 40.3
K/S Penta Shipping v. Ethiopian Shipping Lines Corp. (The Saga Cob)
[1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 545 ...........................................................................................................5.65, 5.66, 5.87, 5.88
KLine Pte Ltd v. Priminds Shipping (Hk) Co Ltd. (The Eternal Bliss) [2020]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 559, [2021] EWCA Civ 1712 ................................................................................................... 16.14A
KPMG v. Network Rail [2007] Bus. L.R. 1336.............................................................................................................1.73
Kabah-Ji Sal (Lebanon) v. Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2020] EWCA Civ 6 .................................................................1.3
Kadel Chajkin v. Mitchell Cotts (1947) 81 Ll. L. Rep. 124 ..........................................................................................1.37
Kahan-Ji SAL v. Kout Food Group [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 269 ......................................................................1.3, 1.5, 1.21
Kaijo Maru .....................................................................................................................................................................6.58
Kaliningrad, The [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 35 ...............................................................................................................21.112
Kallang Shipping S.A. v. AXA Assurances Senegal (The Kallang (No.2)) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 124 .....................18.60
Kalliopi A., The (Marc Rich v. Tourloti Compania Naviera) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101 (C.A.) ................................15.24
Kamsar Voyager, The, [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 57...........................................................................................................54.3
Kanchenjunga, The. See Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries S.A. v. Shipping
Corporation of India—
Kanoria v. Guinness [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 701 ............................................................................................................63.7
Kapetan Markos, The (Hispanica de Petroleos S.A. v. Vencedora Oceanica Navegacion)
[1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 211 (C.A.)..........................................................................................................66.185, 66.205
Kapitan Petko Voivoda, The. See Daewoo Heavy Industries v. Klipriver Shipping—
Kapitan Sakharov, The (Northern Shipping v. Deutsche Seereederei) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 255 (C.A.);
aff’g unreported, 20 February 1998 ......................................................................6.53, 11.31, 66.95, 66.100, 66.120,
66.258, 66.262, 66.458, 66.449, 66.460
Karen Oltman, The [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 708 .............................................................................................................1.98
Karim v. Wemyss [2016] EWCA Civ 27 .......................................................................................................................21.1
Karin Vatis, The (Vagres Compania Maritima v. Nissho-Iwai American Corp.)
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 330 (C.A.); rev’g [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 361...........................................13.56, 13.121, 16.18
Kassiopi Maritime Co Ltd v. Fal Shipping Co Ltd (The Adventure) [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473 ...............................16.21
Kaufman v. Gerson [1904] 1 K.B. 591 ..........................................................................................................................1.93
Kavo Peiratis, The (Granvias Oceanicas Armadora S.A. v. Jibsen Trading Co.)
[1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 344 ..............................................................................................................17.12, 17.13, 17.22
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha v. Bantham Steamship Co. Ltd (The Nailsea Meadow)
[1939] 2 K.B. 544 (C.A.)................................................................................................................26.8, 26.12, 66.301
Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Sardoil S.p.A. (The Zuiho Maru) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 552 ........................21.94, 22.24, 22.25
Kay v. Wheeler (1867) L.R. 2 C.P. 302 .....................................................................................................................66.287
Kaye S.N. Co. v. Barnett (1931) 41 Ll. L. Rep. 231 .........................................................................................21.26, 21.97
Kaye Steam Navigation Co. v. Barnett (1931) 41 Ll. L. Rep. 231; (1932) 48 T.L.R. 440 ..........................................21.21
Keane v. Australian Steamships (1929) 41 C.L.R. 484 ............................................................10.20, 10.23, 10.26, 66.200
Keefe v. The Isle of Man Steam Packet Company Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 683 ............................................................21.1
Keighley, Maxsted v. Durant [1901] A.C. 240...............................................................................................................2.33
Kelly v. Fraser [2013] 1 A.C. 450 (PC) ................................................................................................................2.27, 2.28
Kelo, The [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 85 ............................................................................................................. 18.112, 18.114
Kendall v. Hamilton (1879) 4 App. Cas. 504 .................................................................................................................2.21
Kensington v. Congo [2005] E.W.H.C. 2684.................................................................................................................2.43
Kensland Realty Ltd v. Whale View Investment Ltd [2001] HKCFA 57 ....................................................................1.119
Kent Reliant, The (Ease Faith Ltd v. Leonis Marine Management Ltd) [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 673 ..............................9.5
Kenya Railways v. Antares Co. Pte. (The Antares) (Nos. 1 and 2)
[1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 424 (C.A.) ..............................................12.32, 12.40, 66.24, 66.174, 66.197, 66.204, 66.401
Keppel Tatlee Bank v. Bandung Shipping [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 616 (C.A. Singapore)...............................18.83, 18.171
Khian Captain, The (No. 2) (Freedom Marine Corp. v. International Bulk Carriers)
[1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 429 ....................................................................................................................................13.65
Khian Sea, The (Islander Shipping Enterprises S.A. v. Empresa Maritima Del Estado)
[1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 535 ......................................................................................................................................5.82
Khian Zephyr, The (Freedom General Shipping v. Tokai Shipping) [1982]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 73 .............................................................................................................................6.59, 66.15, 66.22
Kildare, The. See Zodiac Maritime Agencies v. Fortescue Metals Group—
Kimber Coal Co. v. Stone & Rolfe [1926] A.C. 414 .......................................................................................................2.8

lxxiii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Kinetics Technology International v. Cross Seas Shipping (The Mosconici)

[2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 30 ................................................................................66.385, 66.389, 66.400, 66.402, 66.414
King Theras, The (Mosvolds Rederi v. Food Corporation of India) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ....................................15.43
King v. Parker (1876) 34 L.T. 887 .................................................................................................................................25.4
Kirchner v. Venus (1859) 12 Moo. P.C. 361 ..............................................................................................................18.195
Kish v. Cory (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B. 553 and Fidelitas v. Exportchleb [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 113 ..................................17.7
Kish v. Taylor [1912] A.C. 604 .........................................................................................12.11, 12.33, 12.38, 13.47, 17.7,
18.52, 21.93, 35.1, 66.258, 66.360
Kiukiang Carrier, The, 18 May 2000, L.M.L.N. 541 (Fed. Ct. Aust.) ...........................................................................49.4
Kleovoulos of Rhodes, The [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 ..............................................................................................1.105
Kline v. Priminds Shipping [2020] EWHC 2373 (Comm) ..............................................................................................1.1
Knight v. Fleming (1898) 25 Rett. 1070 ........................................................................................................................10.2
Knight-Bruce L.J. in The Owners of the Norway v. Ashburner (The Norway) (No. 2) (1865)
3 Moo. P.C.(N.S.) 245 ..........................................................................................................................................13.19
Knutsford v. Tillmanns (aff’g sub nom. Tillmanns v. Knutsford) [1908] A.C. 406 (H.L.); [1908]
2 K.B. 385 (C.A.); [1908] 1 K.B. 185 ............................1.110, 5.92, 18.67, 18.178, 18.204, 27.3, 27.4, 27.7, 66.269
Koch Marine v. D’Amico Soc. di Nav. (The Elena d’Amico) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 75 ..........................21.5, 21.7, 21.9,
21.13, 21.41, 21.113
Kodros Shipping Corporation v. Empresa Cubana de Fletes (No. 2) (The Evia) [1983]
1 A.C. 736 (H.L.); [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 334; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 613 ...............................5.50, 5.51, 5.53, 5.55,
5.58, 5.67, 5.81, 5.87, 5.89, 5.95, 5.115, 18.50, 20.51,
22.13, 22.15, 26.1, 26.32, 26.60, 26.78, 26.79, 27.19
Kokusai Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha v. Johnson (1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 434 ...............................................................1.23, 1.26
Kolmar Group AG v. Traxpo Enterprises PVT Ltd [2010] EWHC 113 (Comm);
[2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 653 ...........................................................................................................1.87, 1.88, 1.90, 1.92
Komercni Bank v. Stone & Rolls [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 383 .....................................................................................21.47
Komninos S, The (Hellenic Steel v. Svolamar Shipping Co.) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 370 ........................1.36, 1.38, 66.48
Kopitoff v. Wilson (1876) 1 Q.B.D. 377 ......................................................................................................................11.19
Kos, The. See E NE 1 Kos Ltd v. Petroleo Brasiliero SA (No. 2)—
Kostas K., The (Heinrich Hanno & Co. v. Fairlight Shipping Co.) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 231....................................36.5
Kpohraror v. Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All E.R. 119 ................................................................................21.32
Krapan J., The (General Feeds Inc. v. Slobodna Plovidba) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 688 ..............................................21.86
Krell v. Henry [1903] 2 K.B. 740 ................................................................................................................................22.10
Kribi, The [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 76..........................................................................................................................66.191
Kristiansands Tankrederi A/S v. Standard Tankers (Bahamas) (The Polyglory)
[1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 353 ....................................................................................................................5.59, 5.62, 5.99
Kriti Rex, The. See Fyffes Group v. Reefer Express—
Kruger & Co v. Moel Tryvan Ship Co Ltd. See Moel Tryvan Ship Co Ltd. v. Kruger & Co—
Kudos Catering v. Manchester [2013] EWCA Civ 38 .................................................................................................1.113
Kulukundis v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance [1937] 1 K.B. 1 ........................................................3.15, 9.10, 9.11, 22.18
Kum v. Wah Tat Bank [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 439 ........................................................................................18.145, 66.218
Kuo International Oil v. Daisy Shipping Co. (The Yamatogawa) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 39 ........................11.29, 66.102,
66.109, 66.257, 66.346, 66.347
Kurt A. Becher v. Roplak Enterprises (The World Navigator)
[1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 23 (C.A.) ........................................1.124, 9.2, 15.35, 15.47, 21.5, 21.19, 21.21, 21.23, 21.25
Kuwait Airways v. Kuwait Insurance [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 803 .............................................................................66.307
Kuwait Maritime Transport v. Rickmers Line (The Danah) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 351 .....................................6.34, 6.35
Kuwait Petroleum Corp. v. I. & D. Oil Carriers Ltd (The Houda) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 541 ........................5.17, 18.165
Kuwait Supply Co. v. Oyster Marine Management (The Safeer) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 637...........................22.9, 26.40,
26.63, 26.79, 26.80
Kwei Tek Chao v. British Traders and Shippers [1954] 2 Q.B. 459 ....................................................18.43, 21.12, 66.393
Kyzikos, The. See Seacrystal Shipping v. Bulk Transport—
L.D. Seals v. Mitsui OSK Lines (The Darya Tara) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 42 ...............................................................6.36
LNG Gemini [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 113 .......................................................................................................................6.52
La Pintada Cia Navegacion S.A. v. President of India (The La Pintada) [1985] A.C. 104; rev’g
[1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 .........................................................................................................................21.36, 66.212
Labrador, The (Newcastle Protection & Indemnity Association v. Assuranceforeningen Gard)
[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 387 ....................................................................................................................................21.88
Laconia, The. See Mardorf Peach & Co. Ltd. v. Attica Sea Carriers Corp. of Liberia—
Lady Gwendolen, The [1965] P. 294 (C.A.) ..................................................... 11.55, 11.56, 11.62, 11.63, 66.284, 66.423
Ladytramp, The. See E.D.& F. Man Sugar Ltd. v. Unicargo—
Laemthong Glory (No. 2), The [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 632 .......................................................................................21.139
Laemthong International Lines & Co. v. Artis (The Laemthong Glory) (No. 2)
[2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 688; [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 632 .....................................................2.5, 2.38, 18.173A, 66.225

lxxiv
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Laertis, The [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 613 .........................................................................................................................1.30

Lagden v. O’Connor [2004] 1 A.C. 1067.....................................................................................................................21.35
Lage v. Siemens (1932) 42 Ll. L. Rep. 252 ...................................................................................................................23.4
Laiterie Dupont Morin Flechard v. Anangel Endeavour Cia. Nav.
(unreported, 17 March 1989).......................................................................................66.385, 66.386, 66.389, 66.398
Lake Michigan, The (Lantic Sugar Ltd. v. Baffin Investments)
[2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 141 ........................................................................................................66.187, 66.192, 66.197
Lake v. Simmons [1927] A.C. 487 .................................................................................................................................1.96
Lakeport Navigation Co. v. Anonima Petroli Italiana SpA (The Olympic Brilliance)
[1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 176; [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 205 .................................................................13.70, 34.9, 66.306
Lancaster, The (Ellerman v. Lancaster) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 497 ..............................................................................60.3
Landauer v. Smits (1921) 6 L1. L. Rep. 577..................................................................................................................23.9
Langdale v. Mason (1780) 2 Park on Insurance 965 .................................................................................................66.330
Lansat v. Glencore Grain (The Paragon) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 688 ........................................................................21.132
Lantic Sugar Ltd v. Baffin Investments (The Lake Michigan)
[2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 141 ........................................................................................................66.187, 66.192, 66.197
Larrinaga & Co. Ltd. v. Société Franco-Americaine des Phosphates (1923)
14 Ll. L. Rep. 457 (H.L.)...........................................................................................................................22.14, 22.31
Larrinaga SS. Co. v. The Crown (1945) 78 Ll. L. Rep. 167 ..........................................................................................23.1
Lash Atlantico, The [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 464, [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 114 ...............................................21.130, 66.413
Laura Prima, The. See Nereide S.p.A. de Navigazione v. Bulk Oil International—
Laura Prima, The, [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 466; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 24;
[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1l [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 503 ................................ 38A.44, 40A.10–40A.12, 40A.17, 40A.18
Lauritzen (J.) v. Wijsmuller (The Super Servant Two) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; aff’g
[1989]1 Lloyd’s Rep. 148 .....................................................................................................................................22.17
Lauritzen Reefers v. Ocean Reef Transport Ltd S.A. (The Bukhta Russkaya)
[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 744 ......................................................................................................................................66.4
Lauritzencool v. Lady Navigation [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 63 .......................................................................21.140, 21.144
Lavabre v. Wilson (1779) 1 Doug. 284 ..........................................................................................................................12.3
Laverack v. Woods of Colchester [1967] 1 Q.B. 278 .......................................................................................21.19, 21.20
Law Guarantee Society v. Russian Bank [1905] 1 K.B. 815 .........................................................................................2.36
Laysun Service Ltd v. Del Monte International GmbH [2022] EWHC 699 (Comm) .........................6.1, 7.1, 7.10, 10.20
Leduc v. Ward (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 475 .....................................................2.6, 6.26, 12.7, 12.17, 12.41, 13.44, 18.46, 66.36
Lee (Paula) v. Robert Zehil [1983] 1 All E.R. 390 ................................................................................21.20, 21.21, 21.23
Leeds City Council v. Barclays Bank [2021] 2 W.L.R. 1180 ........................................................................................1.79
Leeds Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Société Française Bunge (The Eastern City)
[1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127 .........................................................................................................................5A.4, 5A.42
Leeds Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Société Française Bunge (The Eastern City) [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127
(C.A.); aff’g [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 153 .......................................................................................................5.58, 5.61
Leeds Shipping Co. v. Duncan Fox & Co. (1932) 37 Com. Cas. 213 .................................15.7, 16.2, 16.9, 66.18, 66.355
Leeds Shipping v. Bunge [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 153, [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127 .......................................21.135, 21.137
Leesh River Tea Co. v. British India Steam Navigation Co. (The Chyebassa) [1966]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 193; [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 450 ................................66.113, 66.280, 66.291, 66.297, 66.322, 66.350
Lefthero, The (Ellis Shipping Corp. v. Voest Alpine Intertrading) [1992]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 (C.A.); [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 599 .............................................................................13.29, 15.24
Leggatt J. in The Argonaut [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 216 ...............................................................................................14.24
Lehmann Timber, The, Metall Market v. Vitorio Shipping Co. Ltd [2014] Q.B. 760,
[2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 541; [2013] EWCA Civ 650..................................................................................17.37, 17.38
Leif Hoegh v. Petrolsea (The World Era) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 45 ..............................................................18.91, 21.126
Leigh and Sillavan v. Aliakmon Shipping (The Aliakmon) [1986] A.C. 785;
[1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 203 ..................................................................................................................................21.128
Leila, The [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 172 ..........................................................................................................................18.99
Leitrim, The [1902] P. 256 ...........................................................................................................................................20.29
Lemenda Trading v. African Middle East Petroleum [1988] Q.B. 448 .........................................................................1.60
Lendoudis Evangelos II, The [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 404 ..............................................................................................3.40
Leni, The (Transworld Oil (U.S.A.) v. Minos Compania Naviera) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 48 .....................66.185, 66.192
Lennard’s Carrying Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Co. [1915] A.C. 705; [1914] 1 K.B. 419 ...................11.55, 66.423, 66.284
Leofelis v. Lonsdale [2012] EWHC (Ch.) 485; (2012) L.M.C.L.Q. 619 ......................................................................21.9
Leolga v. Glynn [1953] 2 Q.B. 374 ...............................................................................................................................6.45
Leonidas, The. See Bayoil v. Seawind Tankers Corp.—
Leonis Steamship Co. v. Joseph Rank (No. 2) [1908] 1 K.B. 499; (1908) 13 Com. Cas. 295 (C.A.);
aff’g (1908) 13 Com. Cas. 161 .......................................................................................................15.26, 25.6, 66.328
Les Affréteurs Réunis v. Walford [1919] A.C. 801 ..................................................................24.1, 24.2, 24.5, 24.9, 24.25
Les Laboratoires Servier v. Apotex Inc. [2015] A.C. 430 and Patel v. Mirza [2017] A.C. 467............................1.51, 1.56

lxxv
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. Impregilo SpA [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 497;
[2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 310 ..................................................................................................................................66.386
Levy v. Assicurazione Generali [1940] A.C. 791 ...........................................................................................26.25, 66.330
Levy v. Goldhill [1917] 2 Ch. 297 ...............................................................................................................................24.19
Lewis v. Dreyfus (1926) 24 Ll. L. Rep. 333 ................................................................................................................15.27
Lickbarrow v. Mason (1793) 6 East. 22 (1794) 5 Term 683 ..................................18.145, 18.148, 18.151–18.153, 18.159
Lidgett v. Williams (1845) 4 Hare 456 ............................................................................................................................1.3
Liepaya, The (U.B.C. Chartering v. Liepaya Shipping Co.) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 649 .............4.19, 11.19, 21.52, 66.96
Lignell v. Samuelson (1921) 9 Ll. L. Rep. 361............................................................................................................18.61
Lilley v. Doubleday (1881) 7 Q.B.D. 510..............................................................................................6.31, 12.44, 66.207
Lilly, Wilson v. Smales, Eeles [1892] 1 Q.B. 456..........................................................................................................2.35
Limerick Steamship Co. Ltd v. W. H. Stott & Co. Ltd (The Innisboffin) [1921] 1 K.B. 568 and
[1921] 2 K.B. 613 ........................................................................................................................5.60, 5.72, 5.86, 27.5
Limerick v. Coker (1916) 33 T.L.R. 103......................................................................................................................18.67
Limnos, The (Serena Navigation v. Dera Commercial Est.) [2008]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 166 ..........................................................................................................21.124, 66.9, 66.402, 66.404
Linardos, The (Cobelfret N.V. v. Cyclades Shipping Co. Ltd.) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 28 ..........................................15.82
Lindsay Blee Depots v. Motor Union Insurance Co. (1930) 37 Ll. L. Rep. 220 .........................................................66.80
Lindsay v. Klein [1911] A.C. 194 ..............................................................................................................................66.109
Linea Naviera Paramaconi v. Abnormal Load Engineering (The Sophie J.) [2001]
All E.R. (D.) 306; [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 763 ..........................................................................66.101, 66.178, 66.180
Linsen International v. Humpuss Sea Transport [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 663 .................................................................2.43
Lipa, The [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 17 ......................................................................................................................3.35, 3.40
Lips, The. See President of India v. Lips Maritime Corp.—
Lishman v. Christie (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 333 (C.A.) ............................................................................................18.33, 18.34
Leonis v. Rank [1908] 1 K.B. 499 ..............................................................................................................15A.39, 15A.41
Leonis S.S. Co. v. Rank [1908] 1 K.B. 499 ............................................................................................................15A.168
Lister v. Thomson Shipping (The Benarty) [1985] Q.B. 325 ................................................66.26, 66.29, 66.227, 66.240,
66.367, 66.420, 66.501, 66.191
Litt v. Cowley (1816) 7 Taunt. 196 ............................................................................................................................18.159
Little v. Courage Limited (1994) 70 P.&C.R. 469 .......................................................................................................1.119
Little v. Stevenson [1896] A.C. 108 (H.L.) ...............................................................................................................7.3, 7.4
Littlewoods v. Inland Revenue [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1241 ..................................................................................................2.42
Livanita, The (STX Pan Ocean Co. Ltd v. Ugland Bulk Transport A.S.) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 86.............................5.49
Liver Alkali Co. v. Johnson (1875) L.R. 9 Ex. 338 ...................................................................................................66.298
Liverpool (Owners) v. Ousel (Owners), (The Liverpool No 2) [1963] P. 64...............................................................21.52
Liverpool C.C. v. Irwin [1977] A.C. 239 ..........................................................................................................1.124, 1.125
Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. (1880) 5 App. Cas. 25 ............................................................................................21.1
Lloyd Pacifico, The [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 54...........................................................................................................66.102
Lloyd v. Guibert (1865) L.R. 1 Q.B. 115 ..............................................................................................................20.2, 20.3
Lloyds & Scottish Finance v. Modern Cars and Caravans (Kingston) [1966] 1 Q.B. 764 ..........................................21.50
Lloyds Bank Foundation for Scotland v. Lloyds Banking Group [2013] 1 W.L.R. 366 .........................1.96, 1.106–1.108
Lloyds Bank Limited v. Marcan [1973] 1 W.L.R. 1387 ................................................................................................2.43
Lo-Line Electric Motors, Re [1988] Ch. 477 .................................................................................................................2.45
Lodza Compania de Navigacione S.A. v. Government of Ceylon (The Theraios)
[1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 209 ....................................................................................................................................15.12
Logicrose v. Southend United FC [1988] 1 W.L.R. 1256 ..............................................................................................1.92
Logs & Timber Products (Singapore) v. Keeley Granite Pty. (The Freijo) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 .........................115.45
Lond. Arb. 3/06 (2006) 685 L.M.L.N. 1(2) ...................................................................................................................5.70
London & Lancashire Fire Insurance Co. v. Bolands [1924] A.C. 836. .........................................................26.26, 66.329
London & Manchester Plate Glass v. Heath [1913] 3 K.B. 411 (C.A.) .....................................................................66.330
London and Northern SS. Co. v. Central Argentine Railway (1913) 108 L.T. 527 .....................................................15.26
London Explorer, The [1972] A.C. 1 ...........................................................................................................................1.117
London Joint Stock Bank v. British Amsterdam Maritime Agency (1910) 16 Com. Cas. 102 ....................18.150, 18.163
London Transport Co. v. Trechmann (1904) 90 L.T. 132 (C.A.) ........................................................................13.7, 13.80
Longchamp, The [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ...................................................................................................................20.29
Lonrho v. Fayed [1992] A.C. 448 ..................................................................................................................................2.45
Lord (SS.) (Owners) v. Newsum, Son & Co. [1920] 1 K.B. 846 ..............................................................................66.270
Lord Strathcona v. Dominion Coal (The Lord Strathcona) (No. 2) [1926] A.C. 108 .......................................2.37, 21.141
Lordsvale Finance plc v. Bank of Zambia [1996] Q.B. 752 ......................................................................................21.132
Lorentzen v. White (1942) 74 Ll. L. Rep. 161 ......................................................................................................3.26, 3.35
Lorna I, The (Compania Naviera General v. Kerametal) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 373 (C.A.);
[1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 559 .......................................................................................................................13.56, 13.107
Lossiebank, The 1938 AMC 1033 .................................................................................................................................6.28

lxxvi
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Loucas N., The. See Ionian Navigation v. Atlantic Shipping—

Loucas N, The, [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 215 (C.A.) ...................................................................................................15A.90
Louis Dreyfus & Cie v. Parnaso Cia. Naviera S.A. (The Dominator) [1959] 1 Q.B. 498;
[1960] 2 Q.B. 49 ...................................................................................................................... 6.18, 11.2, 11.15, 11.69
Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse v. MT Maritime Management (The MTM Hong Kong)
[2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 197; (2016) L.M.C.L.Q. 33; (2018) L.M.C.L.Q. 482 ................................21.30, 21.91, 21.97
Louis Dreyfus v. Tempus Shipping [1931] A.C. 726 ...................................................................................................11.17
Louis Dreyfus. See Dreyfus—
Love & Stewart v. Instone (1917) 33 T.L.R. 475.............................................................................................................1.7
Love & Stewart v. Rowtor Steamship [1916] 2 A.C. 527............................................................................................15.19
Lovelock v. Exportles [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 163 .........................................................................................1.9, 32.3, 63.3
Lowick Rose LLP v. Swynson Ltd [2018] A.C. 313 .....................................................................................................21.1
Lowlands Orchid, The (Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v Swissmarine Services SA)
[2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 317 ....................................................................................................................................11.77
Lucille, The (Uni-Ocean Lines v. C-Trade) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 244 (C.A.)...........................................................21.38
Lucy, The (Atlantic Lines v. Hallam) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 188 .................................................................................1.84
Luigi Monta v. Cechofracht Co. Ltd (The Marilu) [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 97 ......................................................26.7–26.9
Lukoil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v. Ocean Tankers (PTE) Ltd (The Ocean Neptune)
2018 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 654 .............................................................................................................................1.95, 16.21
Lungrowe v. Vedantta Resources PLC [2019] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 399 ...............................................................................2.39
Lunn Poly v. Liverpool and Lancashire Properties [2006] 2 E.G.L.R. 29 para. 22 ...................................................21.145
Lupofresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444 .............................................1.27, 1.30, 1.33, 1.35, 1.36,
1.38, 1.39, 1.90, 1.93
Lycaon, The [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 548 .............................................................................18.142, 18.143, 18.147, 18.163
Lyle Shipping v. Cardiff Corporation (The Cape Wrath) (1899) 5 Com. Cas. 87,
397 (C.A.) .........................................................................................................................................16.7, 17.25, 17.37
Lynch v. D.P.P. of Northern Ireland [1975] A.C. 653 ....................................................................................................1.87
Lyric Shipping Inc. v. Intermetals Ltd. (The Al Taha) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 117 ....................................................66.359
M.B. Pyramid Sound N.V. v. Briese Schiffahrts GmbH (The Ines)
[1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 244 ..............................................................................................................18.71, 18.72, 18.74
MC Pearl, The [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 566, The Kribi [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 76 ......................................................66.191
M.C. Pearl, The (Mahavir Minerals v. Cho Yang Shipping) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 566 ...............................66.25, 66.191
M.D.C. Ltd. v. N.V. Zeevaart Maatschappij “Beursstraat” (The Westerdok)
[1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 180 .......................................................................................................................11.19, 66.124
M&J Polymers v. Imerys Minerals [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 541 .................................................................................21.132
MRI Trading AG v. Erdenet Mining Corp. LLC [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 638 ................................................................1.10
MSC Amsterdam, The (Trafigura Beheer BV v. Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A.)
[2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 622 ............................................................................................................21.51, 66.42, 66.204
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v. Cottonex Anstalt [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 359,
[2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 494 (C.A.), [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 789 ................................1.10, 16.5, 16.10A, 16.12, 21.54,
21.55, 21.92, 21,131, 21.132
MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v. Glencore International AG [2017]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 186. .....................................................................................10.2, 18.81, 18.90, 18.96, 18.161, 18.162
MSC Napoli, The. See Metvale Ltd v. Monsanto International Sarl (The MSC Napoli)—
MUR Joint Ventures v. Cie Monagasque de Banque [2017] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 8 ...........................................................2.1
MUR Shipping BV v. Louis Dreyfus Co Suisse SA [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 153............................................16.21, 66.196
MWB Business Exchange Centres v. Rock Advertising [2018] A.C. 119................................................................1.3, 1.5
Mabanaft v. Erg Petroli (The Yellow Star) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 637 .......................................................................16.21
Maceo Shipping v. Clipper Shipping Lines [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 645 ....................................................................66.455
Maciej Rataj, The [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 302............................................................................................................66.171
McCain Foods GB Ltd v. Eco-Tec (Europe) Ltd [2011] EWHC 66 (TCC) ................................................................21.40
McCall v. Houlder (1897) 2 Com. Cas. 129 .....................................................................................................20.21, 20.27
MacAndrew v. Chapple (1866) L.R. 1 C.P. 643 ..........................................................................................................12.46
McCarren v. Humber International Transport (The Vechscroon) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301 ..........................66.24, 66.44
Mackay v. Dick (1881–1881) L.R. 6 App. Cas. 251 ...........................................................................................1.124, 15.5
Mackay v. Scott Packing [1966] 2 F.C. 36 (Can. Fed. Ct. App.) .................................................................................1.113
Mackender v. Feldia [1967] 2 Q.B. 590................................................................................................................1.61, 63.1
McKew v. Holland & Hannen and Cubitts [1969] 3 All E.R. 1621 (H.L.) ...............................................................66.453
MacKill v. Wright (1888) 14 App. Cas. 106 .........................................................................................................3.20, 3.21
Maharani Woollen Mills Co. v. Anchor Line [1927] Ll. L. Rep. 169 (C.A.)..............................................................66A.1
Maistros Corporation, 790 F. Supp. 70 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff’d without opinion,
979 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1992).................................................................................................................................53A.5
McLean v. Fleming (1871) L.R. 2 Sc. & Div. 128............................................................................................13.10, 21.93
McFadden v. Blue Star Line [1905] 1 K.B. 697 .............................................................................................11.43, 66.292

lxxvii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

McRae v. Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 C.L.R. 377 ....................................................................1.65

MacWilliam (J.I.) v. Mediterranean Shipping Co. (The Rafaela S) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127 (C.A.);
[2005] 2 A.C. 423; [2005] 2 A.C. 605 ....................................................................................................................66.9
Macro Volatility Master Fund v. Rouvray [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 47 ..............................................................................1.5
Madeleine, The (Cheikh Boutros Selim El-Khoury and Others v. Ceylon Shipping Lines Ltd.)
[1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 224 ................................................................................................................11.40, 19.8, 19.28
Madras Electrical Supply Co. v. P. & O. (1924) 18 Ll. L. Rep. 93; aff’g (1923) 16 Ll. L. Rep. 240 .........................14.48
Maeda Kensetsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. Bauer Hong Kong Ltd [2020] HKCA 830
(Hong Kong Court of Appeal) .............................................................................................................................16.21
Maersk Neuchatel, The [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 377 .....................................................................................................20.47
Maersk Tangier, The [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 530 ...............................................................................66.64, 66.133, 66.374
Maersk, The. See Southampton Container Terminals v. Hansa Sch—
Maestro Bulk v. Cosco Bulk Carrier (The Great Creation) [2014] EWHC 3978 (Comm) .........................................21.30
Magellan Pirates, The (1853) 1 Sp. Ecc. & Ad. 81 ......................................................................................................26.13
Magellan Spirit AS v. Vitol SA (The Magellan Spirit) [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .........................................2.2, 2.4, 18.112
Magellan Spirit, The. See AS v. Vitol SA—
Magellan Strait [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .......................................................................................................................1.78
Magnhild v. McIntyre (1920) 25 Com. Cas. 347 .........................................................................................................1.110
Maharani Woollen Mills v. Anchor Line (1927) 29 Ll. L. Rep. 169 .........................................................................66.227
Mahavir Minerals v. Cho Yang Shipping (The M.C. Pearl) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 566 ................................66.25, 66.191
Mahesan v. Malaysian Government Officers Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd [1979] A.C. 324 .............................1.91
Mahia, The (Shaw Savill & Albion Co. v. Electric Reduction Sales) [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 264 ............................66.459
Mahkutai, The [1996] A.C. 650, [1997] L.M.C.L.Q. 1, [1998] L.M.C.L.Q., [1999] L.M.C.L.Q. 393 ....................18.127,
18.128, 18.131, 66.62, 66.471, 66.468
Maingrain Pty Ltd v. Compafina Bank (25 January 2018) ........................................................................................18.171
Maintop Shipping Co. v. Bulkindo Lines (The Marinicki) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 655 ................................................5.83
Maistos, The (unreported, Q.B. (Com. Ct.), 4 May 2001)...........................................................................................20.54
Makedonia, The [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 316; [1962] P. 190........................................... 11.35, 11.37, 20.41, 20.42, 66.106
Malakhov (Nikolay) Shipping v. S.E.A.S. Sapfor [1999] L.M.C.L.Q. 411....................................................66.86, 66.116
Malayan Motor and General Uunderwriters v. Abdul Karim [1982] 1 M.L.J. 5 .......................................................66.145
Malozzi v. Carapelli [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 407 ............................................................................................................1.11
Mamidoil v. Okta [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 76 (C.A.) ................................................................................................1.6, 1.10
Mamola Challenger, The (Omak Maritime v. Mamola Challenger Co.)
[2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 47 .......................................................................................................21.3, 21.4, 21.47, 21.105
Man Sugar Ltd v. Unicargo Transport GmbH [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 660. [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412 ........................39.8
Manbre Saccharine v. Corn Products [1919] 1 K.B. 198..................................................................................1.65, 18.149
Manchester Trust v. Furness [1895] 2 Q.B. 282, [1895] 2 Q.B. 539 ................................................................18.47, 18.75
Mander v. Commercial Union [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 93 .....................................................................................21.83
Manifest Lipkowy, The [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 .....................................................................................................24.19
Manifest Shipping v. Uni-Polaris Insurance Co. (The Star Sea) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 360 ........................... 11.28, 11.58
Mannai Investments Co. Ltd v. Eagle Star Life Assurance [1997] A.C. 749 ............................................1.97, 1.106, 19.6
Mansel Oil Ltd v. Troon Storage Tankers S.A. (The Ailsa Craig) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 384;
[2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 371 (C.A.). .................................................................................................19.26, 19.28, 19.29
Mansfield v. Maitland (1821) 4 B. & Ald. 582 ............................................................................................................13.91
Maori King (Owners of Cargo on Ship) v. Hughes [1895] 2 Q.B. 550 .......................................................................11.36
Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund v. Rouvroy [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 475 ...............................................1.3, 21.7
Maratha Envoy, The. See Federal Commerce and Navigation v. Tradax—
Marbienes Compania Naviera S.A. v. Ferrostaal A.G. (The Democritos) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 149 ................4.12, 19.2
Marc Rich & Co. v. Tourloti Compania Naviera (The Kalliopi A) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101 .........................16.4, 66.18
Marcelino Gonzalez y Compania v. James Nourse [1936] 1 K.B. 565 ............................................................14.6, 66.230
Marconi v. P.T. Pan Indonesia Bank [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 594 ...................................................................................1.46
Mardorf Peach & Co. Ltd. v. Attica Sea Carriers Corp. of Liberia (The Laconia) [1977] A.C. 850;
[1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 315 .........................................................................................................................16.24, 19.40
Maredelanto Compania Naviera S.A. v. Bergbau Handel G.m.b.H. (The Mihalis Angelos)
[1971] 1 Q.B. 164 (C.A.); [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 43; [1971] 1 Q.B 164 .....................................4.5, 4.6, 4.22, 15.82,
19.28, 19.29, 21.8, 21.11, 21.16, 37.3
Mareva Compania Naviera v. International Bulk Carriers [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509 .................................................2.47
Margarine Union v. Cambay Prince [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 315 ...............................................................................18.115
Margaronis v. Peabody [1965] 2 Q.B. 430; aff’g [1965] 1 Q.B. 300;
[1964] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 173 .............................................................................................................6.21, 6.22, 9.2, 15.5
Maria G., The (Compania Crystal de Vapores v. Herman & Mohatta) [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 616 ............................15.19
Mariannina, The [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 12 (C.A.) ........................................................................................................1.31
Mariasmi, The. See Marifortuna Naviera S.A. v. Government of Ceylon—
Marida v. Oswal Steel (The Bijela) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 636 ...........................................................................55.4, 55.5

lxxviii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Mariella Bolten, The (Whitesea Shipping and Trading v. El PasoRio Clara)

[2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 648 ..................................................................................................................................66.229
Marifortuna Naviera S.A. v. Government of Ceylon (The Mariasmi)
[1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 247 ........................................................................... 1.111, 11.77, 66.7, 66.17, 66.253, 66.260
Marilu, The (Luigi Monta v. Cechofracht Co. Ltd.) [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 97 ....................................................26.7–26.9
Marina Offshore Pte Ltd v. China Insurance Co. (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 66 ...............................11.34
Marinicki, The (Maintop Shipping Co. v. Bulkindo Lines) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 655 ...............................................5.83
Marinor, The (Noranda v. Barton) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301 ..................................................................................66.260
Marion, The (Grand Champion Tankers Ltd. v. Norpipe A/S) [1984] A.C. 563 ........................ 11.39, 11.56, 11.58, 11.63
Maritime Fish v. Ocean Trawlers [1935] A.C. 524 ........................................................................................................22.4
Maritime Stores v. Marshall [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 602 ...............................................................................................23.9
Maritime Trader, The [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 152 ..........................................................................................................2.46
Maritrade Shipping & Transport GMBH v. United Enterprises Corp. [2015] 1 W.L.R. 1 ..........................................21.36
Maritsa, The [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 581 ......................................................................................................................13.15
Marks and Spencer plc v. BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey)
[2015] A.C. 742 .........................................................................................................................................1.121–1.123
Marlborough Hill, The [1921] 1 A.C. 444 (P.C.) .......................................................................................................18.147
Marlbray v. Laditi [2016] EWCA Civ 476; (2016) L.M.C.L.Q. 470.............................................................................2.10
Marrache v. Ashton [1943] A.C. 311 (P.C.) .................................................................................................................13.51
Marsden v. Barclays Bank [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 420 ................................................................................1.87, 1.89, 1.90
Marsh v. Pedder (1815) 4 Camp. 257 ..........................................................................................................................13.60
Marshall v. Nicoll 1919 S.C. 244 (H.L.). ........................................................................................................21.12, 66.393
Martin P, The (O’Kane v. Jones) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 389 ........................................................................................1.65
Martineaus v. Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. Ltd. (1912) 17 Com. Cas. 176 .................................................18.16, 18.181
Marubeni v. Mongolian Govt. [2002] 2 All E.R. (Comm.) 873 ....................................................................................1.36
Marvigor v. Romanoexport [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 280...............................................................................................20.62
Mary Lou, The (Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v. Cook Industries Inc.)
[1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 272, 280 ..............................................................................................................................5.49
Mary Nour, The (Citi Group Inc. v. Transclear SA) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 526 ..................................................7.7, 22.24
Marzetti v. Smith & Son (1883) 49 L.T. 580 .............................................................................................................66.230
Maschinenfabrik Hartman v. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (The Chanda)
[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 494 .....................................................................................................................66.368, 66.401
Masefield AG v. Amlin Corporate Member (The Bunga Melati Dua) [2012]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 630 .............................................................................................................................................66.306
Maskell v. Horner [1915] 3 K.B. 106 ............................................................................................................................1.87
Mass Glory, The (Glencore Grain Ltd. v. Goldbeam Shipping Inc.)
[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 244 ........................................................................................15.31, 15.62, 21.35, 21.78, 21.82
Massalia (No. 2), The. See Government of Ceylon v. Société Franco-Tunisienne
d’Armement-Tunis—
Massalia, The (Société Franco-Tunisienne v. Sidermar) [1961] 2 Q.B. 278 ...............................................................22.34
Mata K., The (Agrosin Pte. v. Highway Shipping) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 614 .............................................13.10, 66.409
Materials Industry and Trade (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Vopak Terminals Singapore Pte Ltd
[2019] S.G.H.C. 276 ...............................................................................................................................................2.23
Matheos v. Louis Dreyfus [1925] A.C. 654 ...............................................................................................7.18, 7.20, 15.27
Mathew, The (Cosemar v. Marimarna Shipping Co.) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 323 ............................................13.39, 13.40
Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Hestia Holdings Ltd [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 121 ..................................................1.31
Mauritius Oil Refineries v. Stolt-Nielsen Nederlands (The Stolt Sydness)
[1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 273 .....................................................................................................53.2, 66.5, 66.16, 66.180
Mavro Vetranic, The (Greenwich Marine v. Federal Commerce & Navigation Co.)
[1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 580 .............................................................................................................................3.6, 21.47
Maxine Footwear Co. v. Canadian Government Merchant Marine
[1959] A.C. 589 (P.C.) ..................................................................11.24, 33.7, 66.94, 66.101, 66.255, 66.256, 66.281
May & Butcher v. R. [1934] 2 K.B. 17 ..........................................................................................................................1.10
Mayban General Insurance v. Alstom Power Plants [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 609.......................................................66.334
Mayhew Foods v. Overseas Containers [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 317 ..........................................................................66.334
Mayhew Foods v. Overseas Containers [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 317 ..........................66.53, 66.78, 66.116, 66.395, 66.499
Mediana, The [1900] A.C. 113...................................................................................................................................21.104
Medina Princess, The [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 361........................................................................................................22.36
Mediolanum Shipping v. Japan Lines Shipping Ltd. (The Mediolanum)
[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 136 ...........................................................................................................5.6, 5.10, 5.75, 38.11
Mediterranean & New York SS. Co. v. Mackay (The Pocahontas) [1903] 1 K.B. 297 ...............................................13.11
Mediterranean Freight Services v. BP Oil International (The Fiona) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 506
[1993], aff’g 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 257; .........................................6.56, 6.60, 11.30, 66.94, 66.96, 66.173, 66.255, 66.258,
66.355, 66.431, 66.438, 66.448, 66.449, 66.454, 66.457, 66.461

lxxix
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Mediterranean Salvage & Towage Ltd v. Seamar Trading & Commerce Inc.
(The Reborn) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 639 ........................................................................1.121, 1.122, 5.5, 5.26, 5.33,
5.38, 5.40, 5.44, 5.46
Medora Shipping Inc. v. Navix Line Ltd. and Navios Corporation (The Timawra)
[1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 166 ...........................................................................................................................21.5, 21.47
Melachrino v. Nickoll [1920] 1 K.B 693 ..........................................................................................................21.54, 21.56
Mendala III Transport v. Total Transport Corp. (The Wilomi Tanana) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 41 ...................18.39–18.41
Mendl v. Ropner [1912] 1 K.B. 27 ..............................................................................................................................1.105
Merak, The [1965] P. 223; [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 283 ...........................1.105, 18.51, 53.2, 66.5, 66.195, 66.228, 66A.23
Merak, The [1976]. See Varverakis v. Compania Naviera Artico—
Mercedes Envoy, The. See Hanjin Shipping v. Zenith Chartering—
Merchant Shipping Co. v. Armitage (1873) L.R. 9 Q.B. 99 .....................................................13.19, 13.21, 13.22, 18.212
Meredith Jones (A.) & Co. v. Vangemar Shipping (The Apostolis) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 241 .................................66.95
Meredith Jones (A.) & Co. v. Vangemar Shipping (The Apostolis (No. 2)) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 292 ....................21.57
Merida The (Novologistics Sarl v. Five Ocean Corporation) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 274 ....................................4.1, 15.34
Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd. v. Securities Commission
[1995] 2 A.C. 500 (P.C.) .................................................................................................. 11.55, 11.56, 66.284, 66.423
Merit Shipping Co Inc v. T K Boesen A/S (The Goodpal) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 638 ..................................10.11, 18.172
Merkur Island Shipping Corp. v. Laughton [1983] A.C. 570 ....................................................................................66.328
Merlin v. British Nuclear Fuels [1990] 2 Q.B. 557 ...................................................................................................66.508
Mersin, The [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 532 .......................................................................................................................13.14
Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd v. Merthyr Tydfil County BC [2019] EWCA Civ 526 .......................................................1.95
Metagama, The (1927) 29 Ll. L. Rep. 253 ..................................................................................................................21.50
Metall Market v. Vitorio Shipping Co. Ltd (The Lehmann Timber) [2014] Q.B. 760,
[2013] EWCA Civ 650; [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 541 (C.A.), [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 73 ......................................10.20,
17.36–17.38, 18.171, 20.47, 20.48
Metamorphosis, The; sub nom. Metamorfosis, The [1953] 1 W.L.R. 543;
[1953] 1 All E.R. 723; [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 196; (1953) 97 S.J. 230, PDAD ....................................................1.38
Metcalfe v. Britannia Ironworks (1877) 2 Q.B.D. 423 .....................................................................................13.27, 5.102
Metropolitan Water Board v. Dick, Kerr & Co. [1917] 2 K.B. 1 .................................................................................22.13
Metula, The (Shell International Petroleum Co. v. Seabridge Shipping)
[1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 5 (C.A.); [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 436 ........................................13.6–13.8, 13.126, 26.67, 34.2
Metvale Ltd v. Monsanto International Sarl (The MSC Napoli) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 246 ........................................57.2
Mexico I, The (Transgrain Shipping v. Global Transporte Oceanico)
[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 507 ..............................................................................................................15.42, 15.51, 15.52
Meyerstein v. Barber (1866) L.R. 2 C.P. 38, aff’d (1870) L.R. 4 H.L. 317 ....................................................18.149, 66.89
Micada v. Texim [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 57 ................................................................................6.46, 6.52, 66.434, 66.439
Michael S, The (Evryalos Maritime Ltd v. China Pacific Insurance Co. QBD
(Com Ct., 20 December 2001), L.M.L.N. 31 January 2002, 579.........................................................................18.51
Michalakis, The (Xiamen Xindaan Trade Co. Ltd v. North China Shipping Co. Ltd)
[2009] EWHC 588 (Comm) .................................................................................................................................18.62
Midland Silicones v. Scruttons [1962] A.C. 446 ....................................................................18.137, 66.62, 66.63, 66.224
Midwest Shipping v. D.I. Henry (Jute) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 375 .............................................................................5.108
Miguel de Larrinaga v. Flack (1926) 21 Ll. L. Rep. 284 ...............................................................................................39.7
Mihailios Xilas, The [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 186 .........................................................................................................17.28
Mihalis Angelos. The, See Maredelanto Compania Naviera S.A. v. Bergbau
Handel G.m.b.H.—
Mikkelsen v. Arcos (1925) 42 T.L.R. 3 ............................................................................................................................6.6
Milan Nigeria Ltd v. Angeliki B Maritime Co. [2011] EWHC 892 (Comm) ..................................21.130, 66.262, 66.333
Milburn v. Jamaica [1900] 2 Q.B. 540.........................................................................................................................20.40
Miliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd [1976] A.C. 443 .........................................................................................13.53
Millar v. Freden [1918] 1 K.B. 611.......................................................................................................................3.20, 3.21
Millars Machinery v. David Way (1935) 40 Com. Cas. 204........................................................................................21.40
Miller (James) v. Whitworth Street Estates [1970] A.C. 572 ......................................................................................22.24
Miller v. Borner [1900] 1 Q.B. 691 ......................................................................................................................6.16, 6.19
Miller v. Law Accident Assurance Society [1903] 1 K.B. 712 .....................................................................66.309, 66.317
Milvain v. Perez (1861) 3 E. & E. 495...........................................................................................................................17.3
Minerals & Metals Trading Corp of India v. Encounter Bay Shipping Co Ltd (The Samos Glory)
[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 603 ..................................................................................................................................66.213
Minister of Food v. Reardon Smith Line (The Fresno City)
[1951] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 265 ........................................................................................................66.128, 66.254, 66.266
Ministry of Food v. Lamport & Holt Line [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 371 ...............................................6.49, 18.100, 66.336,
66.337, 66.341
Mira Oil Resources of Tortola v Bocimar NV (The Obo Venture) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101...................................16.21

lxxx
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Miramar Maritime Corp. v. Holborn Oil Trading Ltd. (The Miramar) [1984] A.C. 676 (H.L.);
aff’g [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 142; [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 129 (C.A.);
[1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 319 ......................................................1.116, 14.38, 16.19, 17.18, 17.22, 17.44, 18.50, 18.53,
18.55, 18.56, 18.233, 39.1, 52.1, 66.12, 66.161, 66.353
Miramar, The. See Miramar Maritime Corp. v. Holborn Oil Trading Ltd.—
Miranda, The, (1872) L.R. 3 A. & E. 561 ......................................................................................................................54.4
Missouri SS. Co., Re (1889) 42 Ch. D. 321...................................................................................................................1.38
Mitchell v. Darthez (1836) 2 Bing. N.C. 555...............................................................................................................13.28
Mitchell v. Ede (1840) 11 Ad. & El. 888 ......................................................................................................18.143, 18.163
Mitchell, Cotts & Co. v. Steel Brothers & Co. Ltd [1916] 2 K.B. 610 ..............................6.49, 6.57–6.59, 66.431, 66.434
Mitcheson v. Nicol (1852) 7 Exch. 929 .........................................................................................................................6.41
Mitsubishi v. East Wind (The Irbenskiy Proliv) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 383 .................................................... 1.112, 1.113
Mitsui & Co Ltd v. Beteiligungsgesellschaft LPG Tankerflotte mbH & Co KG (The Longchamp)
[2017] U.K.S.C. 68; [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ......................................................................................................20.14
Mitsui & Co. Ltd. v. Novorossiysk Shipping Co. (The Gudermes) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 311;
rev’g in part [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 456 ............................................................................ 11.20, 11.23, 66.96, 66.240
Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. v. Agip S.p.A. [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 263 ...........................................................................13.14
Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. v. Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd. (The Unta)
[2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 518 ......................................................................................................................................1.39
Mocatta J. in Marifortuna Naviera Government of Ceylon (The Mariasmi) [1970]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 247, at p. 255 .................................................................................................................................66.3
Moel Tryvan Ship Co Ltd. v. Kruger & Co. [1906] 2 K.B. 792, aff’d [1907] 1 K.B. 809,
aff’d (sub nom. Kruger v. Moel Tryvan) [1907] A.C. 272 ............................18.179, 18.200, 18.201, 18.204, 18.207,
18.208, 18.218, 18.219, 18.222, 18.225
Moel Tryvan Ship Co. Ltd. v. Andrew Weir & Co. [1910] 2 K.B. 844 (C.A.) .......................................19.7, 19.31, 19.36,
19.38–19.40, 19.44, 26.46, 37.4
Moller v. Jecks (1865) 19 C.B.(N.S.) 332 .....................................................................................................................16.7
Molthes Rederi v. Ellerman’s Wilson Line [1927] 1 K.B. 710 ................................................................23.5, 23.12, 23.13
Monarch Steamship Company Ltd. v. Karlshamns Oljefabriker (A/B) [1949] A.C. 196;
(1948) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 137 .....................................................................................12.11, 21.41, 21.42, 21.123, 66.360
Monat v. Clark Boyce [1992] 2 N.Z.L.R. 559 (N.Z. Ct.) ............................................................................................21.69
Monroe Bros. v. Ryan [1935] 2 K.B. 28 (C.A.) ....................................................... 4.9, 4.11, 4.13–4.15, 4.17, 4.22, 11.74
Monta (Luigi) v. Cechofracht Co. Ltd. (The Marilu) [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 97 ..................................................26.7–26.9
Montedison S.p.A. v. Icroma S.p.A. (The Caspian Sea) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 91 .........................................13.84–13.86
Montgomery v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance [1902] 1 K.B. 734....................................................................20.24
Montoya v. London Assurance Co. (1851) 6 Ex. 451 ................................................................................................66.296
Moor Line v. Louis Dreyfus [1918] 1 K.B. 89 ............................................................................................................24.15
Moorcock, The (1889) 14 P.D. 64................................................................................................................................1.122
Moore Large v. Hermes [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 163 ......................................................................................................2.21
Moore v. Lunn (1922) 11 Ll. L. Rep. 86 ......................................................................................................................11.31
Moorsom v. Page (1814) 4 Camp. 103 ............................................................................................................................6.4
Mopani Copper Mines plc v. Millennium Underwriting [2008] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 976 ...........................................1.117
Morel v. Westmorland [1904] A.C. 11 ...........................................................................................................................2.21
Mormacvega, The [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 267 ...............................................................................................................6.29
Morris v. C. W. Martin & Sons [1966] 1 Q.B. 716 .............................................................18.121, 18.125, 18.132, 66.350
Morris v. Kanssen [1946] A.C. 459 ...............................................................................................................................2.28
Morris v. KLM Dutch Airlines [2002] 2 A.C. 628.........................................................................................................66.9
Morris v. Levison (1876) 1 C.P.D. 155 .................................................................................................................3.25, 6.15
Morris v. Swanton Care & Community Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2763.............................................................................1.5
Morrison v. Shaw Savill [1916] 2 K.B. 783 ......................................................6.31, 12.4, 12.5, 12.7, 12.19, 12.30, 12.42
Mors-Le Blanch v. Wilson (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 227 ......................................................................................................17.28
Morton Construction v. City of Hamilton (1961) 31 D.L.R. 323 ..................................................................................1.88
Mosconici, The (Kinetics Technology International v. Cross Seas Shipping)
[2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 30 ................................................................................66.385, 66.389, 66.400, 66.402, 66.414
Mosfield, The (Chief Controller of Chartering of the Government of India v.
Central Gulf SS. Corporation) [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 173...................................................................................15.18
Moss SS. Co. v. Whinney [1912] A.C. 254 .................................................................................................................17.36
Mosvolds Rederi v. Food Corporation of India (The King Theras) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .....................................15.43
Motis Exports Ltd v. Dampskibsselskapet AF 1912 Akt. Svendborg [1999] L.M.C.L.Q. 449;
[2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 211 (C.A.); [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 837; [1999] All E.R (D.) 1490;
[2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 213 ...........................................10.21, 18.32, 18.122, 18.150, 18.162, 18.164, 18.169, 66.116
Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries S.A. v. Shipping Corporation of India (The Kanchenjunga)
[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 391 (H.L.); [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 354 (C.A.);
[1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509 ................................... 1.92, 1.135, 5.109, 5.112, 5.114, 18.104, 26.77, 51.6, 58.5, 66.136

lxxxi
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Mottram Consultants v. Bernard Sunley [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.197............................................................................1.117

Moundreas (George) v. Navimpex [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 515 ...................................................................................24.19
Mount Albert B.C. v. Australasian Temperance and General [1938] A.C. 224 (P.C ...................................................20.12
Mount Isa Mines Ltd v. the “Thor Commander” [2018] FCA 1326 ......................................................11.18, 66.4, 66.227
Mountain v. Whittle [1921] 1 A.C. 615 .....................................................................................................................66.289
Muammer Yagoi, The [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 107 .....................................................................................................66.308
Muhammed v. Ali [1947] A.C. 414 (P.C.) ...................................................................................................................21.35
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v. Cleveland Bridge UK [2006] EWHC 1341 (TCC) ............................................1.10
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v. Honeywell Control Systems Ltd [2007] EWHC 447 ............................1.119, 1.124
Muncaster Castle, The. See Riverstone Meat Pty. Ltd. v. Lancashire Shipping Co. Ltd—
Munro v. Meyer [1930] 2 K.B. 312 .............................................................................................................................22.33
Myrto, The [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 341 ........................................................................................................................22.36
Myrtos, The [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449.........................................................................................................................4.11
N.T Bulgaris v. Bunge (1933) 38 Com. Cas. 103 ......................................................................................................66.271
N.V. Reederij Amsterdam v. President of India (The Amstelmolen) [1960] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 82...........................16.2, 17.8
NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v. Cargill International S.A. (The Global Santosh) [2013]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 455; [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 629; [2016] 1 W.L.R. 1853 ..........................1.108, 11.59, 15.49, 18.172,
18.222, 66.105, 66.348
Nai Matteini, The (Navigazione Alta Italia v. Svenska Petroleum) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 452 ......................18.56, 18.61
Nailsea Meadow, The (Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha v. Bantham SS. Co. Ltd.)
[1939] 2 K.B. 544 (C.A.)................................................................................................................26.8, 26.12, 66.301
Nance v. British Columbia Electric [1951] A.C. 60 ....................................................................................................21.71
Nanfri, The. See Federal Commerce v. Molena Alpha—
Narandas-Girdhar v. Bradstock [2016] 1 W.L.R. 2366................................................................................................1.117
Nassau Bay, The [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 395 ...............................................................................................................26.22
National Bank of Greece v. Pinios [1990] 1 A.C. 637 .................................................................................................21.36
National Bank of Kazakhstan v. The Bank of New York Meklon SA/NV [2018] EWCA Civ 1290 ..........................1.108
National Navigation Co. v. Endesa Generacion S.A. (The Wadi Sudr) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 193 ...........................18.48
National Oil Co. of Zimbabwe v. Sturge [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 281 ...........................................................66.301, 66.303
National Packaging Corp. v. N.Y.K. Line [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 46...........................................................................10.24
National Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia v. BP Oil Supply Co. (The Abqaiq) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 18 .....................16.21
National SS. Co. v. S.A. Comercial de Exportacion (1933) 38 Com. Cas. 88 (H.L.);
(1932) 37 Com. Cas. 283................................................................................................................14.19, 14.46, 14.49
National Westminster Bank v. Jones [2001] 1 B.C.L.C. 98 ...........................................................................................2.43
Natixis v. Marex [2019] EWHC 3549 (Comm) .............................................................................................................1.64
Nautica v. Trafigura [2020] EWHC 1986 ....................................................................................................................1.119
Nautica v. Trafigura (The Leonidas) [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 165 ....................................1.5, 1.16, 1.20, 1.23, 21.17, 21.43
Nautical Challenge Ltd v. Evergreen Marine (UK) Ltd [2021] U.K.S.C. 6; [2021] 1 W.L.R. 1436 .............................66.9
Navalmar UK Ltd v. Kale Maden Hammaddeler Sanayi Ve Ticaret AS (The Arundel Castle)
[2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 370 ...........................................................................................................................15.2, 15.37
Navico v. Vrontados Naftiki Etairia [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 379......................................................................................1.1
Naviera Mogor S.A. v. Société Metallurgique de Normandie (The Nogar Marin)
[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412 (C.A.); aff’g [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 456 .................................................................66.162
Navig8 Chemical Pool Ltd v. Glencore Agriculture BV (The Songa Winds)
[2018] EWCA 1901 (Civ); [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 47, 374 ............................................2.38, 18.138, 18.141, 18.163,
18.173A, 33.21, 41.3, 52.5
Navig8 Inc v. South Vigour Shipping Inc. [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 436;
[2015] EWHC 32; [2016] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 15 ...........................................................................................2.2, 2.23
Navigazione Alta Italia v. Concordia Maritime Chartering (The Stena Pacifica)
[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 234 ..................................................................................................................................66.180
Navigazione Alta Italia v. Svenska Petroleum (The Nai Matteini) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 452 .......................18.56, 18.61
Navrom v. Callitsis Ship Management (The Radauti) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 416 (C.A.) ...............................15.58, 38.10
Naxos, The (Compagnie Commerciale Sucres et Denrées v. Czarnikow) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 29 .............................7.2
Nayyar v. Denton Wilde Sapte [2009] EWHC 3218 (Q.B.) ........................................................................1.52, 2.22, 2.26
Nea Agrex S.A. v. Baltic Shipping Co. Ltd. (The Agios Lazarus) [1976] Q.B. 933 ......................1.8, 66.3, 66.14, 66.196
Nea Tyhi, The [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 606 .................................................................................................................66.152
Nea Tyhi, The, and The Nea Elpis (Nueva Fortuna Corp. v. Tata Ltd) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 497 ..............................2.43
Nederlandische Handels v. Strathorne SS Co (1931) 39 Ll. L. Rep. 171 ..................................................................18.171
Nederlandse Industrie van Eiprodukten v. Rembrandt Enterprises Inc [2019] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 491 ..............................21.1
Neill v. Ridley (1854) 9 Exch. 677 ................................................................................................................................6.41
Nelson Pine Industries v. Seatrans New Zealand (The Pembroke) [1995]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 291 (Aust.) ......................................................................................................................66.71, 66.119
Nelson Pine Industries v. Seatrans New Zealand Ltd (The Pembroke) [1995]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 290 (N.Z. High Ct.)...............................................................6.26, 6.30, 6.31, 66.368, 66.401, 66.423

lxxxii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Nelson v. Dahl (1879) 12 Ch. D. 568; (1879) 6 App. Cas. 38 .....................................................................5.24, 5.28, 14.5
Nelson v. Dundee (1907) S.C. 927 .........................................................................................................................4.6, 4.14
Nema, The (Pioneer Shipping v. B.T.P. Tioxide) [1982] A.C. 724 ..................................22.13, 22.15, 22.26, 22.32, 22.33
Nemea, The (1979) (reported only on LEXIS) ..........................................................................................................18.173
Neptune, The (1867) 16 L.T. 36.....................................................................................................................................6.28
Nerano, The (Daval Aciers d’Usinor v. Armare s.r.l.) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ..............................................18.54, 27A.4
Nereide S.p.A. de Navigazione v. Bulk Oil International (The Laura Prima) [1982] A.C. 1; [1982]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (H.L.); [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 24 (C.A.); [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 466 ...............................38.8, 40.2
Nesbitt v. Lushington (1792) 4 T.R. 783....................................................................................................................66.308
New Chinese Antimony Co. v. Ocean Steamships Co. [1917] 2 K.B. 664 ....................................................18.26, 66.149
New Flamenco, The [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 383 by Prof. McLauchlan in (2016)
L.M.C.L.Q. 459 ..............................................................................................................................21.14, 21.47, 21.49
New Horizon, The (Tramp Shipping Corp. v. Greenwich Marine Inc.) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 314;
[1975] 1 W.L.R. 1042 ................................................................................................................................25.4, 66.324
New India Assurance Co. v. M/S Splosna Plovba (1986) A.I.R. 176 ..........................................................................66.86
New South Wales: TCN Channel 9 Pty v. Hayden Enterprises (1989) 16 N.S.W.L.R. 130 ..........................................21.9
New York and Cuba Mail Steamship Company v. Eriksen and Christensen (The Waco), (1922)
27 Com. Cas. 330 ......................................................................................................................................11.48, 19.17
New York Star, The (Salmond and Spraggon (Australia) v. Port Jackson Stevedoring)
[1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 317; [1981] 1 W.L.R. 138 (P.C.) .......................................................................66.224, 66.471
New Zealand Shipping Co. v. A.M. Satterthwaite & Co. (The Eurymedon) [1975] A.C. 154;
[1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 534 (P.C.)................................................................................................18.137, 66.63, 66.471
New Zealand Shipping Co. v. Société des Ateliers et Chantiers de France [1919] A.C. 1 ..........................................1.119
New Zealand: Monat v. Clark Boyce [1992] 2 N.Z.L.R. 559......................................................................................21.69
Newa Line v. Erechthion Shipping (The Erechthion) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 180 .................................................5.6, 5.10
Newcastle Protection and Indemnity Association v. Assuranceforeningen Gard (The Labrador)
[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 387 ....................................................................................................................................21.86
Newfoundland Coast, The [1990] A.M.C. 997 ............................................................................................................66.61
Niarchos v. Shell Tankers [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 496. .............................................................................................3.8, 3.9
Nichols v. Marsland (1876) 2 Ex. D. 1 ......................................................................................................................66.299
Nicholson v. Fremantle Port Authority, [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 391 ..............................................................................49.9
Nickoll & Knight v. Ashton Edridge & Co. [1901] 2 K.B. 126.....................................................................................22.1
Nickoll v. Ashton [1900] 2 Q.B. 298 ...........................................................................................................................21.56
Nicolene v. Simmonds [1953] 1 Q.B. 543 .......................................................................................................................1.9
Nielsen v. Wait (1885) 16 Q.B.D. 67 ...........................................................................................................................15.11
Nifa, The [1892] P. 411 (C.A.) .....................................................................................................................................14.12
Nigerian National Shipping Lines v. Mutual (The Windfall) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 664 ...........................................21.50
Niizuru, The [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 66 ..........................................................................................................................37.6
Niki, The (South African Dispatch Line v. Owners of SS. Niki) [1960] 1 Q.B. 518; aff’g
[1959] 1 Q.B. 238 ...................................................................................................................................................7.17
Niki, The. See Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—
Nikmary, The (Triton v. Vitol) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 55; [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1.............................................7.1, 15.79
Nikolay Malakhov Shipping v. S.E.A.S. Sapfor [1999] L.M.C.L.Q. 411;
[1998] 44 N.S.W.L.R. 371 .......................................................................................................................66.86, 66.116
Nile Co. v. H. & J.M. Bennett (Commodities) [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 555 ...................................................................22.1
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. International Import and Export Co. (The Elbe Maru)
[1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 206 .....................................................................................................................18.137, 66.472
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Ramjiban Serowgee [1938] A.C. 429 .................................................................................66.218
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. S.A. Marocaine de l’Industrie du Raffinage (The Tsukuba Maru)
[1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 459 .....................................................................................38.24, 38.25, 38.6, 39.2, 39.6, 46.7
Nisshin Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Cleaves & Co. Ltd. Shipbroking and Others [2004]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 38 ..............................................................................................2.38, 18.141, 24.2, 24.4, 24.6, 66.225
Nissho v. Livanos (1941) 69 Ll. L. Rep. 125 ................................................................................................ 21.110, 21.116
Nissos Samos, The (Samos v. Eckhardt) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 378 ............................................................................1.19
Nizeti, The (Compagnie Algerienne v. Katana Soc.) [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 132 (C.A.);
[1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325 ................................................................................................... 1.124, 11.41, 11.45–11.47
Nizuru, The (Hyundai v. Karander Maritime) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 66 ......................................................................4.20
Njegos, The [1936] P. 90.......................................................................................................................................1.34, 1.38
No.1 West India Quay (Residential) v. East Tower Apartments [2018] 1 W.L.R. 5682 ................................................41.9
Nobel’s Explosives Co. v. Jenkins & Co. [1896] 2 Q.B. 326 ............................................................12.12, 66.313, 66.434
Nobel’s Explosives v. Rea (1897) 2 Com. Cas. 293 ....................................................................................................20.48
Noble Chartering v. Priminds Shipping Hong Kong Ltd (The Tai Prize) [2021]
EWCA Civ 87 .....................................................................18.9, 18.15, 18.17, 18.22, 18.23, 18.180–18.182, 18.200,
18.201, 18.204, 18.206, 18.208, 18.223

lxxxiii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Noble Resources v. Cavalier Shipping (The Atlas) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 642 ...................18.26, 18.142, 66.139, 66.151
Noel Bay, The [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 361 ............................................................21.7, 21.21, 21.90, 21.91, 21.97, 21.101
Noemijulia Steamship Co. v. Minister of Food (The San George) [1951] 1 K.B. 223 (C.A.);
(1950) 83 Ll. L. Rep. 500 (aff’d C. A.) ...................................................................................6.16, 15.42, 19.8, 19.16
Nogar Marin, The (Naviera Mogor S.A. v. Société Metallurgique de Normandie) [1988]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412 (C.A.); aff’g [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 456 ................................1.71, 17.41, 18.24, 18.181, 18.201,
18.202, 18.208, 18.223, 18.224. 18.234,
18.235, 18.242, 18.252, 66.133, 66.143
Nolisement (Owners) v. Bunge y Born (The Nolisement) [1917] 1 K.B. 160 (C.A.);
rev’g [1916] 1 K.B. 805 ...............................................................................9.1, 9.3, 15.6, 16.15, 17.5, 18.24, 18.207
Noranda v. Barton (Time Charter) (The Marinor) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301 .......................................66.6, 66.13, 66.15,
66.16, 66.90, 66.181, 66.204
Nordglimt, The [1988] 1 W.L.R. 183; [1988] Q.B. 183 .....................................................66.171, 66.172, 66.185, 66.253
Nordic Navigator, The (Associated Bulk Carriers v. Shell International Petroleum)
[1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 182 ......................................................................................................................................49.5
Norfolk Southern Railway v. James N. Kirby (2004) 125 S. Ct. 385; (2005) I.M.C.L.Q.Y. 189;
[2005] 2 A.C. 605; (2005) L.M.C.L.Q. 205 ..............................................................................................6.50, 66.471
North River Freighters Ltd v. President of India (The Radnor) [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 668 .....................................15A.96
North Sea Energy Holdings NV v. Petroleum Authority of Thailand [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 418,
[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 483 ................................................................................................................21.8, 21.19, 21.20
North Sea Ventures v. Anstead Holdings [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 265 .............................................................1.122, 21.132
North Sea, The (Georgian Maritime Corp. v. Sealand Industries (Bermuda)) [1999] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 21 (C.A.); [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 324 ..............................................................19.8, 19.19, 19.25, 19.26
North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board v. Trollope & Colls [1973] 1 W.L.R. 601 ........................1.121, 1.122
Northern Ocean Shipping v. Hyundai Construction (The Atlantic Baron) [1979] Q.B. 705 .........................................1.92
Northern Pioneer, The (CMA CGM v. KG MS Northern Pioneer) [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 212 .......................25.12, 26.76
Northern Progress, The (No. 2) (Ceval Alimentos v. Agrimpex Trading) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 319 ........................18.55
Northern Shipping v. Deutsche Seereederei (The Kapitan Sakharov) [2000]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 255 (C.A.) .....................................................................................6.53, 11.31, 66.95, 66.100, 66.120,
66.258, 66.262, 66.458, 66.449, 66.460
Northgate The and The Emeraldian CP v. Wellmix (The Vine) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301 ......................5.15, 5.64, 5.88,
5.93, 5.116, 15.14, 15.28, 15.29, 15.49
Northgate, The (Ocean Pride Maritime LP) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 511 .....................................................................15.49
Northumbrian Shipping Co. Ltd v. E. Timm and Son Ltd (The Newbrough) [1939] A.C. 397 ..................................11.51
Northumbrua, The [1906] P. 292 .................................................................................................................................18.50
Norway, The (No. 2). See Owners of the Norway v. Ashburner—
Notara v. Henderson (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 225 ..............................................9.4, 9.13, 20.13, 38.7, 66.115, 66.269, 66.271
Notos, The. See S.A. Marocaine de l’Industrie du Raffinage v. Notos Maritime Corp.—
Notos, The, [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 334; [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 503 ..........................................................38A.44, 40A.18
Notting Hill, The (1884) 9 P.D. 105...........................................................................................................................21.123
Nour, The (Islamic Investment v. Transorient Shipping) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ........................6.20, 6.48, 12.34, 12.43
Nour, The [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ............................................................................................................................66.436
Novassen v. Alimenta [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 648 .........................................................................................................21.9
Novologistics Sarl v. Five Ocean Corp. (The Merida) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 274 ..............................................4.1, 15.34
Novorossisk Shipping Co. v. Neopetro Co. (The Ulyanovsk) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 425.........................5.10, 5.14, 5.69,
21.33, 21.122, 21A.15, 38.11, 40.4
Novoship (UK) Ltd. v. Mikhaylyuk [2012] EWHC 3586 (Comm) ...............................................................................1.91
Nueva Fortuna Corp. v. Tata Ltd (The Nea Tyhi and the Nea Elpis) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 497 ........................2.21, 2.23
Nugent v. Michael Goss Aviation [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 222 ...................................................................................66.424
Nugent v. Smith (1876) 1 C.P.D. 421 ...........................................................................................................66.298, 66.300
Nyholm, Ex parte, Re Child (1873) 29 L.T. 634 .......................................................................................................13.106
O/Y Wasa SS. Co. v. Newspaper Pulp & Wood Export (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 936.......................................................2.17
OBG v. Allan [2008] A.C. 1 .......................................................................................................................................66.328
OMV Petrom v. Glencore International AG (No.2) [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 432 .........................................................21.62
OMV Petrom v. Glencore International AG [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 412 .......................................................................1.82
Oakworth, The (Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers v. Teigland) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 581 ..........................1.2
Obestain Inc. v. National Mineral Development Corp. (The Sanix Ace)
[1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 465 ...............................................................................................18.91, 21.46, 21.126, 66.386
Obo Venture, The (Mira Oil Resources of Tortola v Bocimar NV) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101..................................16.21
Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp. v. Skibs A/S Avanti (The Siboen and the Sibotre)
[1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 293 ......................................................................................................................................1.88
Ocean Bulk Shipping and Trading v. TMT Asia [2011] 1 A.C. 662 ..............................................................................1.95
Ocean Chemical Transport v. Exnor Craggs [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 446 ....................................................................1.112
Ocean Dynamic, The. See Jack L. Israel v. Ocean Dynamic Lines—

lxxxiv
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Ocean Frost, The (Armagas v. Mundogas) [1986] A.C. 717 .........................................................................................2.27

Ocean Marine Navigation v. Koch Carbon [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 683.......................................................................21.55
Ocean Pride Maritime LP (The Northgate) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 511 ......................................................................15.29
Ocean Victory, The. See Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v. China National Chartering Co. Ltd—
Oceanfocus Shipping v. Hyundai Merchant Marine (The Hawk)
[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 176 ..........................................................................................................18.42, 18.181, 66.144
Oceanic Amity, The. See Seven Seas Transportation v. Pacifico Union Marina Corp.—
Oceanografia S.A. de C.V. v. D.S.N.D. Subsea A.S (The Botnica) (2006) 695 L.M.L.N. 1;
[2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 ........................................................................................................................................1.16
Odenfeld, The [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 367 ...................................................................................................................21.55
Odfjfell (Odfjell) Seachem v. Continentale des Petroles et d’Investissements
[2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 275 .........................................................................................................................21.92, 21.97
Ogden v. Graham (The Respigadera) (1861) 1 B. & S. 773 ......................................... 5.24, 5.65, 5.67, 5.89, 5.110, 5.112
Oglesby v. Yglesias (1858) E.B. & E. 930.....................................................................................................................2.18
Ohrloff v. Briscall (1866) L.R. 1 P.C. 231 ...................................................................................................................14.23
Oil Ltd v. Troon Storage Tankers S.A. (The Ailsa Craig) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 384;
[2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 371 ......................................................................................................................................5.14
Oinoussian Friendship, The. See Elpidoforos v. Furness Withy—
OKane v. Jones (The Martin P) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 389 .................................................................................2.16, 2.29
Okehampton, The [1913] P. 173 ..................................................................................18.47, 18.73, 18.74, 18.115, 21.128
Okura v. Navara [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 537; [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 561 .....................................................................1.15
Olanda, The [1919] 2 K.B. 728......................................................................................................................................6.64
Olbena S.A. v. Psara Maritime Inc. (The Thanassis A.) (1982) L.M.L.N. 68; (1982) 68 L.M.L.N. .............................39.8
Oldendorff (E.L.) & Co. v. Tradax Export (The Johanna Oldendorff) [1974] A.C. 479 (H.L.);
[1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285 .......................................................................................................................19.14, 66.289
Oldendorff GmbH & Co KG v. Sea Powerful II Special Maritime Enterprises (The Zagora)
[2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 194 ............................................................................................................................... 18.173A
Oliver v. Fielden (1849) 4 Exch. 135 ...............................................................................................................................4.6
Ollive v. Booker (1847) 1 Exch. 416 ......................................................................................................................3.26, 4.2
Oltenia, The (Babanaft International Co. v. Avant Petroleum Inc.) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 448,
affirmed [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 99 (C.A.) ............................................................................................................16.21
Olympic Brilliance, The (Lakeport Navigation Co. v. Anonima Petroli Italiana)
[1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 205; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 176 ............................................................. 21.119, 34.11, 66.260
Olympic Galaxy, The. See Galaxy Special Maritime Enterprise v. Prima Ceylon—
Olympic Pride, The (Ets. Georges et Paul Levy v. Adderley Navigation) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 67 ...........................1.74
Omak Maritime v. Mamola Challenger Co. (The Mamola Challenger)
[2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 47 .......................................................................................................21.3, 21.4, 21.47, 21.105
Omnium d’Entreprises v. Sutherland [1919] 1 K.B. 618 ...............................................................................................3.13
On v. Lao Yiu Long [1980] A.C. 614....................................................................................................................1.87, 1.89
One Step (Support) v. Morris-Garner [2018] 2 W.L.R. 1353; [2019] A.C. 649 ..................................21.1, 21.145, 21.146
Onego Shipping & Chartering BV v. JSC Arcadia Shipping (The Socol 3) [2010]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 221; [2014] L.M.C.L.Q. 139........................................... 1.112, 1.113, 6.32, 6.35, 6.38, 11.17, 14.42,
66.10, 66.12, 66.18, 66.72, 66.73, 66.67, 66.109
Onisilos, The. See Salamis Shipping v. Edm. Van Meerbeeck & Co.—
Ord v. Bellhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] B.C.C. 607 ..............................................................................................................3.42
Oriental Steamship v. Tylor [1893] 2 Q.B. 518 .......................................2.42, 34.3, 13.25, 13.106, 18.207, 18.237, 26.66
Orinoco Navigation v. Ecotrade (The Ikariada) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 365; [1999] All E.R. (D.) 727 ......................18.61
Orion v. Belfort [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 257 ...................................................................................................................1.29
Orjula, The [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 395 .............................................................................................................6.52, 66.454
Oro Chief, The (Eximenco Handels A.G. v. Partrederiert Oro Chief) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509.................19.40, 21.144
Ot Sonja, The. See Cargill International v. C.P.N. Tankers—
Overseas Transportation Co. v. Mineralimportexport (The Sinoe) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 514;
[1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201 (C.A.) ......................................11.12, 15.7, 16.18, 17.2, 17.12, 17.13, 17.29, 17.42, 49.2
Owners of Cargo on Ship Maori King v. Hughes [1895] 2 Q.B. 550 ..........................................................................11.36
Owners of the Cargo lately laden on board the ship Tatry v. The owners of the ship Maciej Rataj
(The Tatry) [1994] E.C.R. I-5439 .........................................................................................................................66.27
Owners of The Norway v. Ashburner (The Norway) (No. 2) (1865) 3 Moo. P.C. 254
(N.S.) 245; rev’g (1864) B. & L. 226 ...............................................................................................3.22, 13.21, 20.47
P.v.A [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 415 ...........................................................................................................................5.21, 37.6
P.&.O. Nedlloyd v. Arab Metals Co. (The UB Tiger) (No. 2) Com. Ct., 5 October 2006 .........................................21.143
P.& O. v. Leetham (1915) 32 T.L.R. 153 .....................................................................................................................10.18
P. Samuel v. Dumas [1924] A.C. 431 ............................................................................................................66.291, 66.294
P.S. Chellaram Co. v. China Ocean Shipping Co. (The Zhi Jiang Kou)
[1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 493 (N.S.W.C.A.) .................................................................................66.205, 66.243, 66.245

lxxxv
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

PT Berlian Laju Tanker TBK v. Nuse Shipping Ltd (The Aktor) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 346.......................................1.74
PT Surya Citra Multimedia v. Brightpoint Singapore Pte Ltd [2018] S.G.H.C. 245,
High Court of Singapore ......................................................................................................................................21.52
Paal Wilson v. Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal (The Hannah Blumenthal) [1983] 1 A.C. 854 ..............................22.2
Pace (No. 2), The .......................................................................................................................................................66.189
Pace Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Churchgate Nigeria Co. Ltd. (The Pace) [2010]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 183 ............................................................................................................18.85, 18.91, 18.97, 21.126
Pace Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Churchgate Nigeria Co. Ltd (The Pace ) (No. 2) [2011]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 537 .............................................................................................18.91, 18.97, 21.126, 66.189, 66.192
Pacific Basin IHX Ltd v. Bulkhandling Handymax AS (The Triton Lark) [2012] Lloyd’s Rep. 151;
[2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 457 ..........................................................................................26.30, 26.84, 26.85, 26.93, 58.2
Pacific Carriers v. BNP Paribas (2004) 208 A.L.R. 213 (H.C.A.) ................................................................. 2.28, 18.173A
Pacific Milk v. Koninklinjke Jaya [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 492.....................................................................................10.27
Pacific Molasses v. Entre Rios (The San Nicholas) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 8.....................................................18.61, 51.3
Pacific Voyager, The [2019] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 370 ................................................................................4.11, 4.12, 4.14, 4.22
Pagnan (R.) & Fratelli v. Finagrain (The Adolf Leonhardt) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 395 .............................................15.29
Pagnan (R.) & Fratelli v. N.G.J. Schouten [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349 ...........................................................................4.8
Pagnan (R.) & Fratelli v. Tradax Export [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 150 .............................................................................38.6
Pagnan (R.) v. Corbisa Industrial [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1306 .............................................................................................21.46
Pagnan S.p.A. v. Feed Products [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601 .....................................................................................1.4–1.6
Pagnan S.p.A. v. Tradax Ocean Transportation S.A. [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 342;
[1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 646 ........................................................................................ 1.108, 1.115, 11.77, 11.78, 66.16
Paiwan Wisdom, The [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 416 ........................................................................................................26.35
Palace Shipping Company Ltd v. Gans Steamship Line [1916] 1 K.B. 138 .................................................................5.74
Palgrave, Brown v. Turid [1922] 1 A.C. 397 ....................................................................................................14.11, 14.12
Palm Shipping v. Kuwait Petroleum Corp. (The Sea Queen) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 500 ........................1.108, 38.9, 40.3
Palmea, The (Ferruzzi France v. Oceania Maritime) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 261 ........................................................21.18
Palmer v. Thomas (1828) 2 Moo. P.C. 296 ..................................................................................................................38.11
Panaghia P, The. See Howard Houlder & Partners v. Marine General Transporters—
Panaghia Tinnou, The (C.H.Z. Rolimpex v. Eftavrysses) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 586 ................................................14.42
Panama & South Pacific Telegraph Co v. India Rubber Gutta Percha and Telegraph Co. (1875)
9 Ch. App. 515 ........................................................................................................................................................1.92
Panglobal Friendship, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 368 .........................................................................................17.1, 60.3
Pantanassa, The (Efploia Shipping Corp. v. Canadian Transport) [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449 ........................15.82, 21.16
Pao On v. Lao Yiu Long [1980] A.C. 614......................................................................................................................1.92
Papadopoulos in [2019] L.M.C.L.Q. 318 .............................................................................................................4.13, 33.9
Papas Olio JSC v. Grains & Fourrages [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 152 ..................................................................................1.3
Papayanni v. Grampian SS. Co. (1896) 1 Com. Cas. 448; (1811) 4 Taunt. 123 ..........................................................20.15
Papera Traders v. Hyundai Merchant Marine (The Eurasian Dream) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 719;
[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 692 ............................................................ 11.25, 11.26, 66.93, 66.94, 66.254, 66.265, 66.281
Parabola Investments v. Browallia Cal [2011] Q.B. 477 .............................................................................................21.43
Paragon, The (Lansat v. Glencore Grain) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 688 .......................................................................21.132
Parana, The (1877) 2 P.D. 118 (C.A.) ........................................................................................................................21.123
Parbulk v. Kristen Marine S.A. [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 220; (2010) 793 L.M.L.N. 1............................21.33, 21.51, 21.80
Parker v. Winslow (1857) 7 E. & B. 942 ..............................................................................................................2.10, 2.12
ParkingEye Ltd v. Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ..............................................................................................................21.132
ParkingEye Ltd v. Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 679 .......................................1.51, 1.53, 1.55, 1.56, 1.63
Paros, The [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 269 ..................................16.15, 18.218, 18.229, 18.230, 18.233, 21.1, 66.161, 66.163
Parouth, The [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 351........................................................................................................................1.49
Parry v. Cleaver [1970] A.C. 1 .....................................................................................................................................21.47
Parsons (H.) (Livestock) v. Uttley Ingham [1978] Q.B. 791 .......................................................................................21.38
Parsons Corp. v. C.V. Scheepvaart. (The Happy Ranger) [2002]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 357 ................................................................................6.31, 53.3, 66.12, 66.36, 66.40, 66.42, 66.66,
66.71, 66.119, 66.133, 66.368, 66.401, 66.423
Parsons v. New Zealand Shipping Co. (The Fifeshire) [1901] 1 K.B. 548;
aff’g [1900] 1 Q.B. 714; [1901] 1 K.B. 548....................................................................10.15, 18.37, 66.137, 66.344
Patel v. Mirza [2017] A.C. 467 ...........................................................................................................1.51–1.53, 1.56, 1.63
Paterson v. Robin Hood Mills (1937) 58 Ll. L. Rep. 33 ..............................................................................................12.31
Paterson, Zochonis & Co. Ltd v. Elder Dempster & Co. Ltd. [1924] A.C. 522 ..........................8.2, 11.32, 18.73, 18.127,
18.131, 66.62, 66.224, 66.264, 66.468
Patria, The (1871) L.R. 3 A. & E. 436 .........................................................................................................................12.15
Patterson Steamships v. Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers [1934] A.C. 538 ...................................66.348, 66.349
Paul (R. & W.) v. National SS. Co. (1937) 43 Com. Cas. 68; (1937) 59 Ll. L. Rep. 28 .............................................18.91
Paula Lee Ltd v. Robert Zehil & Co. Ltd [1983] 1 All E.R. 390 ...........................................................21.20, 21.21, 21.23

lxxxvi
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Payzu v. Saunders [1919] 2 K.B. 58 ............................................................................................................................21.52

Pearce v. Books (1855) L.R. 1 Ex. 213 ..........................................................................................................................1.56
Pearl C, The (Bulk Ship Union S.A. v. Clipper Bulk Shipping Ltd) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 533 ....................................9.8
Pearl Carriers v. Japan Line (The Chemical Venture) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 508 .............................................5.48, 5.112
Peek v. Larsen (1871) L.R. 12 Eq. 378 ...............................................................................................................1.71, 18.47
Peel [2013] L.M.C.L.Q. 519 ..........................................................................................................................................21.7
Pegase, The [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 175 .............................................................................................21.33, 21.123, 21.125
Pegler Ltd. v. Wang [2000] B.L.R. 218 .......................................................................................................................21.40
Pell Frischmann Engineering v. Bow Valey Iran [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2370 ...................................................................21.145
Pembroke, The (Nelson Pine Industries v. Seatrans New Zealand) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 290
(N.Z. High Ct.) .......................................................................................................................................................6.26
Pendle and Rivet v. Ellerman Lines (1928) 33 Com. Cas. 70 ............................................66.139, 66.349, 66.416, 66.409
Penelope, The [1928] P. 180 .........................................................................................................22.9, 22.13, 22.33, 22.25
Pennsylvania Shipping v. Cie. Nationale de Navigation (1936) 55 Ll. L. Rep. 271 .......................................................3.3
Pera, The [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 363 ...........................................................................................................................1.112
Performance Cars v. Abraham [1962] 1 Q.B. 33 .........................................................................................................21.41
Perry v. Raley Solicitors [2020] A.C. 352 ..........................................................................................................21.6, 21.43
Perry v. Suffields [1916] 2 Ch. 187................................................................................................................................1.13
Pesquerias y Secaderos de Bacalao de España S.A. v. Beer (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 501;
[1949] 1 All E.R. 845 ..............................................................................................................................26.23, 66.303
Peter Cassidy Seed Co. v. Osuustukkakauppa Ltd. [1957] 1 W.L.R. 273 .......................................................................7.8
Peter der Grosse, The (1875) 1 P.D. 414; (1876) 34 L.T. 749 ...................................................................................66.140
Petersen v. Dunn (1895) 1 Com. Cas. 8 ..................................................................................................................7.14, 9.2
Petersen v. Freebody [1895] 2 Q.B. 294 ...........................................................................................................14.17, 14.61
Petr Schmidt, The (Galaxy Energy International v. Novorossiysk Shipping) [1998]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; aff’g [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 284 ..............................................................................................15.54
Petr Shmidt, The (Swiss Bank Corporation v. Novorossiysk Shipping Co.) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 202 .....................32.2
Petredec v. Tokumaru Kaiun (The Sargasso) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 162..................................................................66.196
Petrinovic v. Mission Française des Transportes Maritimes (1941) 71 Ll. L. Rep. 208...................................15.74, 22.36
Petrocochino v. Bott (1873) L.R. 9 C.P. 355..................................................................................................................10.5
Petrodel Resources Ltd v. Prest [2013] 2 A.C. 415; [2013] U.K.S.C. 34 ...........................................2.38, 2.40, 2.42, 2.43
Petrofina S.A. v. Compania Italiana Trasporto Olii Minerali (1937) 57 Ll. L. Rep. 247;
(1937) 42 Com. Cas. 286 (C.A.); (1937) 42 Com. Cas. 130; (1936) 56 Ll. L. Rep. 141.............................49.3, 4.94,
66.127, 66.235
Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v. FR8 Singapore Pte Ltd
(The Eternity) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 107 .............................................................. 1.106, 1.111, 16.21, 49.10, 66.276
Petroleum Shipping v. Vatis [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 314................................................................................................2.39
Petromec v. Petrolco [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 121 ...........................................................................................................1.10
Petroplus Marketing AG v. Shell Trading International Ltd [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 611.............................................1.119
Petros Hadjikyriakos, The (Food Corporation of India v. Achilles Halcoussis) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 56 ................15.43
Petrotrade v. Stinnes [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 142 [1981], 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 521 .............................................................21.12
Peyman v. Lanjani [1985] Ch. 457 ................................................................................................................................2.21
Phelps v. Hill [1891] 1 Q.B. 605 ..................................................................................................................................12.15
Phillips v. Edwards (1858) 3 H. & N. 813 ...................................................................................................................18.46
Phillips v. Symes [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 344.............................................................................................................66.187
Phoenix v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 552 ....................................................................1.54
Phones 4U v. EE [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 204 ...............................................................................................................1.139
Phosphate Co. v. Rankin (1915) 21 Com. Cas. 248 .......................................................................................................3.13
Phosphate Mining Co. v. Rankin Gilmour & Co. (1915) 21 Com. Cas. 248.............................................................66.310
Photo Production v. Securicor [1980] A.C. 827 (H.L.)................................................... 1.112, 1.133, 11.72, 12.29, 12.38,
12.42, 18.166, 66.207, 66.469
Piattchanine v. Phosagro Asia [2015] S.G.H.C. 259 .........................................................................................21.23, 21.18
Pickering v. Barclay (1648) Styles 132......................................................................................................................66.306
Pilgrim Shipping Co. Ltd. v. State Trading Corporation of India (The Hadjitsakos)
[1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 356 .............................................................................................................................5.18, 5.19
Pinch & Simpson v. Harrison Whitfield (1948) 81 Ll. L. Rep. 268 ..............................................................................4.17
Pindell v. AirAsia Berhad [2011] 2 All E.R. Comm 396 .............................................................................................21.30
Pink v. Fleming (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 396 ......................................................................................................................66.297
Pinta, The [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 103; aff’g [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 246 ......................................................................1.77
Pioneer Container, The [1994] 2 A.C. 324, 327 (reported sub nom., The KH Enterprise
[1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 593.) ......................................18.118, 18.127, 18.128, 18.130–18.132, 18.134, 18.137, 66.62
Pioneer Shipping v. B.T.P. Tioxide (The Nema) [1982] A.C. 724 ...................................22.13, 22.15, 22.26, 22.32, 22.33
Pionier, The (Continental Fertilizer v. Pionier Shipping) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 223 .....................66.183, 66.191, 66.193
Piracy Jure Gentium, Re [1934] A.C. 586 ...................................................................................................................26.13

lxxxvii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Pirelli General v. PSA Corp. [2003] S.G.H.C. 31 ......................................................................................................66.404

Pirie v. Middle Dock (1881) 44 L.T. 426, 429 .............................................................................................................20.39
Platform Home Loans v. Oyston Shipways [2000] 2 A.C. 190 ........................................................................21.62, 21.75
Playa Larga, The (Empresa Exportadora de Azucar v. Industria Azucarera Nacional)
[1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 ......................................................................................................................................22.1
Polar, The (A.I.C.C.O. v. Forggensee Navigation) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 478 .................................14.24, 66.118, 66.333
Polessk, The, and the Akademik Iosif Orbeli [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 40 ......................................................66.109, 66.122
Polish Steamship Co. v. Williams Fuels (The Suwalki) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 511 .....................................................2.31
Polly Peck International Plc, Re [1996] 2 All E.R. 433 .................................................................................................2.43
Polyglory, The (Kristiansands Tankrederi A/S v. Standard Tankers (Bahamas) Ltd.)
[1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 353 ......................................................................................................................................5.64
Port Jackson v. Salmond & Spraggon (The New York Star) [1981] 1 W.L.R. 138 .....................................................66.63
Port Line v. Ben Line [1958] 2 Q.B. 146 ...................................................................................................................21.141
Port Russel, The (Trafigura Beheer v. Ravennavi SpA) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 57 ...............................15.29, 15.31, 26.58
Port Swettenham Authority v. T. W. Wu & Co., [1979] A.C. 580, at p. 590 .............................................................18.120
Porteus v. Watney (1878) 3 Q.B.D. 534...........................................................................16.19, 16.20, 17.22, 17.35, 18.52
Portolana Cia. Nav. v. Vitol S.A. (The Afrapearl) [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 305; rev’g
[2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 671 ...........................................................................................................................5.10, 15.67
Portolana Compania Naviera Ltd v. Vitol S.A.Inc. (The Afrapearl) [2004]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 305, rv’g (on this point) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 671 ..............................38.13, 38.22, 39.8, 40.6, 40.7
Porton Capital Technology Funds v. 3M Holdings Ltd [2011] EWHC 2895 (Comm) ...............................................26.30
Portorafti Commerciale S.A. v. Ultramar Panama Inc. (The Captain Gregos) (No. 1)
[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 310 .....................................................................................................................66.116, 66.174
Portuguesa de Navios Tanques v. Polaris [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 71 ....................................................................1.15, 1.16
Portuguese Consolidated Copper Mines, Re (1890) 45 Ch. D. 16 ................................................................................2.33
Posner v. Scott-Lewis [1987] Ch. 25 .........................................................................................................................21.144
Postlethwaite v. Freeland (1880) 5 App. Cas. 599 .......................................................................................7.8, 14.4, 15.13
Potter v. Burrell [1897] 1 Q.B. 97 ................................................................................................................................12.21
Potts (A.E.) v. Union Steamship [1946] N.Z.L.R. 276 .................................................................................66.337, 66.348
Pratt v. Aigaion Insurance Co. S.A. (The Resolute) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 225 ..............................................1.106, 1.113
Prenn v. Simmonds [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1381 ....................................................................................................................1.97
President Brand, The (Inca Compania Naviera v. Monofil Inc.) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 338 .............................16.15, 40.2
President of India v. Jebsens (U.K.) (The General Capinpin) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 232,
[1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .............................................................................................................................15.12, 15.43
President of India v. La Pintada. See La Pintada Cia Navegacion S.A. v. President of India—
President of India v. Lips Maritime Corporation (The Lips) [1988] A.C. 395 .................................................21.36, 26.71
President of India v. Metcalfe Shipping Co. (The Dunelmia) [1970] 1 Q.B. 289;
[1969] 2 Q.B. 123 ...............................................................................17.45, 17.47, 18.2, 18.208, 51.4, 66.67, 66.482
President of India v. N.G. Livanos Maritime (The John Michalos) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 188 ...................................16.4
President of India v. Olympia Sauna Shipping [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 455 .....................................................................5.3
Price v. Livingstone (1882) 9 Q.B.D. 679 .................................................................................................................13.104
Price v. Noble (1811) 4 Taunt. 123 ..............................................................................................................................20.15
Pride Shipping v. Chung Hua Pulp [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 126 ...................................................................................18.56
Priestly v. Fernie (1863) 3 H. & C. 977 .........................................................................................................................2.21
Primetrade AG v. Ythan Ltd (The Ythan) [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 457 .......................................18.78, 18.81, 18.82, 18.85,
18.97, 18.101, 18.103, 18.104, 18.155
Priminds Shipping (HK) Co. Ltd v. Noble Chartering Inc (The Tai Prize) [2020]
EWHC 127 (Comm); [2021] EWCA Civ 87..............................................................18.180, 18.181, 18.206, 66.133,
66.139, 66.140, 66.144, 66.162, 66.163
Primorje, The [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 74 ..........................................................................................................................2.4
Primula, The [1894] P. 128; (1894) 70 L.T. 388 .....................................................................13.93–13.95, 18.175, 18.179
Pritchard v. Co-operative Group [2012] Q.B. 320 .......................................................................................................21.62
Priyanika Shipping v. Glory Bulk Carriers [2019] 1 W.L.R. 6677 ............................................................................21.146
Pro Victor, The [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 158, (2010) L.M.C.L.Q. 359 ............................................................................21.7
Procter & Gamble v. Peter Cremer [1988] 3 All E.R. 843...........................................................................................13.27
Procter, Garrett, Marston v. Oakwin SS. Co. [1926] 1 K.B. 244 .......................................................10.20, 21.117, 66.200
Produce Brokers v. Olympia Oil & Cake Co. [1916] 1 A.C. 314 ..................................................................................63.1
Product Star, The [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 268 ..............................................................................................................1.106
Product Star, The (No. 2) (Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co. v. Product Star Shipping) [1993]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 397 (C.A.) .........................................................................................................................26.34, 26.35
Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd v. Tube City IMS LLC (The Cenk Kaptanoglu) [2012]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 501; [2012] L.M.C.L.Q. 478..........................................................................................1.88–1.90, 3.5
Prometheus, The (Venezelos v. Soc. Commerciale de Cereales) [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 350 .............................5.20, 7.18
Property Alliance Group v. Royal Bank of Scotland (No.5) [2018] 1 W.L.R. 3529 ............................................1.79, 1.80

lxxxviii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Protank Orinoco, The. See Protank Shipping v. Total Transport Corp—

Protank Shipping Inc. v. Total Transport Corporation (The Protank Orinoco)
[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 42 ................................................................................................13.72, 34.3, 34.9, 34.10, 49.2
Prudential Assurance Company Limited v. Ayres [2007] 3 All E.R. 946, [2008] EWCA Civ 52 .............................18.138
Pteroti v. National Coal Board (The Chios Breeze) [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 245; [1958] 1 Q.B. 469 .................15.56, 38.1
Public Company Rise v. Nibulon [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 108 .....................................................................................1.115
Puerto Buitrago, The (Attica Sea Carriers v. Ferrostaal Poseidon) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 250 ..................................14.68
Pulliser Ltd v. Fate Ltd [2019] EWHC 43 Q.B.....................................................................................................5.50, 5.51
Pust v. Dowie (1864) 5 B. & S. 20....................................................................................................................13.21, 13.23
Pyrene Co. v. Scindia Navigation Co. [1954] 2 Q.B. 402; [1954] 2 Q.B. 357 ............................14.2, 18.45, 18.78, 66.35,
66.65, 66.68, 66.79, 66.80, 66.85, 66.86, 66.88, 66.111
Pythia, The, Western Sealanes Corp. v. Unimarine S.A. (The Pythia) [1982]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 160 .................................................................................................................................................3.15
Quark v. Chiquita Unifrutti Japan (The Vinson) (2005) 677 L.M.L.N. 1 (Com. Ct., 26 April 2005) .........................18.64
Queensland National Bank Ltd. v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. [1898] 1 Q.B. 567 ......................11.36
Queensmore, The (1893) 53 Fed. Rep. 1022 ................................................................................................ 13.113, 13.114
Quinn v. Birch Bros. (Builders) [1966] 1 Q.B. 370 .....................................................................................................21.69
Quinn v. Leathem [1901] A.C. 495 ..............................................................................................................................21.27
R&W Paul Ltd v. National Steamship Co Ltd (1937) 59 Ll L Rep 28 ...........................................................18.91, 21.126
RBC Properties v. Defus Furnitures [2014] SGCA 62; [2015] L.M.C.L.Q. 464 ...........................................................1.82
RM Copy Centres v. Lanwall [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1375 ................................................................................................18.118
RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v. Molkerei Alois Muller GmbH & Co. [2010] 1 W.L.R. 753 ............................1.5, 1.12, 1.16
RWE Npower v. Bentley [2014] EWCA Civ 150 ........................................................................................................1.115
R. v. Coroner for South-East Kent, Ex parte Spooner (The Herald of Free Enterprise) (1987)
88 Cr. App. Rep. 10 ............................................................................................................................................66.429
R. Pagnan & Fratelli v. Finagrain (The Adolf Leonhardt) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 395, 403........................................15.29
Racing Drivers Club v. Hextall Erskine & Co. [1996] 3 All E.R. 667 ........................................................................21.41
Radauti, The (Navrom v. Callitsis Ship Management) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 416 (C.A.)..........................................15.80
Radford v. de Froberville [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1262 .........................................................................................................21.57
Radnor, The (North River Freighters Ltd v. President of India) [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 668......................15A.86, 15A.96
Raeburn v. Burness (1895) 1 Com. Cas. 22 ...................................................................................................................2.32
Rafaela S, The (J.I. MacWilliam v. Mediterranean Shipping Co.) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127
(C.A.); [2005] 2 A.C. 423; [2005] 2 A.C. 605; [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 347 ...............................18.82, 18.143, 18.144
Rafaela S, The [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127 (C.A.); [2005] 2 A.C. 423 ....................................18.162, 18.163, 66.9, 66.487
Rafaela S, The. See J .I. MacWilliam v. Mediterranean Shipping Co—
Rafaella, The [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 36 .........................................................................................................................2.28
Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H. & C. 906 ...............................................................................................................1.101
Raflatac v. Eade [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 506 ...................................................................................................21.69, 66.461
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich v. Royal Bank of Scotland [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 123 ...........................................1.79
Rainy Sky v. Kookmin Bank (The Rainy Sky) [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2900 .............................................................1.107, 1.108
Ralli Brothers v. Compania Naviera Sota y Aznar [1920] 2 K.B. 287 ..........................................................................1.58
Ralli v. Paddington SS. Co. (1900) 5 Com. Cas. 124 .........................................................................................1.71, 18.47
Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd v. Huddart Parker Industries (The Boral Gas) [1988]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 342 ............................................1.124, 15.9, 15.45, 16.15, 17.36, 17.37, 21.101, 21.104, 26.28, 60.3
Rasnoimport (V/O) v. Guthrie [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ..............................................................................................18.15
Rayner (J.H.) (Mincing Lane) v. Dept. of Trade & Industry [1989] Ch. 72 ..................................................................2.15
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Australian Wheat Board (The Houston City) [1956] A.C. 266 (P.C.);
[1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 148 (H.C. Aust.) ....................................................................................5.33, 5.60, 5.80, 21.42
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance [1939] A.C. 562 .............................12.1, 12.2, 12.4,
12.5, 12.7, 66.359
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. East Asiatic Co. (1938) 62 Ll. L. Rep. 23 .......................................................................15.26
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Hansen Tangen (The Diana Prosperity) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 621 (H.L.);
[1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 60 (C.A.) .......................................................................................................1.96, 3.2, 3.5, 4.3
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (The Niki), (The Vancouver
Strike Cases) [1963] A.C. 691 (H.L.); [1962] 1 Q.B. 42 (C.A.); [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 385;
[1960] 1 Q.B. 439; [1959] 1 Q.B. 238; [1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 259 .............................................5.8, 5.20, 5.24, 5.37,
7.17, 7.19, 7.21–7.28, 15.11, 15.16, 15.24, 15.26, 15.27, 15.55, 66.304, 66.315
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Ministry of Agriculture: [1963] A.C. 691, 724 (H.L.) ...............................................15A.108
Reborn, The. See Mediterranean Salvage & Towage Ltd v. Seamar Trading & Commerce Inc.—
Rederi “Macedonia” v. Slaughter (1935) 40 Com. Cas. 227 .......................................................................................14.62
Rederi A/B Unda v. Burdon (1937) 42 Com. Cas. 2395..................................................................................................8.3
Rederi A/B Urania v. Zacharides (1931) 41 Ll. L. Rep. 145 ................................................................................3.25, 6.13
Rederi Aktiebolaget Transatlantic v. Board of Trade (1924) 20 Ll. L. Rep. 241 ................................................6.59, 14.18
Rederi Argonaut v. Hani [1918] 2 K.B. 247 ..................................................................................................................2.17

lxxxix
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Rederi Erven H. Groen v. England (Owners) [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 373 ...................................................................11.39
Rederi Gustav Erikson v. Ismail (The Herroe and The Askoe) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 281 ................13.12, 18.35, 66.151
Redpath v. Belfast and County Down Railway [1974] N.I. 167..................................................................................21.47
Reed v. Page [1927] 1 K.B. 743...................................................................................................................................11.46
Regan v. Paul [2007] Ch. 135 ....................................................................................................................................21.139
Regazzoni v. K.C. Sethia (1944); [1958] A.C. 301........................................................................................................1.59
Regent v. Pageguide, The Times, 13 May 1985.........................................................................................................21.144
Reidar v. Arcos [1927] 1 K.B. 352 (C.A.) ...................................................................................................6.8, 27.8, 35.10
Reigate v. Union Manufacturing [1918] 1 K.B. 592....................................................................................................1.123
Remco, The. See Gewa Chartering B.V. v. Remco Shipping Lines Ltd—
Rena K., The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 545 .....................................................................................................................18.56
Renee Byaffil, The (1916) 32 T.L.R. 660 ..................................................................................................................66.271
Renton (G.H.) & Co. v. Palmyra Trading Corp. of Panama [1957] A.C. 149 (H.L.); rev’g
[1956] 1 Q.B. 462 .................................................................................................5.104, 18.168, 20.59, 66.86, 66.361
Resolute Maritime v. Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (The Skopas) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 431 .................................................1.85
Resolven, The (1892) 9 T.L.R. 75.........................................................................................................................3.22, 3.25
Reveille Independent LLC v. Anotech International (UK) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 443 .................................................1.3
Rewia, The [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325 (C.A.)............................................................................18.67, 18.73, 18.74, 66.62
Rey Banano del Pacifico C.A. v. Transportes Navieros Ecuatorianos (The Isla Fernandina)
[2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 15 .........................................66.254, 66.263, 66.265, 66.269, 66.277, 66.359, 66.362, 66.363
Reynolds v. Jex (1865) 7 B. & S. 86 .............................................................................................................18.204, 18.215
Reynolds v. Tomlinson [1896] 1 Q.B. 586 ....................................................................................................................5.76
Rheinoel v. Huron Liberian (The Concordia C.) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 55 ................................................................21.97
Rhodian River, The [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 373 .............................................................................................................1.78
Rialto, The (Yukong Lines v. Rendsburg Investments) (No. 2) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 322 ..............1.89, 2.23, 2.40, 2.47
Rialto, The [1891] P. 175 .............................................................................................................................1.89, 2.22, 2.23
Ricargo Trading v. Spliethoff’s Befrachtingskantor (The Tassos N.) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 648...............................15.74
Richard de Larrinaga v. Liverpool & London War Risks Association [1921] 2 A.C. 141 ........................................66.304
Richardsons & Samuel, Re [1898] 1 Q.B. 261 .............................................................................................66.324, 66.326
Richco Rotterdam B.V. v. Shipmair B.V. (1987) 29 June (unreported) ......................................................................15.20
Rickards v. Forrestal Land Timber and Railways Co. [1942] A.C. 50 ......................................................................66.309
Ridgeway Maritime v. Beulah Wings [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 611 .................................................................................2.45
Rigoletto, The [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 532 .......................................................................... 18.118, 18.119, 18.134, 18.136
Rimpacific v. Daehan [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 236 ..........................................................................................................2,26
Rio Assu, The (C. Itoh v. Cia. de Nav. Lloyd Brasileiro) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201 .................................................66.61
Rio Claro, The (Transworld Oil v. North Bay Shipping) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 173 ................4.16, 11.74, 21.30, 21.121
Rio Sun, The (Gatoil International v. Tradex Petroleum) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 350 ....................................33.24, 66.336
Rio Tinto v. Seed Shipping (1926) 24 Ll. L. Rep. 316; (1926) 42 T.L.R. 381 ..............................................................12.3
Ritchie v. Atkinson (1808) 10 East. 295; (1809) 10 E. 530 ..................................................................................6.7, 13.23
River Ettrick, The,............................................................................................................................................................7.3
River Gurara, The The [1998] Q.B. 610; [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 225 (C.A.) .......................................18.26, 66.9, 66.139,
66.234, 66.236, 66.377, 66.379, 66.409
Riverstone Meat Co. Pty. Ltd. v. Lancashire Shipping Co. Ltd. (The Muncaster Castle)
[1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 57; [1961] A.C. 807............................................................5.47, 11.52, 66.99, 66.103, 66.422
Roberta, The (1938) 60 Ll. L. Rep. 84................................................................................................. 11.63, 11.81, 66.127
Robertson v. Wait (1853) L.R. 8 Ex. 299; cf. Moor Line v. Dreyfus [1918] 1 K.B. 89 ................................................23.2
Robinson v. Harman (1848) 1 Exch. 850 .......................................................................................................................21.1
Robinson v. Knights (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 465................................................................................................................13.21
Robinson v. Price (1877) 2 Q.B.D. 295 .......................................................................................................................20.12
Robinson v. Robinson (1851) 1 De G.M. & G. 247 ....................................................................................................21.18
Rodney, The [1900] P. 112 .........................................................................................................................................66.280
Rodocanachi v. Elliott (1874) L.R. 9 C.P. 518 ..............................................................................................66.311, 66.302
Rodocanachi v. Milburn (1886) 18 Q.B.D. 67; (1886) 17 Q.B.D. 316 ..................................13.33, 13.98, 18.200, 21.119
Roelandts v. Harrison (1854) 23 L.J. Ex. 169 ............................................................................................................13.104
Rolls Royce v. Heavylift-Volga Dnepr [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 653 ...........................................................................66.424
Roman Karmen, The (Furness Withy v. Black Sea Shipping) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 644 ....................................6.9, 6.13
Romina G, The. See Borvigilant, The and Romina G, The—
Rookwood, The (1894) 10 T.L.R. 314 ....................................................................................................................7.7, 7.16
Roper v. Johnson (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 167 ........................................................................................................21.56, 21.114
Ropner Shipping Co. v. Cleeves Western Valley Anthracite Collieries, Re [1927] 1 K.B. 879 ..............15.72, 15.73, 16.5
Ropner v. Stoate Hosegood (1905) 10 Com. Cas. 73 ....................................................................................................14.5
Rosa S, The [1989] Q.B. 419 ....................................................................66.238, 66.370, 66.371, 66.414, 66.504, 66.506
Rosalina Investments v. New Balance Athletic Shoes [2018] EWHC 1014 (Q.B.) ......................................................1.19
Ross River Ltd & Another v. Cambridge City FC Ltd [2007] EWHC 2115 (Ch); [2008] 1 All E.R. 1004 ..................1.91

xc
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Rossiter v. Miller (1878) 3 App. Cas. 1124.............................................................................................................1.3, 1.14

Roth v. Taysen (1896) 1 Com. Cas. 240 ......................................................................................................................21.56
Roth v. Taysen [1900] 2 Q.B. 298................................................................................................................................21.56
Routh v. MacMillan (1863) 2 H. & C. 750 ....................................................................................................................3.26
Rowan, The (Transpetrol Maritime Services Ltd v. SJB (Marine Energy) BV)
[2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 564 ....................................................................................................................3.30, 3.31, 3.40
Rowe v. Turner Hopkins [1980] 2 N.Z.L.R. 550 .........................................................................................................21.69
Rowson v. Atlantic Transport Co. [1903] 2 K.B. 666 (C.A.)........................................................................66.275, 66.278
Royal Bank of Scotland v. McCarthy [2015] EWHC 3626 (Q.B.)..........................................................2.38, 18.138, 21.1
Royal Boskalis v. Mountain [1999] Q.B. 674; [1997] L.R.L.R. 523 (C.A.) .............................1.57, 1.58, 1.62, 1.63, 1.93
Royal Exchange Shipping Co. v. Dixon (1886) 12 App. Cas. 11 ...........................6.27, 6.28, 6.31, 66.71, 66.261, 66.469
Royal Exchange v. Vega [1902] 2 K.B. 384 ..................................................................................................................1.38
Royal Greek Government v. Minister of Transport (1950) 83 Ll. L. Rep. 228 ................................................1.106, 27.18
Royal Main Estates v. Maple Teesdae [2016] 1 W.L.R. 942 ...........................................................................................2.1
Royscot v. Rogerson [1991] 2 Q.B. 297 ........................................................................................................................1.82
Rozel, The (Channel Island Ferries v. Cenargo Navigation) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 161 ............................................21.57
Rudolf A. Oetker v. I.F.A. (The Almak) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 557 ........................................18.24, 18.39, 18.84, 18.207
Russell v. Niemann (1864) 17 C.B.(N.S.) 163...........................................................................................................66.305
Russo-Chinese Bank v. Li Yau Sam [1910] A.C. 174....................................................................................................2.27
Rutherford v. Goldthorpe [1922] 1 K.B. 508 .............................................................................................................21.100
Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v. Forsyth [1996] A.C. 344 ..................................................21.1, 21.57, 21.107
S.A. Comercial d’Exportacion v. National SS. Co. [1935] 2 K.B. 313 ...........................................................................6.3
S.A. Maritime et Commerciale v. Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. [1953] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 466;
[1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; [1954] 1 W.L.R. 492 ....................................................................................1.109, 3.8, 3.10
S.A. Marocaine de l’Industrie du Raffinage v. Notos Maritime Corp. (The Notos)
[1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 503 (H.L.); [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 334 (C.A.) .................................................................1.110
S.A. Sucre Export v. Northern River Shipping (The Sormovskiy 3068) [1994]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 266 ....................................................................................10.5, 15.13, 16.19, 18.169, 18.171, 18.173
S.L.S. Everest, The [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 389 ...........................................................................................................18.61
S.S. Pharmaceutical v. Qantas Airways [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 288 ..........................................................................66.424
SHV Gas Supply & Trading v. Naftomar Shipping & Trading (The Azur Gaz)
[2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 163 .............................................................................................................................4.8, 13.39
ST Shipping and Transport Pte Ltd v. Space Shipping Ltd (The CV Stealth) (No 2)
[2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 276 .........................................................................................................................21.41, 21.42
ST Shipping and Transport v. Kriti Filoxenia Shipping Co SA (The Kriti Filoxenia)
[2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 609 ...........................................................................................................................19.23, 30.2
STX Pan Ocean Co. Ltd v. Ugland Bulk Transport A.S. (The Livanita) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 86 .............................5.31
Sabah Flour and Feedmills v. Comfez [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 18 ...........................49.3, 66.7, 66.13, 66.15, 66.17, 66.179
Sabrewing, The (Waterfront Shipping Co. v. Trafigura AG) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 286 ............................................16.21
Sack v. Ford (1862) 13 C.B.(N.S.) 90 ...............................................................................................................11.12, 14.53
Sacor Maritima S.A. v. Repsol Petroleo S.A. [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 518 ........................................................21.78, 21.82
Sacor v. Repsol [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 518 ...................................................................................................................49.5
Safeer, The (Kuwait Supply Co. v. Oyster Marine Management)
[1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 637 ..........................................................................................22.9, 26.40, 26.63, 26.79, 26.80
Safeway Stores v. Twigger [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 39.......................................................................... 11.55, 11.56, 66.423
Saga Cob, The (K/S Penta Shipping v. Ethiopian Shipping Lines Corp.) [1992]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 545 ........................................................................................................................................5.48, 5.51
Saga Explorer, The (Breffka & Hehnke GmbH & Co. KG v. Navire Shipping Co. Ltd.)
[2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 401 ...............................................................................................18.14, 18.17, 66.142, 66.219
Sagoland, The.................................................................................................................................................................5.71
Sagona, The (A/S Hansen Tangens Rederi v. Total) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 194 .......................................................18.240
Said v. Butt [1920] 3 K.B. 497.......................................................................................................................................2.45
Sailing Ship “Garston” Company v. Hickie, Borman & Co. (1886) 18 Q.B.D 17;
(1885) 15 Q.B.D. 580 .........................................................................................................................1.105, 5.3, 13.70
Sainsbury (H.R. & S. ) v. Street [1972] 1 W.L.R. 834 .................................................................................................22.24
Saint Cloud, The (1863) B. & L. 4.............................................................................................................................21.119
Saint Elefterio, The [1957] P. 179 ................................................................................................................................18.43
Saint John Shipping v. Joseph Rank [1957] 1 Q.B. 267 .......................................................................................1.54, 1.56
Saint Line v. Richardsons Westgarth [1940] 2 K.B 99 .......................................................................................21.4, 21.40
Saint Simeon Navigation Inc. v. Couturier & Ffils [1974] S.C.R. 1176 ......................................................................66.72
Saint Johns Shipping v. Cia Geral, 263 U.S. 116.........................................................................................................66.71
Saipol SA v. Inerco Trade SA [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 26 .............................................................................................21.30
Salamis Shipping v. Edm. Van Meerbeeck & Co. (The Onisilos)
[1971] 2 Q.B. 500 (C.A.)............................................................................25.2, 25.3, 25.6, 25.7, 25.17, 25.20, 25.25

xci
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Salmond & Spraggon (Australia) Pty. v. Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty. (The New York Star)
[1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 317; [1981] 1 W.L.R. 138 (P.C.) ..........................................................18.137, 66.131, 66.174
Salomon v. Salomon & Co. [1897] A.C. 22.................................................................................................2.39, 2.40, 2.44
Salt v. Stratstone [2015] EWCA Civ 754 (2016) L.M.C.L.Q. 489 .......................................................................1.81, 1.84
Samah, The [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 40 ...........................................................................................................................2.31
Samcrete v. Land Rover Exports [2002] E.W.C.A. Civ. 2019; [2002] C.L.C. 533 .....................................1.30, 1.38, 1.46
Sameiling v. Grain Importers [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 313............................................................................................14.59
Samengo-Turner v. J & H Marsh & McLennan (Services) [2007] 2 All E.R. 723;
(2007) L.M.C.L.Q. 433 ......................................................................................................................................66.227
Sameon v. Petrofina (unreported, Q.B. (Com. Ct.), 13 March 1996). Aff’d on appeal to C.A.,
30 April 1997 ........................................................................................................................................................20.52
Sametiet M/T Johs Stove v. Istanbul Petrol Rafinerisi A/S (The Johs Stove) [1984]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 38 ........................................................................................................................................38.27, 50.3
Samos Glory, The [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 603 .....................................................................................13.113, 16.18, 17.34
Samos v. Eckhardt (The Nissos Samos) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 378 .............................................................................1.19
Samuel (P.) v. Dumas [1924] A.C. 431 .........................................................................................................66.291, 66.294
Samuel v. West Hartlepool (1906) 11 Com. Cas. 111..................................................................................................18.73
San Evans Maritime Inc, Livanbros Maritime SA, Mrs Chariklia Livanou v. Aigaion Insurance
[2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 265 (para. 39) ................................................................................................................18.138
San George, The (Noemijulia SS. Co. v. Minister of Food) [1951] 1 K.B. 223 (C.A.); (1950)
83 Ll. L. Rep. 500....................................................................................................................6.16, 15.42, 19.8, 19.16
San Nicholas, The (Pacific Molasses v. Entre Rios) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 8 ..................................................1.38, 66.244
San Roman, The (1872) L.R. 5 P.C. 301...........................................................................................................12.12, 12.15
Sanday (Samuel) v. Keighley Maxsted & Co. (1922) 10 Ll. L. Rep. 738 ................................................................4.6, 4.8
Sandeman & Sons v. Tyzack and Branfoot Steamship Co. (The Fulwell) [1913] A.C. 680 (H.L.) ................10.11, 10.14,
10.15, 18.37, 18.231, 66.158, 66.343, 66.344
Sandeman Coprimar v. Transitos y Trasportes Integrales [2003] Q.B. 1270 ...............................................18.125, 18.133
Sandeman v. Scurr (1866) L.R. 2 Q.B. 86 ...................................................................................................................18.47
Sanders v. Maclean (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 327 ................................................................................................................18.145
Sang Stone Hamoon Jonoub v. Baoyue Shipping (The Bao Yue) [2015] EWHC 2288 (Comm);
[2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 320 ....................................................................................10.4, 17.38, 18.169–18.171, 21.119
Sanguinetti v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co. (1877) 2 Q.B.D. 238 ...........................................................6.4, 17.45, 17.46
Sanix Ace, The (Obestain Inc. v. National Mineral Development Corp.) [1987]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 465 ..........................................................................................................18.91, 21.46, 21.126, 66.386
Sanko Steamship Co. Ltd v. Kano Trading Ltd [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 156 ....................................................................3.5
Santa Carina, The (Vlassopoulos v. Ney Shipping) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 478 ....................................................2.4, 23.9
Santa Clara, The (Vitol v. Norelf) [1996] A.C. 800 .......................................................................................................21.7
Santa Isabella, The, [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 603 .............................................................................................................48.1
Santamana, The (Upper Egypt Produce Exporters v. “Santamana”) (1923) 14 Ll. L. Rep. 159 .................................14.23
Santiren Shipping Ltd. v. Unimarine S.A. (The Chrysovalandou Dyo) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 159 .................17.1, 17.25,
17.27–17.29, 17.49
Sara D, The [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277 .......................................................................................................................12.40
Sargasso, The (Petredec v. Tokomaru Kaiun) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 162.................................................................66.196
Sargasso, The (Stargas v. Petredec) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412 ..................................................................................21.88
Sargent v. East Asiatic Co. (1915) 21 Com. Cas. 344..................................................................................................12.26
Saronikos, The (Greenmast Shipping v. Jean Lion & Cie.) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277..............................................16.15
Sassoon (E.D.) & Co. v. Western Assurance Co. [1912] A.C. 561 ............................................................................66.289
Saturnia, The (Superfos Chartering v. N.B.R. London) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 43 (C.A.);
aff’g [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 366 .........................................25.2, 25.5–25.8, 25.10, 25.12, 25.14, 25.15, 25.18, 25.22
Satya Kailash, The. See Seven Seas Transportation v. Pacifico Union Marina Corp.—
Saudi Crown, The [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 261 ..............................................................................18.9, 18.39, 18.42–18.44
Saudi Prince (No. 2), The [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 347; [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ............................................21.124, 66.86
Saudi Prince, The [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 255 ................................................................................................................2.46
Savina Caylyn, The (Dolphin Tanker SRL v. Westport Petroleum Inc.) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 550 ............................3.29
Savona, The [1900] P. 252 ................................................................................................................................22.11, 22.22
Savvas, The (Clerco Compania Naviera v. Food Corporation of India) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 22 ............................15.43
Saxon Ship Co. v. Union SS. Co. (1899) 81 L.T. 246; (1899) 4 Com. Cas. 29, 298,
(1900) 83 L.T. 106; (1900) 5 Com. Cas. 381 ............................................................................................16.12, 21.92
Saxon Star, The. See Adamastos Shipping Co. v. Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co.—
Sayers v. Harlow U.D.C. [1958] 1 W.L.R. 623............................................................................................................21.64
Scammell v. Ouston [1941] A.C. 251 ..............................................................................................................................1.7
Scancarriers A/S v. Aotearoa International (The Barandunna) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 419......................................1.5, 1.8
Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co. A.B. v. Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana (The Scaptrade) [1983]
2 A.C. 694; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 425 ................................................................................................................19.40

xcii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Scaplake, The [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 380....................................................................................................2.11, 2.17, 2.21

Scaptrade, The (Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co. A.B. v. Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana)
[1983] 2 A.C. 694; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 425.............................................................................1.10, 21.142, 21.144
Scaramanga v. Stamp (1880) 5 C.P.D. 295 (C.A.) ...................................................................................12.9, 12.13, 12.21
Schenker v. Negocios Europa [2018] 1 W.L.R. 718 ....................................................................................................13.66
Schmaltz v. Avery (1851) 16 Q.B. 655 .................................................................................................................2.18, 2.19
Schmidt v. Royal Mail SS. Co. (1876) 45 L.J.K.B. 646 ...................................................................................20.51, 20.62
Schotsmans v. Lancs. & Yorks. Ry (1867) LR. 2 Ch. App. 332 ................................................................................18.157
Schuler v. Wickman Sales [1974] A.C. 235 ....................................................................................1.98, 1.99, 1.107, 1.134
Schwan, The [1909] A.C. 450 ......................................................................................................................................11.19
Schweppe v. Harper [2008] EWCA Civ 442 .................................................................................................................1.21
Scipion Active v. Vallis Group [2020] EWHC 1451 (Comm) ......................................................... 18.115, 18.124, 21.119
Scott v. Rania [1966] N.Z.L.R. 527 .............................................................................................................................1.119
Scottish & Newcastle International v. Othon Ghalanos [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 462 .............................18.45, 18.78, 66.25
Scrutton v. Childs (1877) 36 L.T. 212..........................................................................................................................14.12
Scruttons v. Midland Silicones [1962] A.C. 446 (H.L.) ..................................................................18.127, 66.471, 66.473
Sea Glory Maritime Co v. Al Sagr National Insurance Co. (The Nancy) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 14 ..........................11.26
Sea Insurance v. Blogg [1898] 2 Q.B. 398 ................................................................................................................13.104
Sea Joy, The (1998) (1) S.A. 487 .................................................................................................................................66.86
Sea Master Shipping Inc v. Arab Bank (Switzerland) Ltd; Yousef Freiha & Sons Sarl (The Sea Master)
[2020] EWHC 2030 (Comm), [2019] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 101 ......................................1.121, 1.123, 1.124, 10.20, 14.54,
15.13, 16.19, 18.51, 18.78, 18.82, 18.97, 18.98, 18.104, 18.105
Sea Powerful II Special Maritime Enterprises v. Bank of China [2016] HKCFI 39 ...................................................18.48
Sea Queen, The (Palm Shipping v. Kuwait Petroleum Corp.)
[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 500 ....................................................................................................1.108, 38.9, 40.3, 40A.11
Sea Success Maritime Inc. v. African Carriers (The Sea Success) [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 692;
[2005] All E.R. (Comm.) 441 ...........................................................................18.24, 18.181, 18.182, 18.236, 66.145
Sea Trade Maritime Corp. v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd
(The Athena (No. 2)) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 280 .................................................................................................18.50
Seabridge v. Antco (The Furness Bridge) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 367 ................................................................7.20, 15.27
Seacrystal Shipping v. Bulk Transport (The Kyzikos) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (H.L.); [1989] A.C.
1264 (H.L.); [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 122 (C.A.); [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 48 ..........................15.62, 15.65, 15.78, 40.3
Seadrill Ghana Operations Ltd v. Tullow Ghana Ltd [2018] EWHC 1640 (Comm) ..................................................1.112
Seadrill Management Services Ltd v. OAO Gazprom [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 543......................................................1.118
Seaflower, The (B.S. & N. v. Micado Shipping) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 341 (C.A.); aff’g
[2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 .............................................................................................................3.4, 3.34, 11.27, 29.3
Seaflower, The [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 (Q.B.); [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 341 (C.A. 2000) .....................................65A.15
Seafood Imports Pty Ltd v. ANL Singapore Ltd (2010) 272 A.L.R. 149 ...........................................66.81, 66.88, 66.113,
66.117, 66.142, 66.345
Seagate Shipping Ltd v. Glencore International A.G. (The Silver Constellation) [2008]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 440 ........................................................................................................................... 3.29, 11.27, 11.40
Sealace Shipping v. Oceanvoice (The Alecos M) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 120.............................................................21.57
SeaLink Marine Services v. Doman Forest Products (2003) 235 F.T.R. 173 ..............................................................21.61
Sealion Shipping Ltd v. Valiant Insurance (The Toisa Pisces) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 108 .........................................21.42
Seals (L.D.) v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (The Darya Tara) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 42 .........................................................6.40
Seatbooker Sales v. Southend United Football Club [2008] EWHC 157 ....................................................................21.21
Seatrade Groeningen v. Geest Industries (The Frost Express) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 375 ...........................2.7, 2.11, 2.12
Seatrade Group NV v. Hakan Agro DMCC (The Aconcagua Bay) [2018] EWHC 654 (Comm),
[2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 381 .........................................................................................................5.70, 5.86, 15.65, 40.3
Secretary of State for Health v. Servier Laboratories [2016] EWHC 2381 (Ch).........................................................21.54
Seeger v. Duthie (1860) 8 C.B.(N.S.) 45 .....................................................................................................................13.23
Seiko Maru, The [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 235 ....................................................................................................13.15, 13.16
Seki Rolette, The. See Grimaldi Compania di Navigazione S.p.A. v. Sekihyo Lines—
Selda, The (Bem Dis A Turk v. International Agri Trade) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 729 ..............................................66.385
Select Commodities v. Valdo (The Florida) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ..................................................................22.1, 22.8
Sellers Fabrics Pty. v. Hapag-Lloyd (The Encounter Express) (1998) NSWSC 646;
[1999] L.M.C.L.Q. 412 ......................................................................................................................................66.423
Sellers Fabrics Pty. v. Hapag-Lloyd [1999] L.M.C.L.Q. 412 ....................................................................................66.106
Sempra Metals v. IRC [2008] A.C. 561 .......................................................................................................................21.36
Senator Line v. Sunway Lines [2002] AMC 1217 .....................................................................................................66.443
Sennar (No. 2), The [1985] 1 W.L.R. 490..................................................................................................................66.191
Serena Navigation, The Cf. v. Dera Commercial Est (The Limnos)
[2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 166 ...............................................................................................21.12, 466.9, 66.402, 66.404
Serraino v. Campbell [1891] 1 Q.B. 283 .....................................................................................................................18.52

xciii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Services Europe Atlantique Sud v. Stockholms Rederiaktiebolaget (The Folias and the Despina R.)
[1979] A.C. 685 .....................................................................................................................................21.130, 66.413
Seven Seas Transportation v. Pacifico Union Marina Corporation (The Satya Kailash and
the Oceanic Amity) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 588; aff’g [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 465 .........................1.113, 52.2, 66.10,
66.13, 66.90, 66.247, 66.268, 66.274
Severn, The (Good v. London SS. Owners’ Mutual Protecting Association) (1871) L.R. 6 C.P. 563 .......................66.273
Sevillaaje v. Marex Financial [2021] A.C. 39 ................................................................................................................21.1
Sevin v. Deslandes (1860) 30 L.J. Ch. 457 ................................................................................................................21.140
Sevonia Team, The [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 640 .............................................................13.35, 13.39, 18.61, 18.63, 18.193
Sevylor Shipping and Trading Corp v. Altfadul Company for Foods, Fruits & Livestock
(The Baltic Strait) [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 33..................................................................................18.2, 18.91, 21.126
Sewell v. Burdick (1884) 10 App. Cas. 74 ......................................................................................................18.45, 18.155
Shackleford, The (Surrey Shipping v. Compagnie Continentale (France)) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 191 affirmed [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 154 ...........................................................................................15.72, 15.73
Shagang Shipping Co Ltd v. HNA Group Co Ltd [2019] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 150 ..............................................................1.91
Shaker v. Vistajet Group Holding S.A. [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 93 .................................................................................1.10
Shamia v. Joory [1958] 1 Q.B. 448 ..............................................................................................................................24.14
Shamil v. Beximco [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1784 .....................................................................................................................1.29
Shamrock SS. Co. v. Storey (1899) 81 L.T. 413 ..............................................................................................................1.8
Shand v. Sanderson (1859) 28 L.J. Ex. 278 ...............................................................................................................18.208
Shaw Savill & Albion Co. v. Electric Reduction Sales (The Mahia) [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 264 .............................66.459
Shaw Savill & Albion v. The Commonwealth (1940) 66 C.L.R. 344 .........................................................................26.20
Shaw Savill v. Powley [1949] N.Z.L.R. 668 .............................................................................................................66.122
Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc. v. Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd (No. 2) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 441 ...............21.12, 66.393
Sheels v. Davies (sub nom. Shields v. Davies), (1814) 4 Camp. 119; (1815) 6 Taunt. 65 ..........................................13.63
Sheffield Corporation v. Barclay [1905] A.C. 392...............................................................................9.13, 18.172, 18.223
Sheikh Tahnoon Bin Saeed v. Kent [2018] EWHC 333 (Comm) .................................................................................1.10
Shelfor v. City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] 1 Ch. 287 ............................................................................21.139
Shell International Petroleum Co. v. Seabridge Shipping (The Metula) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 436, [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 5 (C.A.) ....................................................................13.6–13.8, 13.126, 26.67, 34.2
Shepherd v. De Bernales (1811) 13 East 565...............................................................................................................13.40
Shepherd v. Kottgen (1877) 2 C.P.D. 578 ....................................................................................................................20.11
Shield v. Wilkins (1850) 5 Ex. 304 .......................................................................................................................5.76, 6.12
Shields v. Davies. See Sheels v. Davies—
Shillito, The, (1897) 3 Com. Cas. 44 ............................................................................................................18.199, 18.215
Shindler v. Northern Raincoat [1960] 1 W.L.R. 1038 .................................................................................................21.54
Shinjitsu Maru, The (A.B. Marintrans v. Comet Shipping) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 568;
[1985] 1 W.L.R. 1270 ...........................................................................................................................................21.67
Shipping and Trading Corp v. Altfadul Compan for Foods, Fruits & Livestock (The Baltic Strait)
[2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 33; [2018] EWHC 629 (Comm)...........................................................................21.46, 21.126
Shipping Corporation of India v. Gamlen Chemical (Australasia) (1980) 147 C.L.R. 142 ...........................66.86, 66.113
Shipping Corporation of India v. Naviera Letasa S.A. [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 132 ............................................5.14, 19.24
Shipping Developments Corp. v. V/O Sojuzneftexport (The Delian Spirit)
[1972] 1 Q.B. 103 ...................................................................................5.69, 15.45, 16.13, 16.15, 19.16, 21.26, 40.3
Shipton v. Thornton (1838) 9 A. & E. 114 .....................................................................................................................3.16
Shipway v. Broadwood [1899] 1 Q.B. 367 ....................................................................................................................1.91
Shirlaw v. Southern Foundries [1939] 2 K.B. 206 .......................................................................................................1.122
Shogun Finance v. Hudson [2004] 1 A.C. 919 .........................................................................................................2.2, 2.3
Short v. Simpson (1866) L.R. 1 C.P. 248 ...................................................................................................................18.149
Sibi, The. See Baghlaf Al Zafer Factory Co. v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp—
Siboen, The, and the Sibotre (Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp. v. Skibs A/S Avanti)
[1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 293 ......................................................................................................................................1.88
Sibohelle, The. See TTMI Sarl v. Statoil ASA—
Siboti K/S v. BP France SA (The Siboti) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 364 ...............................................................18.49, 18.51
Siboti v. BP France (The Siboti) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 364 ..........................................................................66.27, 66.191
Siboti, The. See Siboti K/S v. BP France—
Sideridraulic Systems SpA v. BBC Chartering & Logistic GmbH & Co. KG (The BBC Greenland)
[2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 230 ................................................................................................................6.38, 66.74, 66.76
Sidermar S.p.A. v. Apollo Navigation (The Apollo) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 200 .............................................5.67, 66.204
Sidmar v. Fednav International [1998] L.M.C.L.Q. 273 ...........................................................................................66.227
Silva Plana, The [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 371 ..................................................................................................................17.8
Silver Constellation, The (Seagate Shipping v. Glencore International A.G.) [2008]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 440 ...............................................................................................................................................11.27
Silver Dry Bulk Co. Ltd v. Homer Hulbert Co. Ltd. [2017] Lloyd’s Rep. 154 .............................................................1.91

xciv
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Silver Sky, The [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 95.........................................................................................................22.30, 22.32

Silver v. Ocean Steamship Co. (The Aeneas) [1930] 1 K.B. 416 (C.A.) ......................18.12, 18.16, 18.18, 18.19, 18.181,
66.336–66.338, 66.339
Silverburn Shipping v. Ark Shipping (The Arctic) [2019] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 603 .............................................3.4, 3.26, 29.3
Simona, The (Fercometal SARL v. Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A.) [1989] A.C. 788 ....................19.29, 19.30, 19.32,
21.14, 21.16, 24.19, 21.54
Simonds v. White (1824) 2 B. & C. 805 ........................................................................................................................20.2
Sinason-Teicher Inter American Grain Corporation v. Oilcakes & Oilseeds Trading Co. Ltd.
[1954] 1 W.L.R. 935 .............................................................................................................................................21.17
Sindall (Wm.) v. Cambridgeshire C.C. [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1016 (C.A.) ...........................................................................1.84
Sine Nomine, The (AB Corp. v. CD Corp.) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 805....................................................................21.146
Singapore, The Dolphina [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 304 ................................................................................................66.190
Singularis Holdings v. Daiwa Capital Markets Europe [202] A.C. 1189, [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 47 ...................1.52, 2.45
Sinochem v. Mobil Sales & Supply [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 339 ..................................................................................1.108
Sinoe, The. See Overseas Transportation Co. v. Mineralimportexport—
Siu Yin Kwan v. Eastern Insurance [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 616 (P.C.) ..........................................................................2.14
Sivand, The [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 97 ...................................................................................................21.38, 21.50, 21.57
SK Shipping Europe plc v. Capital VLCC Corporation and Another (The C Challenger)
[2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 ......................................................................................................................................1.79
Skarp, The [1935] P. 134; (1935) 52 Ll. L. Rep. 152 ..................................................18.16, 18.17, 18.34, 18.181, 66.142
Skidmore v. Dartford & Gravesend NHS Trust [2003] I.C.R. 721 ..............................................................................1.120
Skips A/S Nordheim v. Syrian Petroleum (The Varenna) [1984] 1 Q.B. 599 ..............................................................18.49
Skopas, The (Resolute Maritime v. Nippon Kaiji Kyokai) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 431 ................................................1.85
Slater v. Hoyle & Smith [1920] 2 K.B. 11 ....................................................................................................21.100, 21.124
Slattery v. Mance [1962] 1 Q.B. 676 .........................................................................................................................66.284
Smailes v. Hans Dessen (1906) 12 Com. Cas. 117 ............................................................................... 15.13, 16.8, 16.10A
Smaro, The (Charles M. Willie v. Ocean Laser) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 225.............................................................66.196
Smidt v. Tiden (1874) L.R. 9 Q.B. 446 ....................................................................................................1.70, 13.33, 18.63
Smith (Henry) & Co. v. Bedouin Steam Navigation Co. [1896] A.C. 70 ..................................................................66.148
Smith & Service v. The Rosario Nitrate Co. (The Mount Tabor) [1894] 1 Q.B. 174;
aff’g [1893] 2 Q.B. 323 ................................................................................................................7.12, 66.311, 66.325
Smith New Court Securities v. Scrimgeour Vickers [1997] A.C. 254 .....................................................1.82, 21.7, 66.448
Smith New Court v. Citibank. See Smith New Court Securities v. Scrimgeour Vickers—
Smith v. Bedouin Steam Navigation Co. [1896] A.C. 70 ............................................................................................18.25
Smith v. Dart & Son (1884) 14 Q.B.D. 105 ...................................................................................................................19.2
Smith v. Henniker-Major [2003] Ch. 182 ......................................................................................................................2.33
Smith v. M’Guire (1858) 3 H. & N. 554 .............................................................................................................2.29, 21.97
Smith v. Pyman [1891] 1 Q.B. 742; rev’g [1891] 1 Q.B. 42 ............................................................................13.91, 13.95
Smith v. South Wales Switchgear [1978] 1 W.L.R. 165 ..............................................................................................1.113
Smith v. Tregarthen (1887) 56 L.J.Q.B. 437 ..............................................................................................................21.112
Smith, Hogg & Co. v. Black Sea & Baltic General Insurance Co. (The Lilburn)
[1940] A.C. 997 (H.L.) ......................................................................................................11.31, 22.3, 66.258, 66.287
Smith, Hogg v. Bamberger [1929] 1 K.B. 150 (C.A.) ...........................................................................14.12, 14.18, 14.61
Smurthwaite v. Wilkins (1862) 11 C.B.(N.S.) 842 ....................................................................................................18.105
“Snia” v. Suzuki (1924) 18 Ll. L. Rep. 333; (1923) 17 Ll. L. Rep. 78 ...............................................................21.34, 33.2
Snook v. London and West Riding Investments [1967] Q.B. 786 .................................................................................2.43
Soames v. British Empire Shipping Co. (1860) 8 H.L. Cas. 338...................................................................................60.2
Soblomsten, The (1886) L.R. 1 A. & E. 293.....................................................................................................13.25, 13.26
Socap v. Marc Rich [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 175 .........................................................................................................66.476
Sociedad Carga Oceanica v. Idolinoele Vertriebs G.m.b.H. (The Angelos Lusis)
[1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 28 .............................................................................................................................1.109, 40.2
Sociedad Financiera de Bienes Raices v. Agrimpex (The Aello) [1961] A.C. 135 (H.L.);
aff’g [1958] 2 Q.B. 385 (C.A.) ..........................................................................................6.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 15.43
Sociedad Portuguesa de Navios Tanques v. Polaris [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 71.....................................................1.15, 1.16
Societa Anonima Ungherese v. Tyset Line (1902) 8 Com. Cas. 25 ...............................................................................3.21
Société Anonyme des Minerais v. Grant Trading Inc. (The Ert Stefanie) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349 ........................11.55
Société Anonyme Marocaine de l’Industrie du Raffinage v. Notos Maritime Corp. (The Notos)
[1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 503 .............................................................................................................................38.4, 39.6
Société Belge des Betons v. London & Lancashire Insurance Co. Ltd [1938] 2 All E.R. 305 ....................................26.10
Société Co-Opérative Suisse des Céréales et Matières Fourragères v. La Plata Cereal Co. S.A.
(1947) 80 Ll. L. Rep. 530 .....................................................................................................................................22.24
Societe de Distribution des Toutes Marchandises en Cote d’Ivoire v. Continental Lines NV
(The Sea Miror) [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 395 .......................................14.2, 14.36, 14.52, 14.54, 14.55, 66.86, 66.112
Société Franco-Tunisienne v. Sidermar (The Massalia) [1961] 2 Q.B. 278 .....................................................22.27, 22.29

xcv
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Société Générale (London Branch) v. Geys [2012] U.K.S.C. 63 ................................................................................21.17

Société Maritime v. African & Eastern Trade Co. (1925) 22 Ll. L. Rep. 94 .................................................................6.11
Société Minière du Tonkin v. Sutherland & Co. (unreported, 27 April 1917) ...............................................................3.22
Société Navale de l’Ouest v. Sutherland (1920) 4 Ll. L. Rep. 58 .........................................................................3.11, 3.13
Société Nouvelle d’Armement v. Spillers & Bakers [1917] K.B. 865 ........................................................................20.21
Socimer International Bank Ltd v. Standard Bank London Ltd [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 558 ...............................1.120, 27.7
Socol 3, The. See Onego Shipping & Chartering BV v. JSC Arcadia Shipping—
Sodzawiczny v. Ruhan [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 280 at paras 67ff. ..............................................................................18.138
Sofial v. Ove Skou Rederi (The Helle Skou) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 205 ..............................................15.20, 15.49, 15.50
Solholt, The [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 574, [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 605 .................................................................1.17, 21.52
Solle v. Butcher [1950] 1 K.B. 671 ................................................................................................................................1.72
Solon, The. See Cero Navigation Corp. v. Jean Lion—
Somes v. British Empire Shipping Co. (1860) 8 H.L. Cas. 338 .......................................................................17.37, 17.38
Sonatrach Group Ltd v. Pemuda SpA (The Four Island) [2019] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 643 ....................................................63.1
Songa Winds, The. See Navig8 Chemical Pool Ltd v. Glencore Agriculture BV—
Sonia, The. See Trafigura Beheer BV v. Golden Stavraetos Maritime—
Sonicare v. E.A.F.T. [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 48 ..........................................................................................................18.128
Sophie J., The (Linea Naviera Paramaconi v. Abnormal Load Engineering)
[2001] All E.R. (D.) 306 ...........................................................................................................66.101, 66.178, 66.180
Soproma v. Marine & Animal By-Products Assn. [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 367 ..........................................................18.143
Sormovskiy 3068, The. See S.A. Sucre Export v. Northern River Shipping—
Sotrade Denizcilik v. Amadou Lo (The Duden) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 145 ....................................................18.60, 18.67
Soufflet Negoce v. Bunge S.A. [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 531 ..............................................................................19.11, 19.12
Soufflet Negoce v. Fedcominvest Europe [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 537.........................................................................1.107
South African Dispatch Line v. Owners of SS. Niki (The Niki) [1960] 1 Q.B. 518;
aff’g by the Court of Appeal [1959] 1 Q.B. 238 ....................................................................................................7.17
South Australia Asset Management Corp. v. York Montague [1997] A.C. 191...........................................................21.52
South Caribbean Trading v. Trafigura Beheer BV [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 128 ..............................................................21.7
Southampton Container Terminals v. Hansa Sch. (The Maersk Colombo) [1999]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 491 ....................................................................................................................................21.57, 21.58
Soya G.m.b.H. v. White [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 122 ..................................................................................................66.334
Soya, The [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 557, aff’g [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 376 ......................................................21.103, 21.104
Spaight v. Farnsworth (1880) 5 Q.B.D. 115 ..................................................................................................................13.4
Spain (Government of the Republic of) v. North of England SS. Co. (The Hartbridge)
(1938) 61 Ll. L. Rep. 44 .................................................................................................26.6, 26.8, 26.30, 26.44, 27.7
Spalmatori, The (Union of India v. Compania Naviera Aeolus) [1964] A.C. 868;
[1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 175 ....................................................................................................................................15.26
Spar Shipping v. Grand China Logistics [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 447 ....................................................1.129, 1.134, 21.92
Spectra International v. Hayesoak [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 162; aff’g [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 153,
reversed on another point [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 162 ........................................................................................18.118
Spectra International v. Tiscali [2002] All E.R. (D) 209 .................................................................................................1.4
Spence v. Chadwick (1847) 10 Q.B. 517 ...................................................................................................................66.305
Spence v. Union Marine Insurance (1868) L.R. 3 C.P. 427 .........................................................................................10.13
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v. Cansulex Ltd. [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ................................................................66.440
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v. Louis Dreyfus [1983] Com. L.R. 268 ....................................................................21.21
Spinney’s (1948) Ltd v. Royal Insurance Co. [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 406 ..............................................26.8, 26.20, 26.23,
26.25, 66.303, 66.331
Spirit Energy Resources Ltd v. Marathon Oil (UK) Plc [2019] EWCA Civ 1371 ......................................................1.120
Spiros C., The (Tradigrain v. King Diamond Shipping) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 319 (C.A.);
rev’g [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 91 ..........................................................................................................................18.193
Springbank and Oriental SS. Co. v. Tylor [1893] 2 Q.B. 518..................................................2.42, 13.25, 13.106, 18.207,
18.237, 26.66, 34.3
Springbank, The (Aktieselskabet Olivebank v. Dansk Svovlsyre Fabrik) [1919]
2 K.B. 162 (C.A.) ......................................................................................................................5.14, 5.24, 5.37, 13.25
Stafford Allen & Sons v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co. [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 104;
[1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 495 ......................................................................................................................................6.50
Stafford Allen v. Pacific S.N. Co. [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 104 (Sellers J.), 495 (C.A.) ..................................................53.2
Stag Line Ltd. v. Board of Trade (1950) 83 Ll. L. Rep. 356; (1950) 83 Ll. L. Rep. 356;
(1950) 84 Ll. L. Rep. 1 .........................................................................................................................................15.34
Stag Line Ltd. v. Foscolo, Mango & Co [1932] A.C. 328 ..........................................................................................12A.9
Stag Line Ltd. v. Foscolo, Mango & Co. [1932] A.C. 328; (1931) 41 Ll. L. Rep. 165 ........................12.15, 12.27, 12.32,
66.6, 66.9, 66.175, 66.206, 66.261, 66.329, 66.358, 66.360
Stainless Emperor, The (Huyton v. Inter Operators) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 298 ........................................................15.60

xcvi
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Standard Ardour, The (Interbulk v. Ponte dei Sospiri Shipping Co.) [1988]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 159 ..........................................................................................................66.16, 66.13, 66.179, 66.195
Standard Chartered Bank v. Dorchester LNG (2) Limited (The Erin Schulte) [2016] Q.B. 1 [2015]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 97; [2013] EWHC 808 (Comm), (2013) L.M.C.L.Q. 275 on the first instance
judgment [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 338...................................10.3, 18.83, 18.85, 18.91, 18.97, 18.149, 18.150, 18.164
Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp. (No. 2) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 684;
[2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 511 (C.A.); [2001] Q.B. 167; [2003] 1 A.C. 959; [2003] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 227; (2003) 1 A.C. 159 .............................................................1.79, 1.83, 2.39, 18.41, 18.176, 18.181, 18.207,
21.62, 21.69, 21.71, 66.145, 66.462
Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (No. 3)
[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 747; [2001] All E.R. (Comm) 822 ...................................21.41, 21.42, 21.53, 18.171, 66.389
Standard Oil Company of New York v. Clan Line Steamers Ltd. (The Clan Gordon)
[1924] A.C. 100 (H.L.) .............................................................................................................................. 11.35, 11.63
Stanley Yeung Kai Yung v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp. [1981] A.C. 787...........................................18.223
Stanstead Shipping Co. v. Shenzen Nantian Oil Mills [2000] All E.R.(D) 1175..............................................18.48, 18.59
Stanton v. Richardson (1872) L.R. 7 C.P. 421, 430, affirmed (1874) L.R. 9 C.P. 390 (Ex. Ch.),
affirmed (1875) 3 Asp. M.L.C. 23 (H.L.); 33 L.T. 193 (H.L.); (1875) 3 Asp. M.L.C. 23;
45 L.J.Q.B. 651 .............................................................................................................. 6.43, 6.44, 6.61, 11.20, 11.21
Star Polaris LLC v. HHIC [2016] EWHC 2941 (Comm) ............................................................................................21.40
Star Reefers Pool Inc v. JFC Group Ltd [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 215 ...........................................................1.27, 1.30, 1.36
Star Sea, The (Manifest Shipping v. Uni-Polaris Ins. Co.) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 360 (C.A.);
[2001] 2 W.L.R. 170 (H.L.) ................................................................................................. 1.106, 11.29, 11.35, 66.95
Star Shipping v. C.N.F.T.C. (The Star Texas) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445 ............................................................1.31, 1.36
Star Steamship Society v. Beogradska Plovidba (The Junior K.) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 583 .............................1.17, 1.19
Star Texas, The (Star Shipping v. C.N.F.T.C.) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445 ...........................................................1.31, 1.36
Stargas v. Petredec (The Sargasso) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412 ..................................................21.79–21.81, 21.82, 21.83
Starlight Shipping v. Allianz Marine and Aviation Vers. (The Alexandros T) [2012]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 162; [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 223; [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 579....................2.38, 18.138, 21.89, 66.187
Starsin, The. See Homburg Houtimport v. Agrosin—
State Trading Corp. of India v. Pilgrim Shipping (The Hadjitsakos) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 356, 366 .........................5.18
State Trading Corporation of India v. M. Golodetz [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277 ..........................................................21.14
Statoil v. Louis Dreyfus Energy Services (The Hariette N.) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 685 ..........................1.67, 1.72, 16.21
Steamship Carisbrook v. London & Provincial Marine Insurance [1901] 2 K.B. 861 ................................................20.33
Steamship Lord (Owners) v. Newsum Son & Co. [1920] 1 K.B. 846 .......................................................................66.270
Steaua Romana v. A/S Oljefart II (1934) 50 Ll. L. Rep. 21...........................................................................................49.8
Stebbing v. Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Co. [1917] 2 K.B. 433..........................................................63.1
Steel v. State Line Steamship Co. (1877) 3 App. Cas. 72, 88 .............................................................. 11.28, 11.31, 66.285
Steendiek, The (Johs. Thode v. Vda. de Gimeno y Compania S.L.) [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 .......................5.14, 19.23
Stein v. Blake [1996] 1 A.C. 243 ...............................................................................................................................66.414
Steller Shipping Co v. Hudson Shipping Lines [2010] EWHC 2985 (Comm) ...........................................................18.50
Stena Pacifica, The (Navigazione Alta Italia v. Concordia Maritime Chartering)
[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 234 ......................................................................................................................................66.7
Stephens v. Harris (1887) 57 L.J.Q.B. 203; (1887) 57 L.T. 618; (1887) 56 L.J.Q.B. 516 ......................7.12, 7.13, 66.324
Stephens v. Wintringham (1898) 3 Com. Cas. 169 ......................................................................................................14.12
Sterns v. Salterns (1922) 12 Ll. L. Rep. 385 ..............................................................................................................21.115
Stettin, The (1889) 14 P.D. 142.....................................................................................................................18.162, 18.163
Steven v. Bromley [1919] 2 K.B. 722 (C.A.) .................................................................1.6, 6.17, 6.41, 6.64, 13.30, 21.94
Stinnes Interoil G.m.b.H. v. Halcoussis & Co. (The Yanxilas) (No. 1) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445 ....................2.4, 21.28,
21.31, 21.121, 42.3
Stocznia Gdanska (Gdynia) S.A.v. Gearbulk Holdings [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 461;
[2010] Q.B. 27 ................................................................................................................................ 1.112. 1.118, 1.139
Stocznia Gdanska v. Latvian Shipping Co. [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132; [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 609 ..........................21.55
Stocznia Gdanska v. Latvian Shipping Co. [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 436 ....................................................1.79, 2.45, 21.16
Stocznia Gdynia v. Gearbulk [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 461 ..............................................................................................21.7
Stolt Kestrel, The and The Niyazi [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 125 ........................................................66.171, 66.187, 66.253
Stolt Loyalty, The [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 281 ...........................................................................................................66.192
Stolt Spur, The. See Stolt Tankers Inc. v. Landmark Chemicals S.A.—
Stolt Sydness, The (Mauritius Oil Refineries v. Stolt-Nielsen) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 273 ...........................66.47, 66.260
Stolt Tankers Inc. v. Landmark Chemicals S.A. (The Stolt Spur) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 786 ........................15.72, 15.73,
16.5, 16.6, 38.26, 39.2
Stone & Rolls (in liquidation) v. Moore Stephens [2009] A.C.1391 ..................................................................1.53, 11.55
Stone Gemini, The [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 255 ..........................................................................................................18.173
Storer v. Manchester C.C. [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1403 ..........................................................................................................1.12

xcvii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Stork, The (Compania Naviera Maropan v. Bowaters Lloyd Pulp and Paper Mills)
[1955] 2 Q.B. 68 ......................................................................................... 5.2, 5.33, 5.41, 5.98, 5.113, 5.114, 21.136
Stornoway, The (1882) 51 L.J. Adm. 27 ......................................................................................................................18.47
Stott v. Marten [1916] 1 A.C. 304 ..............................................................................................................................66.286
Straker v. Kidd (1878) 3 Q.B.D. 223 ................................................................................................................17.22, 17.35
Strang v. Scott (1889) 14 App. Cas. 601 .............................................................................................................6.39, 20.38
Stranna, The [1938] P. 69 (C.A.)................................................................................................................................66.290
Strathlorne v. Baird 1916 S.C. (H.L.) 134 .....................................................................................................................14.5
Strathlorne v. Weir (1934) 50 Ll. L. Rep. 185 (C.A.); aff’g (1934) 49 Ll. L. Rep. 306 ............................................18.240
Stroms Bruks Akt. v. Hutchinson [1905] A.C. 515 ....................................................................................... 21.110, 21.116
Strong v. Hart (1827) 6 B. &. C. 160 ...........................................................................................................................13.60
Stuart v. British & African Navigation Co. (1875) L.T. 257..............................................................12.21, 66.332, 66.358
Stuart v. Haigh (1893) 9 T.L.R. 488 (H.L.)....................................................................................................................2.35
Studebaker Distributors v. Charlton Steam Shipping Co. [1938] 1 K.B. 459 ................................66.223, 66.234, 66.236,
66.378, 66.86, 66.112
Subiaco (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. Baker Hughes Singapore [2010] S.G.H.C. 265 ..........................................66.86, 66.112
Subro Valour, The [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 509 ................................................................................................66.95, 66.397
Success Maritime Inc. v. African Carriers [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 692 ........................................................................18.23
Sucden Middle-East v. Yagci Denizcilik Ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi (The Muammer Yagci)
[2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 107 ....................................................................................................................................15.24
Sud Americana de Vapores v. Hin Pro [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301 ...............................................18.85, 18.91, 21.5, 21.43
Sudbrook Trading Estate v. Eggleton [1983] 1 A.C. 444 (H.L.)....................................................................................1.10
Suek A.G. v. Glencore International AG [1911] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 278 ...............................................................15.62, 15.78
Suisse Atlantique Société d’Armement Maritime v. N.V. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale
[1967] 1 A.C. 361 (H.L.), [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 533 (C.A.), [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 166 ..........................1.2, 12.38,
12.39, 16.13, 16.14A
Sul Americana Cia Nacional de Seguros v. Enesa Englasia [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 671 ...............................................2.23
Sulamerica S.A. v. Enesaa Engelharia S.A. [2013] 1 W.L.R. 102 .................................................................................1.27
Sumanu Natural Resources Ltd v. Mediterranean Shipping So. SA
[2016] EWCA Civ 34 .............................................................................................18.5, 18.81, 18.82, 18.143, 66.200
Sun Happiness, The (Et. Biret v. Yukiteru Kaiun K.K.) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 381 ............................................2.11, 2.12
Sun Life of Canada v. Lincoln National [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 606 ...........................................................................21.82
Sun Shipping v. Watson & Youell Ship- ping Agency (1926) 42 T.L.R. 240 ..............................................................19.16
Sunbeam Shipping Co. v. President of India (The Atlantic Sunbeam)
[1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 482 .......................................................................................................1.124, 5.14, 15.5, 15.47
Sunlight Mercantile Pte. Ltd v. Ever Lucky Shipping Co. Ltd [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 174
(C.A. of Singapore) ......................................................................................... 1.113, 6.35, 11.10, 11.17, 11.31, 14.43
Sunrise Maritime Inc. v. Uvisco (The Hector) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 287 .................................18.9, 18.42, 18.66, 18.71,
18.72, 18.74, 18.75, 18.182
Super Servant Two, The (J. Lauritzen v. Wijsmuller) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1;
aff’g [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 148 ...........................................................................................................................22.17
Superfos Chartering v. N.B.R. London (The Saturnia) [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 366 aff’d
[1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 43 ....................................................25.2, 25.5–25.8, 25.10, 25.12, 25.14, 25.15, 25.18, 25.22
Superhulls Cover case. See Youell v. Bland Welch—
Superior Pescadores, The [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 561; [2017] I.M.C.L.Y. § 179 ......................................................66.238
Supershield v. Siemens Building Technologies [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349 ....................21.30, 21.41, 21.78, 21.83, 21.85
Surrey Shipping v. Compagnie Continentale (France) (The Shackleford) [1978]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 191,aff’d [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 154 ...........................................................................................15.49
Susan (The) v. Luckenbach [1951] P. 197 .....................................................................................................................54.5
Sussex Oak, The See G.W. Grace v. General Steam Navigation Co.—
Sutton Shipping Co. v. Graham’s Trading Co. (1927) 29 Ll. L. Rep. 12 ......................................................................23.5
Suwalki, The. See Polish Steamship Co. v. Williams Fuels—
Suzuki & Co. v. J. Beynon & Co. (1926) 42 T.L.R. 269 (H.L.) ................................................................................66.271
Svendsen v. Wallace (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 69, (1885) 10 App. Cas. 404 ...........................................................................20.9
Svenska Lloyd v. Niagassas (1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 500 .....................................................................................................1.7
Svenska Traktor Akt. v. Maritime Agencies (Southampton) [1953] 2 Q.B. 295 ...............................66.72, 66.232, 66.243
Svenssons Travaruaktiebolag v. Cliffe Steamship Co. [1932] 1 K.B. 490 .........................................................11.83, 15.6
Svenssons v. Cliffe [1932] 1 K.B. 490.......................................................................................... 6.35, 11.49, 11.50, 14.22
Swainland Builders Ltd v. Freehold Properties Ltd [2002] E.G.L.R. 71 .......................................................................1.74
Swan, The [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 5 .................................................................................................................2.2, 2.9, 2.16
Swiss Bank Corporation v. Novorossiysk Shipping Co. (The Petr Shmidt) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 202 ......................32.2
Swiss Bank Corporation. v. Brink’s-Mat [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 99 ..........................................................................66.387
Swiss Bank v. Lloyds Bank [1979] Ch. 548 ..............................................................................................................21.141
Swissmarine Services SA v. Gupta Coal India Pts Ltd [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 456..........................................21.12, 21.90

xcviii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Swynson v. Lowick Rose LLP [2018] A.C. 313 .......................................................................21.47, 21.46, 21.50, 21.126
Syeds v. Hay (1791) 4 Term Rep 260 ........................................................................................................................18.171
Sylvia Shipping v. Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd (The Sylvia) [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 555 (C.A.);
[2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 (H.L.) ................................................................................................................21.30, 21.97
Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd. v. Rambler Cycle Co. Ltd. [1959] A.C. 576 (P.C.) ......................18.162, 18.163, 18.168, 18.169
T v. A and V [2018] HKCFI 1756 ..............................................................................................................................18.104
T Comedy (UK) Ltd v. Easy Managed Transport Ltd [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 397 ......................................................17.37
T.A. Shipping v. Comet Shipping (The Agamemnon) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 675...........................................15.31, 15.41
T & N v. Royal and Sun Alliance (No. 2) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 106 ...........................................................................1.75
T.F.L. Prosperity, The (Tor Line A.B. v. Alltrans Group of Canada Ltd.) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 123;
[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 617 ............................................................................................................ 11.69, 11.78, 21.118
TCN Channel 9 Pty v. Hayden Enterprises (1989) 16 N.S.W.L.R. 130 ........................................................................21.9
TMI Sarl v. Statoil ASA (The Sibohelle) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 220 .......................................................................1.3, 2.3
Tabb & Burletson v. Briton Ferry Works (1921) 6 Ll. L. Rep. 181 ...............................................................................25.4
Taberna Europe CDO II plc v. Selskabet AFI [2017] 2 W.L.R. 803; [2017] Q.B. 633 ..............................1.79, 1.82, 1.83,
1.85, 1.112
Tafaka, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 536 ................................................................................................................9.5, 33.10
Tagart Beaton v. Fisher [1903] 1 K.B. 391 (C.A.) .......................................................................................................23.11
Tage Berglund v. Montoro Shipping Corporation (The Dagmar) [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 563 ....................5.83, 5.84, 5.97
Tahar Benourad v. Compass Group plc [2010] EWHC 1882 ........................................................................................1.16
Tai Prixe, The [2021] EWCA Civ 87 para. 72 ...........................................................................................................18.231
Tai Prize, The. See Noble Chartering Inc v. Priminds Shipping Hong Kong Ltd—
Talbot Underwriting v. Nausch, Hogan & Murray (The Jascon 5) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.195 .....................................2.14
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. ST-CMS Electric Co. [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 93 ........................................................1.58
Tamvaco v. Simpson (1866) L.R. 1 C.P. 363 ....................................................................................................13.90, 17.28
Tandrin Aviation Holdings v. Aero Toy Store [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 668,
[2010] EWHC 40 (Comm) ......................................................................................................................15.24, 21.132
Tankreederei GMBH & Co KG v. Marubeni Corporation (The Amalie Essberger)
[2020] Lloyd’s Rep. 393 .......................................................................................................................................16.21
Taokas Navigation S.A. v. Komrowski Bulk Shipping KG (GmbH & Co)
(The Paiwan Wisdom) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 416 ....................................................................................26.34, 26.35
Tapley v. Martins (1800) 8 T.R. 451 ............................................................................................................................13.60
Taqa Bratani Limited v. Rockrose [2020] EWHC 58 (Comm)...........................................................................1.21, 1.121
Targe Towing v. Marine Blast [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 721...........................................................................2.23–2.25, 2.33
Target, The (BP Oil International Ltd v. Target Shipping Ltd) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 245 ............................1.3, 1.6, 2.28,
2.31, 13.17, 13.18
Tarrabochia v. Hickie (1856) 1 H. & N. 183....................................................................................................................4.4
Tasman Discoverer, The (Dairy Containers v. Tasman Orient Line) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 528
(N.Z.C.A.); [2003] 3 N.Z.L.R. 353; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 647 ........................................1.112, 66.2, 66.86, 66.223,
66.226, 66.238, 66.371
Tasman Discoverer, The. See also Dairy Containers Ltd. v. Tasman Orient Line—
Tasman Orient Line v. New Zealand China Clays (The Tasman Pioneer) [2010]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 12; (2010) L.M.C.L.Q. 571........................................................66.9, 66.291, 66.269, 66.280, 66.423
Tasman Pioneer, The. See Tasman Orient Line v. New Zealand China Clays—
Tassos N, The (Ricargo Trading v. Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 648 ............................15.72
Tatem v. Gamboa [1939] 1 K.B. 132 .............................................................................................................................22.9
Tatra, The (Arctic Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Mobilia A.B. and Others) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 51 ......................................2.31
Tatry, The (Owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship Tatry v. The owners of the ship
Maciej Rataj) [1994] E.C.R. I–5439 ....................................................................................................................66.27
Tatton v. Ferrymasters [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 203 ..........................................................................66.386, 66.395, 66.426
Taylor v. Briggs (1827) M. & M. 28 ............................................................................................................................13.60
Taylor v. Dunbar (1869) L.R. 4 C.P. 206 ...................................................................................................................66.297
Taylor Woodrow v. RMD Kwikform [2009] Bus. L.R. 292 ......................................................................................66.196
Taylor’s Fashions v. Liverpool Victoria Trustees [1982] Q.B. 133 ...........................................................................18.171
Teekay Tankers v. STX Offshore and Shipbuilding [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 387 ....................................................1.5, 1.10
Teheran-Europe Co Ltd v. S T Belton (Tractors) Ltd [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 ....................................................2.1, 2.13
Tekdata v. Amphenol [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357 and GHSP v. AB Electronic [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 432....................1.3
Tele2 International Card Co. v. Post Office Ltd (Kub 2 Technology) [2009] EWCA Civ 9 ................................21.7, 21.9
Telfair Shipping Corp. v. Inersea Carriers S.A. (The Caroline P.) [1985] 1 W.L.R. 553;
[1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 466 ..................................................................................................................................66.212
Temple Legal Protection v. QBE Insurance (Europe) [2008] Lloyd’s Rep. IR 643 ....................................................1.108
Temple v. Sovfracht (1945) 79 Ll. L. Rep. 1 ...............................................................................................................26.53
Tennant Radiant Heat v. Warrington Development Corporation [1988]
1 E.G.L.R. 41(C.A.) ..........................................................................................................21.42, 21.64, 21.69, 66.462

xcix
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Tenos, The (1968) W.N. 395 ......................................................................................................................................66.275

Terkol Rederierne v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (The Badagry) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 395 ..........................................22.14
Tesco v. Natrass [1972] A.C. 153.................................................................................................................................11.56
Teutonia, The (Duncan v. Koster) (1871–2) L.R. 4 P.C. 171 ........................................5.51, 5.55, 5.65, 5.67, 5.103, 12.12
Texaco Melbourne, The (Attorney-General of the Republic of Ghana v. Texaco Overseas Tankships)
[1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473 (H.L.); [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 471 (C.A.); [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 303..................21.116,
21.119, 21.130, 66.386, 66.389, 66.391, 66.392, 66.394, 66.400, 66.413
Thai Airways International v. KI Holdings [2015] EWHC(Comm) 1457 ...................................................................21.53
Thai Maparn Trading Co. v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 704 .........................................4.20
Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co. v. Hamilton Fraser & Co. (The Inchmaree)
(1887) 12 App. Cas. 484 ........................................................................................................................66.281, 66.286
Thames Iron Works v. Patent Derrick Co. (1860) 2 L.T. 208 ......................................................................................17.28
Thanassis A., The (Olbena S.A. v. Psara Maritime Inc.) (1982) L.M.L.N. 68; cf. E.D. & F .............................38.16, 39.8
Tharsis Sulphur v. Morel [1891] 2 Q.B. 647 ...............................................................................................................15.34
Theodegmon, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 5 .................................................................................................................66.95
Theraios, The (Lodza Compania de Navigacione S.A. v. Government of Ceylon) [1971]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 209 ...............................................................................................................................................15.12
Thermo Engineers v. Ferrymasters [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1470 ........................................................................................66.410
Thiess Brothers (Queensland) Pty. v. Australian Steamships Pty. [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 459 ..................................66.359
Thiess v. Australian Steamships [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 459 .................................................................12.20, 12.26, 12.39
Thin v. Liverpool (1901) 18 T.L.R. 226.......................................................................................................................18.33
Thin v. Richards [1892] 2 Q.B. 141 .............................................................................................................................11.51
Thode (Johs.) v. Vda. de Gimeno y Compania S.L. (The Steendiek) [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 .....................5.14, 19.23
Thomas v. Clarke (1818) 2 Stark. 450 ..............................................................................................................21.19, 21.20
Thomas v. Harrowing Steamship Co. [1913] 2 K.B. 171, [1915] A.C. 58 (H.L.) ............................................13.19, 13.24
Thomas v. Portsea Steamship Co. [1912] A.C. 1 ...................................................................................18.50, 18.51, 66.10
Thomas Witter Ltd v. TBP Industries [1996] 2 All E.R. 573 ................................................................................1.81, 1.84
Thomaseverett, The (1992) S.G.H.C. 216 (Singapore) .............................................................................................66.370
Thompson (W.T.) v. Robinson (Gunmakers) [1955] Ch. 177 ....................................................................................66.393
Thompson v. Brocklebank [1918] 1 K.B. 655 ...............................................................................................................3.20
Thompson v. Gillespy (1855) 5 E. & B. 209 ..................................................................................................13.99, 13.104
Thomson v. Louis Dreyfus (1936) 56 Ll. L. Rep. 44....................................................................................18.218, 18.225
Thor Commander” [2018] FCA 1326 ........................................................................................................................66.483
Thorburn v. Barnes (1867) L.R. 2 C.P. 384 ...................................................................................................................63.1
Thoresen & Co. v. Fathom Marine [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 622 .....................................................................................1.18
Thorley v. Orchis [1907] 1 K.B. 660 ................................................................................................................12.30, 12.38
Thorman v. Dowgate [1910] 1 K.B. 410 .....................................................................................................................1.110
Thornett & Fehr, Re [1921] 1 K.B. 219 .......................................................................................................................21.19
Thorsa, The [1916] P. 257 ............................................................................................................................................11.32
Thrige v. United Shipping (1924) 18 Ll. L. Rep. 6 ....................................................................................................18.163
Thrunscoe, The [1897] P. 301 ....................................................................................................................................66.263
Thyssen v. Calypso Shipping Corp. [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243...................................................................66.187, 66.190
Tibermede v. Graham (1921) 7 Ll. L. Rep. 250.........................................................................................................21.115
Tidebrook Maritime Corp. v. Vitol (The Front Commander) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 251 ........................9.5, 15.32, 15.56,
37.2, 38.1, 38.2
Tiger, The (P. & O. Nedlloyd v. Arab Metals Co.) (No. 2) Com Ct., 5 October 2006...............................................21.143
Tigress, The (1863) 32 L.J.P.M. & A. 97 ...................................................................................................................18.159
Tillmanns v. Knutsford. See Knutsford v. Tillmanns—
Tilly Russ v. Haven [1984] E.C.R. I–2417; [1985] Q.B. 931 .........................................................................66.27, 66.190
Timawra, The (Medora Shipping v. Navix Line Ltd. and Navios Corporation) [1996]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 166 ......................................................................................................................................21.5, 21.47
Timberwest Forest v. Gearbulk Pool [2003] B.C.L.R. (4th) 327 (B.C.C.A.); 2004 I.M.C.L.Y. 44 .............................66.73
Times Travel (UK) Ltd v. Pakistan International Airlines Corp. [2019] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 89;
[2020] Ch. 98; [2021] U.K.S.C. 40 ...............................................................................................................1.87–1.89
Timna, The. See Zim Israel Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Tradax Export S.A—
Tindefjell, The (Falconbridge Nickel Mines v. Chimo Shipping) [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277;
[1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 253 (Can. Ct.) ....................................................................................................66.374, 66.378
Tinkler v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021] 3 W.L.R. 697 .....................................................................1.103
Tinsley v. Milligan [1994] 1 A.C. 340 ..................................................................................................................1.52, 1.63
Tito v. Waddell (No. 2) [1977] Ch. 106 .....................................................................................................................21.144
Tjaskemolen, The [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 465 ......................................................................................................2.42, 2.46
Todd v. Adams [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 293 ................................................................................................................66.473
Toepfer (Alfred C.) Schiffahrtsgesellschaft G.m.b.H. v. Tossa Marine Co. Ltd. (The Derby)
[1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325; [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 635 .................................................... 11.34, 11.40, 11.65, 21.113

c
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Toisa Pisces, The (Sealion Shipping Ltd v. Valiant Insurance) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.108 .........................................21.42
Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co. v. Retla SS. Co. [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 91 .........................................................18.17
Toledo, The [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 40. ................................................................................................11.28, 66.95, 66.254
Toptip v. Mercuria Energy Trading (The Pan Gold) [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 316
(Singapore C.A.).................................................................................................................1.12, 1.18, 1.20, 1.26, 3.29
Tor Line A.B. v. Alltrans Group of Canada Ltd. (The T.F.L. Prosperity) [1984]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 123; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 617 ........................................................................... 11.69, 11.78, 21.118
Torch Offshore LLC v. Cable Shipping Inc. [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 446.......................................................................3.40
Torenia, The (Akt. de Danske Sukkerfabrikker v. Bajamar Compania Naviera S.A.) [1983]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 210 ................................................................................................................................66.261, 66.347
Torepo, The [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 235; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 535 ........................................ 11.26, 11.34, 11.39, 18.55,
66.95, 66.113, 66.254, 66.271
Torni, The [1932] P. 78 ................................................................................................................................................66.25
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, s. 12 ..........................................................................................................17.28
Torvald Klaveness v. Arni Maritime Corp. (The Gregos) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ........................................... 5.111, 6.47
Total Liban v. Vitol Energy [2001] Q.B. 643 ............................................................................................................ 66.212
Total Transport Corp. v. Amoco Trading Co. (The Altus) [1985]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 423 .........................................................................................................16.3, 38.14, 38.23, 41.7, 46.7
Total Transport Corp. v. Arcadia Petroleum (The Eurus) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 351 (C.A.);
aff’g [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 408 ..................................................................11.5, 18.245, 21.37, 21.122, 45.8, 66.448
Tourraine, The [1928] P. 58 .......................................................................................................................................66.280
Towse v. Henderson (1850) 4 Exch. 890 .........................................................................................................................6.4
Tractors Singapore Ltd v. Pacific Ocean Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd
[2020] S.G.H.C. 60 ....................................................................................................................1.122, 5.4, 5.14, 19.24
Tradax Export S.A v. Volkswagenwerk A.G. [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 494......................................................................17.8
Tradax Export S.A. v. Italgrani di Francesco Ambrosia [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 112 .......................................................7.2
Tradax’s claim against Panatlantic .............................................................................................................................66.336
Trade & Transport v. Iino Kaiun Kaisha (The Angelia) [1973] 1 W.L.R. 210;
[1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 154 .....................................................................................................9.2, 22.21, 22.26, 66.315
Trade Fortitude, The (Exmar BV v. National Iranian Tanker Co.) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 169 ...................................13.64
Trade Green Shipping v. Securitas Bremer (The Trade Green) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 451.................................5.2, 20.14
Trade Green, The. See Trade Green Shipping v. Securitas Bremer—
Trade Nomad, The [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 723 ..............................................................................................................32.2
Trade Star Line v. Mitsui (The Arctic Trader) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449 (C.A.) ...........................18.181–18.183, 66.144
Tradigrain S.A. v. Intertek Testing Services (ITS) Canada Ltd [2007] C.L.C. 188.....................................................1.112
Tradigrain v. King Diamond Shipping (The Spiros C.) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 319 (C.A.); rev’g
on other grounds [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 91..................................................10.20, 13.33, 13.34, 13.55, 15.13, 18.55,
18.62, 18.171, 18.237, 66.112
Trafigura Beheer B.V. v. Ravennavi SpA (The Port Russel) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 57 ........................15.29, 15.31, 26.58
Trafigura Beheer BV v. Golden Stavraetos Maritime (The Sonia) [2003]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 201 .................................................................................................66.2, 66.7, 66.198, 66.200, 66.201
Trafigura Beheer BV v. Mediterranean Shipping Corp. S.A. (The MSC Amsterdam)
[2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 622 .............................................................10.21, 18.164, 18.166, 21.33, 21.36, 21.51, 21.56,
66.4, 66.24, 66.31, 66.40, 66.42, 66.81, 66.88,
66.115, 66.230, 66.364, 66.401
Trafigura Beheer BV v. Navigazione Montanari SPA (The Valle di Cordoba) [2015]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 529 ................................................................................ 13.70, 21.119, 33.5, 34.9, 34.11, 41.5, 66.17,
66.111, 66.130, 66.260, 66.306
Trafigura Maritime Logistics Ltd v. Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd (The Miracle Hope)
[2020] EWHC 726 (Comm); [2020] EWHC 995 (Comm). ............................................................................ 18.173A
Tramp Shipping Corp. v. Greenwich Marine Inc. (The New Horizon) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 314;
[1975] 1 W.L.R. 1042 ................................................................................................................................25.4, 66.324
Trane v. Hanjin Shipping (The Hanjin Marseilles) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 735 (H.K.) ...............................................66.42
Trans Trust v. Danubian Trading [1952] 2 Q.B. 297 ...................................................................................................21.35
Transfield Shipping Inc. v. Mercator Shipping Inc. (The Achilleas) (2006) L.M.L.N. 706; [2007]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 555 (C. A.); [2008] L.M.C.L.Q. 461; [2009] A.C. 61 ..........................................21.30, 21.31, 21.39,
21.99, 21.102, 21.104
Transgrain Shipping v. Global Transporte Oceanico (The Mexico I)
[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 507 .........................................................................................................................15.31, 15.50
Transgrain Shipping v. Yangtse Navigation (Hong Kong) (The Yangtse Xing Hua)
[2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 212 ..................................................................................................................................66.355
Transocean Drilling (above) and in Proton Energy Group SA v. Orlen Lietuva [2013]
EWHC 2872 (Comm) ..........................................................................................................................................21.40
Transocean Drilling UK Ltd v. Providence Resources Plc [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 51.................................................21.40

ci
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Transocean Liners v. Euxine Shipping (The Imvros) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 848;
[2000] L.M.C.L.Q. 295 ........................................................................ 1.113, 6.35, 11.10, 11.17, 11.31, 14.43, 14.44
Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v. Cook Industries Inc. (The Mary Lou)
[1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 272 ....................................................................................................................5.74, 5.93, 5.96
Transoceanica Francesca, The, and the Nicos V [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 155 ...............................................21.130, 66.414
Transoceanica Societa Italiana di Navigazione v. H. S. Shipton & Sons [1923]
1 K.B. 31 ...............................................................................................................................6.57, 6.59, 14.21, 66.431
Transpetrol Maritime Services Ltd v. SJB (Marine Energy) BV (The Rowan) [2011]
L.M.C.L.Q. 465; [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 331; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 564 ..................................................3.29, 11.27
Transworld Oil (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Minos Compania Naviera (The Leni) [1992]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 48 ..................................................................................................................................66.185, 66.192
Transworld Oil Ltd. v. North Bay Shipping (The Rio Claro) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 173...............................................................................................................................4.16, 11.74, 21.30, 21.121
Trasporti Castelletti v. Hugo Trumpy [1999] E.C.R. I-1597 .....................................................................................66.190
Travers v. Cooper [1915] 1 K.B 73 ..............................................................................................................................1.113
Tregenna, The ..............................................................................................................................................................12.28
Treglia v. Smiths Timber (1896) 1 Com. Cas. 360 .............................................................................................5.60, 5.109
Tres Flores, The (Compania de Naviera Nedelka v. Tradax International) [1973]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 247; [1974] Q.B. 264 .......................................................................15.39, 15.41, 15.42, 19.16, 19.18
Trevarrack, The (Hain SS. Co. v. S.A. Comercial de Exportacion e Importacion)
(1934) 49 Ll. L. Rep. 86 .......................................................................................................................................15.19
Tri- MG Intra Asia Airlines v. Norse Air Charter [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 258 ..................................................1.106, 1.107
Tricon Energy Ltd v. MTM Trading LLC (The MTM Hong Kong) [2020] EWHC 700 (Comm) .............................16.21
Triple Seven MSM 27251 Ltd v. Azman Air Services Ltd [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 424.................................................1.64
Triton Lark, The. See Pacific Basin IHX Ltd v. Bulkhandling Handymax AS—
Triton Navigation v. Vitol S.A. (The Nikmary) [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 151, aff’d [2004]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 55 .........................................................................6.1, 7.1, 7.10, 15.25, 15.48, 19.4, 34.93, 49.2, 8.12
Tritton Resources Pty v. Ever Rock Navigation (The Ikan Jahan) [2019] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325
(Fed Ct of Australia) ........................................................................................................18.81, 18.85, 66.239, 66.405
Tromp, The [1921] P. 337 ............................................................................................................................................18.17
Tronson v. Dent (1663) 8 Moo. P.C. 419 cf. Actis v. Sanko (The Aquacharm) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 7 .................66.115
Tropical Reefer, The (Den Norske Bank v. Acemex Management) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .......................................2.36
Tropwave, The, [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 159 ................................................................................17.10–17.12, 17.29, 17.42
Trucks & Spares v. Maritime Agencies (Southampton) [1951] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 345 .................................................18.165
Trustor AB v. Smallbone [2001] 1 W.L.R. 1177 ...................................................................................................2.42, 2.43
Tsakiroglou v. Noblee & Thorl [1962] A.C. 93 (H.L.) ..........................................................................22.14, 22.15, 22.29
Tsukuba Maru, The (Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. S.A. Marocaine de l’Industrie du Raffinage)
[1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 459 ................................................................................38.24, 38.25, 38.6, 38A.34, 39.2, 39.6
Tubacex Inc. v. M/V Risan (1995) 45 F.3d. 951 (5th Cir.) ................................................................66.86, 66.114, 66.322
Tudor Marine v. Tradax (The Virgo) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 135 (C.A.) ......................................1A.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.11, 2.12
Tully v. Terry (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 679..............................................................................................................13.12, 66.151
Turf Club Auto Emporium v. Yeo Boong Hua [2018] SGCA 44; (2019) L.M.C.L.Q. 500 .......................................21.145
Turner v. Haji Goolam [1904] A.C. 826 ......................................................................64.2, 18.67, 18.199, 18.208, 18.215
Turner, Nott v. Bristol Corporation (1928) 31 Ll. L. Rep. 359 ....................................................................................10.20
Tychy, The (No. 2) [2001] Lloyd’s Rep. 10; rev’d [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 403 ......................................................1.1, 2.37
Tychy, The [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 11..................................................................................................................1.1, 66.224
Tynedale SS. Co. v. Anglo Soviet Shipping (1936) 41 Com. Cas. 206 .........................................................................33.2
Tzortsis v. Monark Line [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 337......................................................................................................1.36
U.B.C. Chartering v. Liepaya Shipping Co. (The Liepaya) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 649 .........................4.19, 11.19, 66.96
U.K. Mutual Steamship Association v. Nevill (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 110 ...........................................................................2.15
UBS AG v. Rose Capital [2018] EWHC 3137 (Ch) ....................................................................................................1.120
UBS v. Kommande Wasserwerke Leeipzig [2017] EWCA Civ 1567 ...........................................................................1.91
UCO Bank v. Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd [2006] 1 SLR(R) 1 (Sing C. A.) ................................................18.85
UK Plc v. BP Exploration Operating Company [2015] EWHC 2658 (Comm); [2016] EWCA Civ 1043 .................21.40
UTB v. Sheffield United [2019 EWHC 23 ..................................................................................................................1.122
UBC Chartering v. Liepaya Shipping Co. (The Liepaya) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 649 .................4.19, 11.19, 21.52, 66.96
Ukraine v. Law Debenture Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 2026 ..........................................................................................1.122
Ullises Shipping Corporation v. Fal Shipping Co. Ltd (The Greek Fighter) [2006] 2 C.L.C. 497 ...............................5.31
Ulusoy Denizcilik AS v. Cofco Global Harvest (Zhangjiang) Trading Co Ltd (The Ulusoy-11)
[2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 177 ................................................................................................1.29, 1.30, 1.35, 1.47, 18.61
Ulyanovsk, The (Novorossisk Shipping v. Neopetro Co.) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 425 .............................................21.122
Uni-Ocean Lines v. C-Trade (The Lucille) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 244 (C.A.) ....................................................5.87, 5.95
Unicoopjapan and Marubeni-Iida Co. v. Ion Shipping Co. (The Ion) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 541 ...............66.228, 66.243
Unifert International v. Panous Shipping Co. (The Virginia M.) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 603 ...............15.40–15.42, 19.19

cii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Union Amsterdam, The (Blue Anchor Line v. Alfred C. Toepfer International G.m.b.H.)
[1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 432 ....................................................................................................................................15.72
Union Amsterdam, The [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 432.......................................................................................................39.4
Union Castle Mail SS. Co. v. Borderdale Shipping Co. [1919] 1 K.B. 612 ................................................................11.14
Union Castle v. Borderdale [1919] 1 K.B. 612 ......................................................................................14.23, 14.24, 14.53
Union Discount v. Zoller [2002] 1 W.L.R. 1517 .........................................................................................................21.89
Union of India v. Compania Naviera Aeolus (The Spalmatori) [1964] A.C. 868;
[1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 175 .............................................................................................................................16.3, 25.6
Union of India v. E.B. Aaby’s Rederi [1975] A.C. 797 ...............................................................................................20.60
Union of India v. N.V. Reederij Amsterdam (The Amstelslot) [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223 (H.L.) ............................66.257
Union Transport v. Continental Lines [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 229...................................................................................3.6
Unique Mariner, The (No. 2) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 ..............................................................................................1.124
Unique Mariner, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 438...........................................................................................................1.68
Unisys International services v. Eastern Counties Newspapers [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 538 ...........................................2.3
United Carriers v. Heritage Food Group [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 269 ............................................................................13.1
United Nations/Food and Agriculture Organisation – World Food Programme v. Caspian Navigation Inc.
(The Jay Ganesh) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 358.......................................................................................................15.39
United Scientific Holdings v. Burnley Council [1978] A.C. 904...................................................................................19.6
United States Shipping Board v. Masters (1923) 14 Ll. L. Rep. 208 ..........................................................................12.28
United States Shipping Board v. Bunge y Born (1926) 42 T.L.R. 174;
(1924) 41 T.L.R. 473 (C.A.) ................................................................................................12.19, 12.20, 12.33, 12.35
United States Steel Products v. G.W. Ry [1916] 1 A.C. 189......................................................................................18.160
Unitramp v. Garnac Grain Co. Inc. (The Hermine) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 212
(H.L.) ..............................................................................................................5.74, 5.79, 5.80, 5.89–5.93, 5.112, 27.4
Universal Bulk Carriers v. Andre et Cie, [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 459, [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 65 (C.A.) ......................37.6
Universal Cargo Carriers v. Citati [1957] 2 Q.B. 501, aff’d on appeal [1957] 1 W.L.R. 979;
rev’d on other grounds [1958] 2 Q.B. 254 ............................................................7.5, 9.2, 16.12, 16.24, 22.11, 22.15
Universal Steam Navigation Co. v. James McKelvie [1923] A.C. 492; [1922] 1 K.B. 518 .................................2.7, 66.61
Universe Tankships of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers’ Federation [1983] A.C. 366 .............................1.92
Upper Egypt Produce Exporters v. “Santamana” (The Santamana) (1923) 14 Ll. L. Rep. 159 ..................................14.25
Ursula Bright, The (1903) 8 Com. Cas. 171 ................................................................................................................13.17
V/O Rasnoimport v. Guthrie [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ........................................................................................2.33, 18.29
VTB Capital v. Nutritek International Corp. [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 313 (C.A.);
[2013] 2 W.L.R. 398, [2013] 1 A.C. 337 ..............................................................................................2.38, 2.40–2.43
VTC v. PVS [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 527 ..............................................................................................................49.2, 49.3
Vagres Compania Maritima S.A. v. Nissho-Iwai American Corp. (The Karin Vatis) [1988]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 330 (C.A.); rev’g [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 361 ........................................................13.8, 13.20, 13.113
Vainqueur José, The [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 557 ............................................................................................................49.2
Valle di Cordoba, The [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 550 and [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 529 ..............................13.70, 21.119, 33.5,
34.9, 34.11, 41.5, 66.17, 66.111, 66.130, 66.260, 66.306
Vancouver Strikes Cases. See Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (The Niki)—
Vanderspar v. Duncan (1871) 8 T.L.R. 30......................................................................................................................6.45
Vantage Navigation v. Suhail and Saud Bahwan Building Materials (The Alev) [1989]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 .................................................................................................................................................1.88
Vardinoyannis v. The Egyptian General Petroleum Corp. (The Evaggelos Th.) [1971]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 200 ...............................................................................................................................5.54, 5.68, 5.74
Varenna, The, Skips A/S Nordheim v. Syrian Petroleum [1984] 1 Q.B. 599 ........................................1.134, 18.51, 18.53
Varing, The, Fornyade Red. Commercial v. Blake & Co. [1931] P. 79 ............................................................5.103, 14.62
Varnish (W.R.) v. The Kheti (Owners) (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 525...............................................................................66.15
Varverakis v. Compania Naviera Artico (The Merak) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 250 ...............................................1.22, 1.26
Veba Oil Supply and Trading v. Petrotrade [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 295 ........................................................................49.2
Vechscroon, The (McCarren v. Humber International Transport) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301 ......................................66.6
Velox, The [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 376 ...........................................................................................................................5.63
Venezelos v. Soc. Commerciale de Cereales (The Prometheus) [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 350 ...............................5.20, 7.18
Venezuela, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 393..................................................................................................................18.71
Vergottis v. Ford (1918) 34 T.L.R. 234 ..........................................................................................................................1.78
Vergottis v. William Cory & Son Ltd. [1926] 2 K.B. 344 ...............................................................................................7.1
Versloot Dredging BV v. HDI-Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG (The DC Merwestone)
[2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 131 ................................................................................66.98, 66.285, 66.287, 66.288, 66.291
Vesta v. Butcher [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 179; [1989] A.C. 852 ........................................21.63, 21.64, 21.66, 21.67, 21.69
Vic Mill, Re [1913] 1 Ch. 465 ...................................................................................................................................21.125
Vicky I, The [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 45; (2008) L.M.C.L.Q. 255 .......................................................................21.6, 21.41
Victoria Feuer Versicherung v. Expeditiebedrijf Frans Maas (27.11.86) Schip en Schade No. 97
[1988], p. 278 .........................................................................................................................................................1.41

ciii
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Victoria Laundry v. Newman Industries [1949] 2 K.B. 528 (C.A.) .......................................................21.27, 21.34, 21.39
Vikfrost, The (Fletcher v. Sigurd Haavik) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 560 ......................18.178, 18.203, 18.204, 18.205, 64.1
Vine, The (Emeraldian Ltd Partnership v. Wellmix Shipping Ltd) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301;
[2011] L.M.C.L.Q. 23...........................................................5.15, 5.64, 5.88, 5.93, 5.116, 15.14, 15.28, 15.29, 15.49
Vinmar International Ltd. v. Theresa Navigation, S.A. (The Atrice) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1
(Q.B. (Com. Ct.))...........................................................................21.41, 21.50, 21.52, 21.70, 21.73, 21.124, 21A.39
Vinnlustoin HF v. Sea Tank Shipping AS (The Aqasia) [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 530 .................................................66.378
Vinson The (Quark v. Chiquita Unifrutti Japan) (2005) 677 L.M.L.N. 1 (Com. Ct. 26 April 2005) ..........................18.64
Virani v. Manuel Revert y Cia [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 14 ..........................................................................................21.130
Virginia M., The (Unifert International v. Panous Shipping Co.) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 603 ..............15.40–15.42, 19.19
Virgo, The. See Tudor Marine v. Tradax—
Viscous Global Investment v. Palladium Navigation (The Quest) [2014]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 600 .......................................................................................................................18.48, 18.62, 66.190
Vistafjord, The [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243 ................................................................................................1.12, 1.73, 1.103
Visurgis, The [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 218 ............................................................................. 6.35, 11.8, 11.11, 11.32, 14.22
Vita Food Products v. Unus Shipping [1939] A.C. 277 (P.C.) .......................................................1.30, 1.55, 66.25, 66.26,
66.133, 66.217, 66.488
Vitesse v. Spiers [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 179 ..................................................................................................................3.34
Vitol E&P v. New Age (African Global Energy) [2018] EWHC 1580 (Comm) ...........................................................1.95
Vitol v. Norelf (The Santa Clara) [1996] A.C. 800 ........................................................................................................21.7
Vlassopoulos v. Ney Shipping (The Santa Carina) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 478 .....................................................2.4, 23.9
Vlierbloom v. Chapman (1844) 13 M. & W. 230 ........................................................................................................13.27
Voaden v. Champion (The Baltic Surveyor) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 623 ..........................................................21.57, 21.59
Voc Gallant, The (Bulk & Metal Transport v. Voc Bulk Ultra Handymax) [2009]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 418 ..............................................................................................................................................66.195
Volcafe Ltd v. Cia Sud Americana de Vapores SA (2017) L.M.C.L.Q. 169; [2017] Lloyd’s Rep. 32;
[2018] U.K.S.C. 61; [2019] A.C. 358, (2019); L.M.C.L.Q. 183 .........................................................6.57, 9.13, 18.8,
18.118, 50.3, 66.89, 66.109, 66.113, 66.117, 66.123, 66.125, 66.127,
66.129, 66.131, 66.237, 66.253, 66.254, 66.261, 66.284, 66.287, 66.334, 66.336
Volcafe v. Cia Nav. Sud Americana de Vapores [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 358 .............................................................66.245
Vorras, The (Dow Chemical (Nederland) v. B.P. Tanker Co.) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 579 (C.A.)...............................15.16
Vortigern, The [1899] P. 140 ........................................................................................................................................11.51
Vosnoc v. Transglobal Projects [1998] 1 W.L.R. 101 ................................................................................................66.196
Voss v. APL Co [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 707 (C.A. of Singapore) .................................................................18.162, 18.163
Vrinera Marine Company Limited v. Eastern Rich Operations. Incorporated (The Vakis T)
[2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 465 .........................................................................................................................21.78, 21.88
VTC v. PVS [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 527 ...............................................................................................................49.2, 49.3
W. Angliss & Co. (Australia) Pty. v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. [1927] 2 K.B. 456 .................66.347
W.R. Varnish v. The Kheti (Owners) (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 525 .................................................................................66.15
W.T. Thompson v. Robinson (Gunmakers) [1955] Ch. 177 ......................................................................................66.393
W. Angliss & Co. (Australia) Pty. v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
[1927] 2 K.B. 456 .....................................................................................................................66.102, 66.104, 66.347
The Waalhaven, 36 F.2d 706 (2d Cir. 1929), cert. denied, 281 U.S. 747 (1930) ......................................................12A.16
Waddle v. Wallsend Shipping Co. [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 105...................................................................................66.109
Wadi Sudr, The (National Navigation Co. v. Endesa Generacion S.A.) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 193...........................18.48
Wagon Mound, The [1961] A.C. 388...........................................................................................................................21.28
Walford v. Miles [1992] A.C. 128 ..................................................................................................................................1.10
Wall v. Rederiaktiebolaget Luggude [1915] 3 K.B. 66 ..............................................................................................21.134
Wallems v. Muller [1927] 2 K.B. 99 .................................................................................................................12.14, 21.94
Walton v. Fothergill (1835) 7 C. & P. 392 .................................................................................................................21.121
Waterfront Shipping Company Ltd v. Trafigura AG (The Sabrewing) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 286 ...................41.3, 16.21
Watkins v. Rymill (1883) 10 Q.B.D. 178 .....................................................................................................................18.45
Watson v. Fireman’s Fund [1922] 2 K.B. 355 .............................................................................................................20.21
Watson v. Swann (1862) 11 C.B.(N.S.) 756 ..................................................................................................................2.33
Watson, Ex parte (1877) 5 Ch. D. 35 .........................................................................................................................18.157
Watts, Watts & Co. v. Mitsui & Co. [1917] A.C. 227 (H.L.) ................................................15.26, 21.117, 21.134, 66.312
Waugh v. Morris (1873) L.R. 8 Q.B. 202 ......................................................................................................................1.57
Wave, The [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 521 .......................................................................................................2.31, 21.7, 21.56
Wavertree Sailing Ship v. Love [1897] A.C. 373.....................................................................................20.49, 20.52, 55.5
Wehner v. Dene Steam Shipping Co. [1905] 2 K.B. 92 .............................13.42, 17.31, 18.67, 18.192, 23.1, 23.11–23.13
Weir & Co. v. Girvin [1900] 1 Q.B. 45 (C.A.) ..................................................................................13.108, 13.115, 21.94
Weir v. Dobell [1916] 1 K.B. 722 ..............................................................................................................................21.129
Wellesley Partners LLP v. Withers LLP Ch. 529 .....................................................................................21.6, 21.28, 21.43
Welsh Water v. Corus UK Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 285....................................................................................................1.5

civ
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

Wenjiang (No. 2), The [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 400 ......................................................................................................22.13

Wertheim (Sally) v. Chicoutimi Pulp [1911] A.C. 301, 307 (P.C.) .....................................................................21.1, 21.27
West Arrow, The, 80 F.2d 853 (2d Cir. 1936) .............................................................................................................21A.2
West Coast Food Brokers v. the Ship Hoyanger [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 79 (Canada Fed. Ct.) .................................66.336
Westacre Investments v. Jugoimport-S.D.P.R. Holdings [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 65 ......................................................1.61
Westcoast Food Brokers v. The Ship Hoyanger [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 79 (Can. Fed. Ct.) ......................................66.336
Westerdok, The (M.D.C. Ltd. v. N.V. Zeevaart Maatschappij “Beursstraat”) [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 180..................11.19
Western Sealanes Corp. v. Unimarine S.A. (The Pythia) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 160 ...................................................9.11
Westport Coal Co. v. McPhail [1898] 2 Q.B. 130 .....................................................................................................66.265
WestracEquipment v. Assets Venture (2002) 192 A.L.P. 277 (Federal Court of Australia) .......................................18.127
Westralia, The. See Westralian Farmers v. Dks. Orient A/S—
Westralian Farmers v. Dks. Orient A/S (The Westralia) (1939) 65 Ll. L. Rep. 105 ....................................................26.37
Westralian Farmers v. King Line (1932) 43 Ll. L. Rep. 378 .......................................................................................13.52
Wetherall v. The London Assurance [1931] 2 K.B. 448 ..............................................................................................20.29
Whaite v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. (1874) L.R. 9 Ex. 67 .................................................6.373, 66.410
Whistler International v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (The Hill Harmony) [2001] 1 A.C. 638;
[2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 147; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 1954 (H.L.)..................................12.1, 66.269, 66.270–66.273, 66.359
White & Carter v. McGregor [1962] A.C. 413 ............................................................................................................21.55
White v. Furness Withy [1895] A.C. 40 .....................................................................................................................18.112
White v. Granada (1896) 13 T.L.R. 1...........................................................................................................................12.19
White v. Turnbull Martin (1898) 3 Com. Cas. 183 ......................................................................................................24.16
Whitechurch (George) Ltd. v. Cavanagh [1902] A.C. 117 ..........................................................................................18.28
Whitehead v. Anderson (1842) 9 M. & W. 518 .........................................................................................................18.158
Whitesea Shipping and Trading v. El PasoRio Clara (The Mariella Bolten) [2010]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 648 ...................................................................................................................66.223, 66.224, 66.229
Wibau Maschinenfabrik Hartman S.A. v. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (The Chanda)
[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 494 .....................................................................................................................66.119, 66.232
Wilhelm Schmidt, The (1871) 25 L.T. 34 ....................................................................................................................12.12
William A. Jay & Sons v. Veevers [1946] 1 All E.R. 646 ............................................................................................21.77
William Alexander v. Akt. Hansa [1920] A.C. 88..........................................................................................................16.2
William Holyman & Sons Pty. v. Foy & Gibson Pty. (1945) 73 C.L.R. 622.............................................................66.232
William Sindall v. Cambridgeshire C.C. [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1016....................................................................................1.84
Williams Bros. (Hull) v. N.V. W.H. Berghuys Kolenhandel (1915) 21 Com. Cas. 253 ............................................66.324
Williams v. Agius [1914] A.C. 510 ............................................................................................................................21.100
Williams v. Bermuda Hospitals Board [2016] U.K.P.C. 4 ...........................................................................................21.41
Williams v. Canton Insurance Co. [1901] A.C. 462........................................................................................13.21, 18.212
Williams v. Manissalian Frères (1923) 29 Com. Cas. 42...............................................................................................6.22
Williams v. Roffey Bros. [1991] 1 Q.B. 1 .....................................................................................................................1.90
Willie (Charles M.) Shipping v. Ocean Laser (The Smaro) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 225 ...........................................66.196
Wilmar Trading Pte v. Heroic Warrior (The Bum Chin) [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 130 .....................................18.45, 18.113
Wilomi Tanana, The (Mendala III Transport v. Total Transport Corp.) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 41 ..................18.39–18.41
Wilson (Paal) v. Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal (The Hannah Blumenthal) [1983] 1 A.C. 854 ............................22.2
Wilson & Sons v. Owners of Cargo per the Xantho (The Xantho) (1887) 12 App. Cas. 503 (H.L.) ........................66.285
Wilson Smithett v. Bangladesh Sugar [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 378.................................................................................1.14
Wilson v. Bank of Victoria (1867) L.R. 2 Q.B. 203..........................................................................................20.12, 20.13
Wilson v. Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 346....................................................66.471
Wilson v. Hicks (1857) 26 L.J. Ex. 242 The Asia Star [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 121 .....................................................21.92
Wilston Seamship Co. v. Andrew Weir (1925) 22 Ll. L. Rep. 521 ..............................................................................18.67
Windfall, The (Nigerian National Shipping Lines v. Mutual) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 664 ..........................................21.50
Winkfield, The [1902] P. 42 ..................................................................................................18.91, 18.115, 18.122, 21.128
Winson, The (China Pacific v. Food Corporation of India) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 117;
[1982] A.C. 939 .........................................................................................................................................17.38, 22.36
Winter v. Hockley Mint [2019] 1 W.L.R. 1617 ....................................................................................................1.79, 2.22
Wolongong Coal v. PCL Shipping (The Irrawalla Fortune) [2020] NSWSC 184 .................................13.45, 18.32, 18.78
Wondrous, The (Ikerigi Compania Naviera v. Palmer) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 400 ..................................................66.310
Wood v. Atlantic Transport (1900) 5 Com. Cas. 121 .................................................................................................21.143
Wood v. Capita (also known as Wood v. Sureterm) [2017] A.C. 1173 ...........................................1.95, 1.97, 1.107, 1.108
Wood v. Commercial First Business Ltd. [2022] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 644 .........................................................1.87, 1.89, 1.91
Woolf v. Collis [1948] 1 K.B. 11 ......................................................................................................................12.35, 12.38
Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] S.L.T. 159 (H.L.) ...........................................................................2.40
Woolongong Coal v. PCL Shipping (The Irrawalla Fortune) [2020] NSWSC 184 .....................................................18.48
Wordsworth, The (1898) 88 Fed. Rep. 313..................................................................................................................20.21
World Beauty, The [1970] P. 144; rev’g in part [1969] P. 12..................................................21.47, 21.50, 21.105, 21.106
World Navigator, The. See Kurt A. Becher v. Roplak Enterprises—

cv
 TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES

World Wrestling Federation Entertainment [2008] 1 W.L.R. 445 .............................................................................21.146

Wren, The (Glory Wealth Shipping v. Korea Line Corp.) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 370 .....................................21.7, 66.393
Wrotham Park Estate v. Parkside Homes [1974] 1 W.L.R. 798.................................................................................21.145
Wuhan Ocean Economic and Technical Cooperation Co. Ltd v. Schiffs. Hansa Murcia GmbH KG
(The Hansa Murcia) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 161; [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 273 ...........................................1.133, 21.55
Wye Shipping Co. Ltd v. Compagnie du Chemin de Fer, Paris-Orleans (1922) 10 Ll. L. Rep. 85 ......................8.1, 14.68
X v. Y [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 694 ..............................................................................................................................66.196
X X v. Whittington Hospital NHS Trust [2019] 3 W.L.R. 107 ......................................................................................1.52
Xantho, The (Wilson & Sons v. Owners of Cargo per The Xantho) (1887)
12 App. Cas. 503 (H.L.) ........................................................................................................................66.287, 66.288
Xiamen Xindaan Trade Co. Ltd v. North China Shipping Co. Ltd (The Michalakis) [2009]
EWHC 588 (Comm) .............................................................................................................................................18.62
Xing Su Hai, The [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 15 ..................................................................................................................2.39
YM. Mars Tankers v. Shield Petroleum (Nigeria) [2012] EWHC 2652 (Comm) ......................................................18.56
Yam Seng Pte. Ltd v. International Trade Corporation [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 526..............................................1.10, 21.3
Yamatogawa, The (Kuo International v. Daisy Shipping) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 39 .......................11.29, 66.102, 66.109,
66.257, 66.346, 66.347
Yanxilas, (No. 1) The. See Stinnes Interoil G.m.b.H. v. Halcoussis & Co.) (No. 1)—
Yanxilas, The (No. 2) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 676 ..................................................................................21.31, 21.121, 42.3
Yapp v. Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2014] EWCA Civ 1512 ........................................................................21.27
Yasin, The [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 45 .........................................................................................................................66.251
Yearworth v. North Bristol NHS Trust [2010] Q.B. 1 ...............................................................................................18.118
Yellow Star, The. See Mabanaft v. Erg Petroli—
Yelo v. Machado [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 181 .............................................................................................................66.135
Yemgas FZCO v. Superior Pescadores SA (The Superior Pescadores) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 660;
[2016] EWCA Civ 101; [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 561; [2017] I.M.C.L.Y. § 179 .........................1.31, 53.3, 66.1, 66.4,
66.5, 66.383, 66.414, 66.420
Yero Carras (Owners) v. London & Scottish Assurance Corp. Ltd (1935) 53 Ll. L. Rep. 131;
[1936] 1 K.B. 291 ........................................................................................................................................22.4, 22.18
Yoho Maru, The [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 409 ................................................................................................................13.15
Yonge v. Toynbee [1910] 1 K.B. 215 .............................................................................................................................2.34
You Yue, The 902 [2019] S.G.H.C. 106, [2019] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 727; [2019] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 617 ..................18.86, 18.91,
18.97, 18.149, 18.150, 18.171, 21.119
Youell v. Bland Welch (The “Superhulls Cover” case) (No. 2) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 431................21.64, 21.72, 66.461
Young v. Canning Jarrah (1899) 4 Com. Cas. 96.........................................................................................................21.94
Young v. Moller (1855) 5 E. & B. 755.........................................................................................................................13.74
Ypatianna, The (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Greenstone Shipping S.A.) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 286......................65.3
Ythan, The. See Primetrade AG v. Ythan Ltd—
Yukong Lines v. Rendsburg Investments (The Rialto) (No. 2) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 322 ........................2.40, 2.42, 2.43
Yuzhny Zavod Metall Profil LLC v. Eems Beheerder B.V. (The Eems Solar) [2013]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 487; [2014] L.M.C.L.Q. 139........................................................... 11.31, 11.33, 14.39, 14.42, 14.43,
18.50, 66.86, 66.100, 66.112
“Z” Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Amtorg (1938) 61 Ll. L. Rep. 97 ......................................................15.19, 15.45, 17.10, 17.11
Zarati SS. Co. v. Frames Tours [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 278 ..................................................................................1.15, 1.16
Zebrarise v. de Nieffe [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 154 .........................................................................................................1.38
Zenovia, The (IMT Shipping & Chartering v. Chansung Shipping) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 139 ..................................1.95
Zhi Jiang Kou, The (P.S. Chellaram v. China Ocean Shipping Co.) [1991]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 493 (Aust. Ct.) ...........................................................................................................................66.205
Zikhan v. Xio GP. (Cayman Island C. A.) ......................................................................................................................21.1
Zim Israel Navigation Co. Ltd v. Israel Phoenix Insurance (1999) L.M.C.L.Q. 352 ................................................66.288
Zim Israel Navigation Co. Ltd v. Tradax Export S.A. (The Timna) [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 409;
[1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 91 .........................................................................................................................5.110, 21.101
Zivnostenska Banka v. Frankman [1950] A.C. 57 .........................................................................................................1.59
Zodiac Maritime Agencies v. Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (The Kildare)
[2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 360 ...............................................................................21.7, 21.9, 21.12, 21.13, 21.98, 66.393
Zographia M., The [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 382 ............................................................................................................13.57
Zuiho Maru, The (Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Sardoil S.p.A.) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 552 .......................21.94, 22.24, 22.25
Zurich Insurance v. Hayward [2017] A.C. 142 .....................................................................................................1.79, 1.81

cvi
 Table of U.S. Cases

1,600 Tons of Nitrate of Soda v. McLeod, 61 F. 849 (9th Cir. 1894) .....................................................................15A.155
10,082 Oak Ties, Re, 87 F. 935 (D. N.J. 1898) .........................................................................................................15A.14
407 East 61st Garage Inc. v. Savoy Fifth Ave. Corp 23 N.Y. 2d 275, 281, 296 N.Y.S. 2d 338,
344 (1968) ...........................................................................................................................................21A.36, 21A.77
Aaby v. States Marine Corp., 107 F. Supp. 484 (S.D.N.Y. 1951) .............................................................................21A.31
Acwoo Int’l Steel Corp. v. Toko Kaiun Kaish, Ltd., 840 F.2d 1284, 1988 AMC 2922 (6th Cir. 1988) ................. 66A.17
Ada, The, 239 F. 363, 364 (S.D.N.Y.1916), rev’d on other grounds, 250 F. 194 (2d Cir. 1918;
aff’g 239 F. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1916) .....................................................................................................................21A.64
Adamello. The, 19 F.2d 388 (E.D. Va. 1927), aff’d sub nom. Lloyd Adriatico Societa di Navigazione v.
Consolidation Coal Co., 23 F.2d 579 (4th Cir. 1928) ........................................................................................21A.76
Ainsworth Coal & Iron Co. v. Traf. Grangesberg Oxelosund, 287 F. 291 (4th Cir. 1923) .......................................21A.31
Akt. Dampsk. Thorbjorn v. Harrison & Co., 260 F. 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1918)..................................................17A.20, 17A.22
Akt. Fido v. Lloyd Brasileiro, 267 Fed. 733, 736–737 (S.D.N.Y. 1919), aff’d, 283 Fed. 62
(2d Cir. 1922), cert. denied 260 U.S. 737 (1922) ................................................................................................6A.22
Akt. Korn-Og Foderstof Kompagniet v. Rederiaktiebolaget Atlanten 250 F. 935 (2d Cir. 1918),
aff’d 252 U.S. 313, 316 (1920) .........................................................................................................................21A.89
Aktieselskabet Fido v. Lloyd Brasileiro, 283 F. 62, 69–70 (2d Cir. 1922) ................................... 15A.24, 15A.53, 15A.54
Alcoa SS. Co. v. United States 338 U.S. 421, 422 (1949) ........................................................................................13A.27
Allanwilde Transport Corp. v. Vacuum Oil Co., 248 U.S. 377 (1919) ......................................................13A.28, 13A.40
Allied Chemical v. Companhia de Navegacao Lloyd Brasileiro 775 F.2d 476, 483 (2d Cir. 1985) ...........................10A.3
All Pacific Trading, Inc. v. Vessel M/V Hanjin Yosu, 7 F.3d 1427, 1994 AMC 365 (9th Cir. 1993) ......................66A.54
Almacen Boyaca Cia. v. Gran Golfo Express, 771 F. Supp. 354, 356–357 (S.D. Fla. 1991) ...................................66A.11
American Asiatic Co. v. Robert Dollar Co., 134 (1922) 282 F. 743 (9th Cir. 1922), cert. denied,
261 U.S. 615 (1923), appeal after remand 25 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1928), cert. denied,
278 U.S. 639 (1928) ............................................................................................................................21A.34, 21A.76
American Bureau of Shipping v. Tencara Shipyard S.P.A., 170 F.3d 349 (2d Cir. 1999) ..........................................2A.37
American Cyanamid Co. v. Booth SS. Co. (The West Point) 99 F. Supp. 232 (S.D.N.Y. 1951),
aff’d 195 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1952) ..........................................................................................................12A.9, 12A.24
American Fuel Corp. v. Utah Energy Dev. Co., 122 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 1997) ....................................................2A.11
American Hoesch v. Aubade [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 123 (U.S. Dist. Ct.) ...................................................................10.23
American Home Assurance Co. v. Wallenius Wilhelmsen Lines A.S., 445 Fed. App’x 371,
2011 AMC 2968 (2d Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................................................66A.41
American Home Assurance Co. v. Zim Jamaica, 418 F. Supp. 2d 537, 2006 AMC 1148
(S.D.N.Y. 2006) ................................................................................................................................................66A.15
American List Corp. v. News & World Report Inc., 75 N.Y. 2d 38, 550 N.Y.S. 2d 590 (1989) ..............................21A.82
American President Lines Ltd. v. United States, 208 F. Supp. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1961) ..............................................21A.56
American Steel Barge Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Coal Agency Co., 115 F. 669, 672,
677–678 (1st Cir. 1902) ................................................................... 13A.2, 17A.4, 17A.13–17A.15, 17A.20, 17A.22
Amoco Transport Co. v. SS. Mason Lykes, 768 F.2d 659, 662 (5th Cir. 1985)..........................................13A.51, 13A.54
Anthony Shipping Co. v. Hugo Neu Corp., 482 F. Supp. 965, 967 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) ...............................................13A.63
Arctic Bird, The, 109 Fed. 167 (N.D. Cal. 1901) .....................................................................................................13A.45
Ashburner v. Balchen, 7 N.Y. 262 (1852) ....................................................................................................................3A.9
Assicurazioni Generali v. D’Amico, 766 F.2d 485, 1986 AMC 1051 (11th Cir. 1985) ...........................................66A.10
Associated Bulk Trading Inc. v. Lyondell Petrochemical Company (The Hyphestos) 1990 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 10200, No. 89 Civ. 2853 (J.F.K.), slip op. (7 August 1990, S.D.N.Y.) ........................................40A.11
Associated Metals & Minerals Corp 983 F.2d 410, 412 (2d Cir. 1992) .....................................................................10A.1
Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. M/V Arktis Sky, 1991 AMC 1499 (S.D.N.Y. 1991),
vacated and remanded on other grounds, 978 F.2d 47, 1993 AMC 509 (2d Cir. 1992) .....................................66A.5
Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. M/V Lumbe, 1993 AMC 700 (D. N.J. 1991) .............................................66A.5

cvii
 TABLE OF U.S. CASES

Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. SS. Jasmine, 983 F.2d 410–412 (2d Cir. 1993) ............... 49A.28, 49A.30, 53A.2
Associated Metals v. M/V Star Skarven, 1995 AMC 505 (S.D. Fla. 1994) ...............................................................66A.5
Association Technique Internationale de Compagnies d’Assurances Maritime et Transports v.
Cast Eur. (1983) Ltd., 662 F. Supp. 1443, 1988 AMC 305 (N.D. Ill. 1987) ......................................................66A.5
Assyria, The, 98 F. 316 (5th Cir. 1899)...................................................................................................................15A.145
Asturiana de Zinc Marketing v. La Salle Rolling Mills, 20 F. Supp. 2d 670 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)...................................62A.2
Athos I, (The Frescati Shipping Company, Ltd.), In re, 718 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2013) .............. 5A.75, A.11, 5A.15, 40A.1
Atkins v. Fibre Disintegrating Co., 2 Fed. Cas. 78 (E.D.N.Y. 1868) (No. 601); aff’d 85 U.S.
(18 Wall.) 272 (1873) .................................................................................................................... 5A.9, 5A.13, 5A.14
Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. v. Poseidon Schiffahrt, GmbH, 313 F.2d 872, 1963 AMC 665
(7th Cir. 1963) ..................................................................................................................................................66A.43
B. Elliott (Canada) Ltd. v. John T. Clark & Son, 704 F.2d 1305, 1983 AMC 1742 (4th Cir. 1983) ........................66A.10
B.F. McKernin & Co. v. United States Lines Inc., 416 F. Supp. 1068 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) ...........................21A.73, 21A.74
Baltimore, The, 75 U.S. 377, 385 (1809)....................................................................................................................21A.2
Banglar Kakoli, The, 588 F. Supp. 1134, 1146–1147 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ........................................ 12A.21, 12A.43, 12A.44
Barcliff, LLC v. M/V Deep Blue 876 F.3d 1063 (11th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................17A.73
Barnard v. Adams 51 U.S. (10 How.) 270, 303, 304 (1850) ................................................... 20A.1, 20A.5, 20A.7, 20A.8
Barretto Peat, Inc. v. Luis Ayala Colon Successors, Inc., 896 F.2d 656, 660 (1st Cir. 1990) ..................................66A.10
Bell v. Stewart, 31 F.2d 44, 47 (5th Cir. 1929) ...........................................................................................................16A.1
Beresford Metals Corp. v. S/S Salvador, 779 F.2d 841, 1986 AMC 874 (2d Cir. 1985) .........................................66A.48
Berkshire Fashions Inc. v. M/V Hakusan II 954 F.2d 874 (3d Cir. 1992) ................................................................12A.11
Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Solleveld, 11 F.2d 80, 82 (4th Cir. 1926) ..........................................................16A.1
Beverly Hills National Bank & Trust Co. v. Compania de Navegacion Almirante S.A. Panama
(The Searaven), 437 F.2d 301, 304 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 402 U.S. 996 (1971).....................................17A.30
Binladen BSB Landscaping v. M/V “Nedlloyd Rotterdam,” 759 F.2d 1006, 1985 AMC 2113
(2d Cir. 1985) .....................................................................................................................................66A.45, 66A.54
Bird of Paradise, The, 72 U.S. 545 (1867) .................................................................................................................17A.9
Birdsall, Inc. v. Tramore Trading Co., 771 F. Supp. 1193, 1198–99 (S.D. Fla. 1991)..............................................66A.24
Black Sea & Baltic General Ins. Co., Ltd. v. The Hellenic Destiny, 575 F. Supp. 685,
693–694 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) .................................................................................................................................21A.85
Blandon, The, 287 F. 722 (S.D.N.Y. 1922) ...............................................................................................................12A.19
Bosung Industrial Co. v. M/V Aegis Sonic 590 F. Supp. 908 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ........................................................21A.68
Brauer v. Compania, 168 U.S. 104 (1897); aff’g 61 Fed. 860 (S.D.N.Y. 1894).......................................................13A.45
Brazil Oiticica, Ltd. v. The Bill, 55 F. Supp. 780, 783 (D. Md. 1944), aff’d sub nom., Lorentzen v.
Brazil Oiticica, Ltd., 145 F.2d 470 (4th Cir. 1944) .............................................................................66A.37, 66A.38
Bremen v. Zapata Off Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972) ...................................................................................................2A.2
Bris, The. 248 U.S. 392 (1919) ..................................................................................................... 13A.28, 13A.31, 13A.40
Brittan v. Barnaby, 16 U.S. (21 How.) 527, 62 L.Ed. 177, 179 (1858).......................................................................13A.1
Brown & Root, Inc. v. M/V Peisander, 648 F.2d 415, 1982 AMC 929 (5th Cir. 1981) ...........................................66A.45
Buck (Leonard J.) & Co. v. M/V Susanna, No. 84–0153P (D. Me. 1986) (slip op.) ................................................11A.46
Bybyk v. Paine Webber, Inc., 81 F.3d 1193 (2d Cir. 1996) .........................................................................................62A.2
C . Itoh & Co. (America) Inc. v. Hellenic Lines Ltd., 470 F. Supp. 594, 600 n. 23 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) ......................12A.44
CE Int’l Res. Holdings LLC v. S.A. Minerals Ltd. P’Ship (CEIR Holdings) No. 12 CIV. 8087 CM,
2012 Dist. LEXIS 176158, 2012 WL 6178236 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2012)..........................................21A.96, 21A.97
CP III Rincon Towers, Inc. v. Cohen13 F. Supp. 3d 307, 318–319 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ...................................................1A.4
C. Itoh & Co. Inc. v. Hellenic Lines Ltd., 470 F. Supp. 594 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)..........................................................21A.66
Cabot Corp. v. S.S. Mormacscan, 441 F.2d 476, 1971 AMC 1130 (2d Cir. 1971) ..................................................66A.10
Caemint Food, Inc. v. Lloyd Brasileiro Companhia de Navegacao, 647 F.2d 347 (2d Cir. 1981) ...........................11A.70
Caledonia, The, 157 U.S. 124, 130–131 (1895) .........................................................................................................11A.3
California & Eastern SS. Co. v. 138,000 Feet of Lumber, 23 F.2d 95, 96 (D. Md. 1927)........................................17A.25
California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. Columbia SS. Co. 391 F. Supp. 894, 897 n. 6 (E.D. La. 1972),
aff’d 510 F.2d 542 (5th Cir. 1975).....................................................................................................................11A.18
Caloo Villano, The, 18 F.2d 220 (2d Cir. 1927) ........................................................................................................21A.69
Cardinal Shipping Corporation v. M/S Seisho Maru, 744 F.2d 461, 463 (5th Cir. 1984) ..........................................64A.1
Carle & Montanari, Inc. v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, 275 F. Supp. 76, 1667 AMC 1637
(S.D.N.Y. 1967), aff’d, 386 F.2d 839 (2d Cir. 1967) ..........................................................................................66A.9
Carman Tool & Abrasives, Inc. v. Evergreen Lines, 871 F.2d 897, 1989 AMC 913 (9th Cir. 1989) ......................66A.46
Casillo Commodities Italia S.P.A.V M/V Long Cheer, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100012 (E.D. La. 2017) ...................2A.6
Caterpillar Overseas, S.A. v. Marine Transport, Inc., 900 F.2d 714, 1991 AMC 75
(4th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................................................... 12A.51, 66A.11
Caytrans Project Servs., Ltd. v. Mediterranean Commerce & Shipping, Inc. CIV. A. 96–0742,
1997 WL 642563, at *3 (E.D. La. Oct. 17, 1997) ...............................................................................................15A.8
CEIR Holdings. See CE Int’l Res. Holdings LLC v. S.A. Minerals Ltd. P’Ship—

cviii
 TABLE OF U.S. CASES

Cerro Sales Corp. v. Atlantic Marine Enters., 403 F. Supp. 562, 1976 AMC 375 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) ........................66A.24
Chantier Naval Voisin v. M/Y Daybreak, 677 F. Supp. 1563, 1571–1572 (S.D. Fla. 1988) ....................................21A.85
Choctaw Generation Ltd. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 271 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. 2001) ...............................................2A.34
Cholita Corp. v. MSC Mandraki, 2011 AMC 1417 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ......................................................................66A.15
Christman v. Maristella Compania Naviera 349 F. Supp. 845 (S.D.N.Y. 1972), aff’d 468 F.2d 620
(2d Cir. 1972) ....................................................................................................................................................21A.33
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 2001 U.S. LEXIS 2459 (2001) ................................................15A.159
Citgo Asphalt Refining Company v. Frescati Shipping Company, 589 U.S., 140 S. Ct. 1081 (2020) .......................65A.4
Citta di Messina, The, 169 F. 472, 475, 476 (S.D.N.Y. 1909) ......................................................................12A.2, 12A.31
Columbian Ins. Co. v. Catlett, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 383, 6 L. Ed. 664 (1827) .........................................................12A.32
Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp., 314 U.S. 104 (1941) .................................. 11A.61, 11A.62
Compagnia Di Navigazione Mauritius Rome v. Kulukundis, 182 F. Supp. 258, 263 (E.D.N.Y. 1959),
aff’d, 277 F.2d 161 (2d Cir. 1960) .......................................................................................................15A.148, 38A.4
Compania Estrella Blanca Ltda v. SS. Nictric, 247 F. Supp. 161 (D. Ore. 1965) ....................................................17A.68
Complaint of G&G Shipping Co. Ltd. of Anguilla, In Re, 767 F. Supp. 398 (D. P.R. 1991) ...................................66A.27
Constable v. National SS. Co 154 U.S. 51, 63 (1894) ................................................................................................10A.2
Constructores Tecnicos, S. de R.L. v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 945 F.2d 841, 1992 AMC 1284
(5th Cir. 1991) ...................................................................................................................... 12A.54, 12A.55, 66A.43
Continental Grain Co. v. Armour Fertilizer Works 22 F. Supp. 49, 53 (S.D.N.Y. 1938) ............................15A.5, 15A.154
Continental Grain Co. v. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Auth., 972 F.2d 427 (1st Cir. 1992) ...............................11A.30
Contship Containerlines, Ltd. v. PPG Industries, Inc., 442 F.3d 74, 2006 AMC 686 (2d Cir. 2006) ......................66A.58
Cook Industries Inc. v. Barge UM–308, 622 F.2d 851 (5th Cir. 1980) .....................................................................21A.66
Corus UK Ltd. v. Waterman Steamship Co., 251 Fed. App’x 873, 874 (5th Cir. 2007)...........................................66A.29
Corvus, The, 282 F. 939 (D. Md. 1922), aff’d, 288 F. 973 (4th Cir. 1923) ..................................................15A.5, 16A.22
Costello v. 734,700 Laths, 44 F. 105 (E.D.N.Y. 1890) .............................................................................................17A.19
Craig v. Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd. 843 F.2d 145 (3d Cir. 1988) ........................................................................2A.24
Cranston v. A Cargo of 250 Tons of Coal 22 F. 614, 615 (D. N.J. 1884) .................................................................17A.18
Crisp v. United States & Australasia SS. Co., 124 Fed. 748 (S.D.N.Y. 1903)............................................................40A.5
Crossman v. Burrill 179 U.S. 100 (1900) ...............................................................................................................15A.134
Crossman v. Burrill 179 U.S. 100, 103, 108, 110, (1900)............................................................... 17A.58–17A.61, 38A.4
Culliford v. Comila, 128 U.S. 135 (1888).................................................................................................................21A.13
Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Conk: 252 A.D.2d 222, 682 N.Y.S. 2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) ...................................2A.28
Czarnikow-Rionda Co. v. Federal Sugar Ref. Co., 255 N.Y. 33, 173 N.E. 913 (1930) ............................................21A.13
DG Harmony, In re M/V, 533 F.3d 83, 2008 AMC 1848 (2d Cir. 2008) .................................................................66A.58
Dalbeattie SS. Co. v. Card, 57 F. 304 (E.D.S.C. 1893) ..............................................................................................19A.8
Dampskibs Akt. Jan v. Cargo of Jute Butts, 298 F. 164 (S.D.N.Y. 1923) .................................................................21A.65
Daval Steel Products v. M/V Acadia Forest, 683 F. Supp. 444, 1988 AMC 1669 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ..........................66A.5
Davidson S.D.S. Co. v. 119,254 Bushels of Flaxseed, 117 F. 283 (W.D.N.Y. 1902) ...............................................17A.18
Davis & Assocs, Inc. v. Health Mgmt. Servs., Inc. 168 F. Supp. 2d 109, 114 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ...................................1A.3
Davis v. Pendergast, 7 F. Cas. 161, 162 (No. 3,647 C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1879) .................................................................15A.96
Davis v. Smokeless Fuel Co., 196 F. 753, 755 (2d Cir. 1912), cert. denied 229 U.S. 617 (1912) ...........................17A.16
Davison v. Von Lingen, 113 U.S. 40, 41 (1885) ...........................................................................................................4A.1
DeLaRama SS. Co. Inc. v. Ellis 149 F.2d 61, 64 (9th Cir. 1945) .............................................................................13A.52
De Laval Turbine, Inc. v. West India Indus., 502 F.2d 259, 1974 AMC 1156 (3d Cir. 1974) ................... 66A.10, 66A.11
Delaware, The, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 579, 602 (1871) .................................................................................................12A.54
Deloitte Noraudit A/S v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, U.S., 9 F.3d 1060 (2d Cir. 1993) ...............................................2A.37
Delphi-Delco Electronics Systems v. M/V Nedlloyd Europa, 324 F. Supp. 2d 403, 2004
AMC 1217 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) .............................................................................................................................66A.49
Deutsche Bank Filiale Nurnberg v. Humphrey, 272 U.S. 517 (1926) ......................................................................21A.85
Dewar v. Mowinckel, 173 F. 544 (N.D. Cal. 1909), aff’d, 179 F. 355 (9th Cir. 1910)...............................................16A.9
Dietrich v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 9 F.2d 733 (2d Cir. 1925) ................................12A.19
Director General of India Supply Mission v. S.S. Maru, 459 F.2d 1370 (2d Cir. 1972) ..........................................11A.18
Director General of the India Supply Mission v. The Maru 459 F.2d 1370 (2d Cir. 1972) ........................ 11A.60, 11A.64
Dixie Plywood Co. v. The Federal Lakes 404 F. Supp. 461 (S.D. Ga. 1975), aff’d without opinion,
525 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 425 U.S. 974 (1976) .......................................................................21A.68
Dorsid Trading Co. v. SS. Rose, 343 F. Supp. 617, 1973 AMC 457 (S.D. Tex. 1972) ............................................66A.17
Dougherty (P.) Co. v. 2,471 Tons of Coal, 278 F. 799 (D. Mass. 1922) .................................................................15A.166
Dow Chemical Pacific Ltd. v. Rascator Maritime S.A., 782 F.2d 329, 342 (2d Cir. 1986) ........................................2A.10
Earn Line SS. Co. v. Manati Sugar Co., 269 F. 774 (2d Cir. 1920) ..........................................................................21A.13
Eastern Transportation Co. v. East Carolina Lumber Company, 262 Fed. 195 (E.D. Pa. 1920) ..............................34A.16
Eclipse, The Steamer, 135 U.S. 599................................................................................................................ 2A.10, 2A.11
Edso Exporting LP v. Atlantic Container Line AB, 471 Fed. App’x 8, 2012 AMC 1811
(2d Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................................................................66A.41

cix
 TABLE OF U.S. CASES

Edward T. Stotesbury, The, 187 F. 111 (2d Cir. 1911) ...............................................................................15A.26, 15A.32
Egg Harbor, The (Standard Oil Co. of California v. U.S.) 59 F.Supp. 100 (S.D. Cal. 1945);
aff’d 156 F.2d 312 (9th Cir. 1946).......................................................................................................................53A.2
Eitzen Chem. (Sing.) Pte, Ltd. v. Carib Petroleum, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25023
(11th Cir. 2018).......................................................................................................................... 2A.10, 2A.21, 12A.51
Eliza Lines, The, 61 F. 308, 326 (C.C.D. Mass. 1894) ................................................................. 17A.46, 17A.52, 17A.53
Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. The Steamship President Harding, 288 , 290 F.2d 288 (2d Cir. 1961);
aff’g 187 F.Supp. 948 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) ...............................................................................................21A.26, 21A.39
Elmac, The, 285 F. 665 (S.D.N.Y. 1922) ..................................................................................................................19A.14
Elvers v. W.R. Grace & Co., 244 F. 705, 709 (9th Cir. 1917) ...................................................................................17A.48
Ely, The, 110 F. 563, 570 (S.D.N.Y. 1901), aff’d, 122 F. 447 (2d Cir. 1903), cert. denied,
189 U.S. 514 (1903) ...........................................................................................................................................64A.1
Emily S. Malcolm, The, 278 F. 943 (3d Cir. 1922).......................................................................................................3A.9
Empire Transportation Co. v. Philadelphia & R.C. & I. Co., 77 F. 919, 920, 925–926 (8th Cir. 1896) .....................15A.8
English Electric Valve Co. v. M/V Hoegh Mallard, 814 F.2d 84, 1987 AMC 1351 (2d Cir. 1987) ........................66A.43
Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services v. MISC Berhad, 591 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................17A.41
European-American Banking Corp. v. M/S Rosaria, 486 F. Supp. 245, 255 (S.D. Miss. 1978) .................17A.3, 17A.36
Evra Corp. v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co., 673 F.2d 951 (7th Cir. 1982) ................................21A.13
F.J. Walker, Ltd. v. M/V Lemoncore 561 F.2d 1138, 1142–1143 (5th Cir. 1977) .......................................................10A.2
Falconbridge Nickel Mines, Ltd. v. Chimo Shipping Ltd., 1974 S.C.R. 933, 946–947,
37 D.L.R.3d 545, 555, [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 469, 475 (Can. 1973)................................................................66A.36
Farrell Lines, Inc. v. Ceres Terminals, Inc., 161 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1998) .................................................................21A.95
Farrell Lines, Inc. v. Highlands Ins. Co 532 F. Supp. 77, 79 (S.D.N.Y.) aff’d, 696 F.2d 28
(2d Cir. 1982) ..........................................................................................................................................10A.2, 10A.3
Federal Ins. Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 651 F.3d 1175, 2012 AMC 1303 (9th Cir. 2011) ..........................66A.12
Fedmet Corp. v. M/V Buyalyk, 194 F.3d 674, 2000 AMC 337 (5th Cir. 1999) ......................................................66A.23
Fernales Shipping Co. v. Bonaire Petroleum Corp 733 F.2d 381, 384 (5th Cir. 1984) ............................................11A.34
Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Sea Phoenix, 447 F.3d 212, 2006 AMC 1217 (3d Cir. 2006) .............................................66A.46
Fisser v. International Bank, 282 F.2d 231, 233–234 (2d Cir. 1960) ............................................................................2A.7
Flame S.A. v. Freight Bulk Pte Ltd., 807 F.3d 572, 587 (4th Cir. 2015) ....................................................................2A.21
FMC Corp. v. SS. Marjorie Lykes, 851 F.2d 78, 1988 AMC 2113 (2d Cir. 1988) ..................................................66A.40
Fortis Corporate Insurance, S.A. v. Viken Ship Management AS, 597 F.3d 784, 2010 AMC 609
(6th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................................................................66A.11
Francosteel Corp. v. M/V Deppe Eur., 1990 AMC 2962 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ................................................................66A.5
Frederick Luckenbach, The, 15 F.2d 241, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 1926)...................................................................12A.8, 12A.19
Freights of The Kate, The, 63 F. 707 (S.D.N.Y. 1894) .............................................................................................17A.15
Frescati Shipping Company, Ltd. In Re, (The Athos I) 718 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2013), cert. denied,
1345. ct. 1279 (2014) ........................................................................................................ 5A.75, A.11, 5A.15, 40A.1
Fri, The, 154 F. 333, 338 (2d Cir. 1907), cert. denied 210 U.S. 431 (1908) .............................................................11A.21
G & G Shipping Co. Ltd. of Anguilla, In re Complaint of, 767 F. Supp. 398 (D. P.R. 1991) ..................................66A.27
G.E. Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokompu Stainless USA, LLC, 590 U.S,
140 S. Ct. 1637 (2020) ............................................................................................................................2A.35, 2A.36
G.F. Co. v. Pan Ocean Shipping Co., 23 F.3d 1498, 1994 AMC 1739 (9th Cir. 1994) ............................................66A.17
G.W. Sheldon & Co. v. Hamburg Amer. P.-A.-G 28 F.2d 249, 251 (3d Cir. 1928). ...................................................12A.2
Gans SS. Line v. Wilhelmsen, 275 F. 254, 265 (2d Cir. 1921), cert. denied 257 U.S. 655 (1921) ...........................21A.64
Garrity v. Lyle Stuart Inc. 40 N.Y. 2d 354 (1976).....................................................................................................53A.46
Gazelle, The, 128 U.S. 474 (1888) .................................................................................................................5A.1, 21A.41
General Elec. Co. Int’l Sales Div. v. The Nancy Lykes 706 F.2d 80, 83 (2d Cir. 1983) .............................12A.14, 12A.15
General Elec. Co. v. M/V Nedlloyd, 817 F.2d 1022, 1987 AMC 1817 (2d Cir. 1987) ............................................66A.45
Georg Dumois, The, 88 F. 537 (E.D.N.Y. 1898).......................................................................................................21A.14
George E. Warren Corporation v. Britain SS. Co., 100 F.2d 283 (1st Cir. 1938) ...................................................15A.129
Getty Oil Co. v. Norse Management Co. (Pte) Ltd, 711 F. Supp. 175, 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) .......................................2A.4
Gibson v. Brown, 44 F. 98 (S.D.N.Y. 1890) ...............................................................................................................13A.7
Gilbert Transportation Co. v. Borden, 170 F. 706 (1st Cir. 1909)...............................................................................15A.9
Gilda, The, 790 F.2d 1209 (5th Cir. 1986) ....................................................................................................53A.2, 53A.26
Gilda, The, 790 F.2d 1209 at 1213 (5th Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................................53A.13
Giulia, The, 218 F. 744, 746 (2d Cir. 1914) ..............................................................................................................66A.29
Giulio, The, 34 F. 909 (S.D.N.Y. 1888) ......................................................................................................17A.18, 17A.19
Global Oil Tools, Inc. v. Expeditors Int’l of Wash., Inc., 2019 AMC 2087 (E.D. La. 2019) ..................................66A.46
Gloria SS. Co. v. India Supply Mission, 288 F. Supp. 674 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) ............................................................16A.15
Good Hope Chemical Corp., Re, 747 F.2d 806, 809–812 (1st Cir. 1984), cert. denied 471
U.S. 1102 (1985) ..............................................................................................................................................21A.85
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. The Boeing Co., 998 F.2d 68
(2d Cir. 1993) ......................................................................................................................................................2A.28

cx
 TABLE OF U.S. CASES

Grace (W.R.) & Co. v. Hanson, 273 F. 486 (9th Cir. 1920) ....................................................................15A.142, 15A.145
Grace (W.R.) & Co. v. Toyo Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha, F.2d 889 (N.D. Cal. 1925);
aff’d 12 F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1926); cert. denied 273 U.S. 717 (1926) ......................................................12A.6, 12A.7
Gracie D. Chambers, The, 253 F. 182, 183 (2d Cir. 1918), aff’d 248 U.S. 387 (1919) ............. 13A.25, 13A.27–13A.29,
13A.31, 13A.40, 13A.51
Granite & Quartzite Centre Inc. v. The Virma, 374 F. Supp. 1124 (S.D.Ga. 1974)..................................................21A.69
Greenpack of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. American President Lines, 684 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2012) ...............................66A.46
Gulf Italia Co. v. American Export Lines, 263 F.2d 135 (2d Cir. 1959) ...................................................................66A.37
H. Liebes & Co. v. Klengenberg, 23 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1928), cert. denied 277 U.S. 596 (1928) ...........................21A.69
Hagerman v. Norton, 105 F. 996, 998 (5th Cir. 1901) ..............................................................................15A.98, 15A.102
Hall Corp. v. Cargo Ex Steamer Mont Louis, 62 F.2d 603, 605 (2d Cir. 1933) .......................................................17A.20
Hans Maersk, The, 266 F. 806, 810 (2d Cir. 1920) ....................................................... 15A.17, 15A.141, 17A.54–17A.56
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Calmar SS. Corp 404 F. Supp. 442 (1975) ........................................................................11A.18
Hatton v. De Belaunzaran, 26 F. 780, 783 (S.D.N.Y. 1885) .....................................................................................15A.66
Hayes-Leger Associates, Inc. v. M/V Oriental Knight, 765 F.2d 1076, 1986 AMC 1724 (11th Cir. 1985) ............66A.54
Hellenic Lines v. Commodities Bagging & Shipping, 611 F. Supp. 665, 675 n. 13 (D. N.J. 1985) .........................16A.22
Hellenic Transport SS. Co. v. Archibald McNeil & Sons Co., 273 F. 290, 296–297 (D. Md. 1921) .....................15A.156
Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee, 36 F.3d 143, 1995 AMC 1047 (1st Cir. 1994) .......................................................66A.46
Hicks v. Guinness, 269 U.S. 71 (1925) .....................................................................................................................21A.85
Hidrocarburos y Derivados C.A. v. Lemos, 453 F. Supp. 160, 171 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)...................................................2A.4
Higgins v. Anglo-Algerian S.S. Co., 248 F. 386 (2d Cir. 1918) ...............................................................................66A.47
Hinckley v. Wilson Lumber Co., 205 F. 974 (D. Me. 1913) .....................................................................................21A.48
Hirsch Lumber Co. v. Weyerhaueser SS. Co., 233 F.2d 791 (2d Cir. 1956) ..............................................13A.27, 13A.55
Hobson v. Lord, 92 U.S. 397 (1876) ...........................................................................................................................20A.7
Hojgaard & Schultz A/S v. Transamerican SS. Corp., 590 F. Supp. 916 (S.D.N.Y. 1984),
aff’d without op., 762 F.2d 990 (2d Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................21A.66
Horn v. Cia. de Navegacion Frico S.A., 404 F.2d 422, 433 (5th Cir. 1968) ................................. 11A.18, 11A.24, 11A.36
Howland v. Greenway, 63 U.S. 491 (1860) ...............................................................................................................23A.5
Hughes v. J. S. Hoskins Lbr. Co., 136 F. 435 (D. N.J. 1905) ...................................................................................15A.97
Hurlbut v. Turnure 81 F. 208 (2d Cir. 1897) .............................................................................................................12A.12
Hyphestos, The (Associated Bulk Trading Inc. v. Lyondell Petrochemical Co.) 1990 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 10200, No. 89 Civ. 2853 (J.F.K.), slip op. (7 August 1990, S.D.N.Y.) .................................................40A.11
Hyundai Corp. v. Hull Insurance Proceeds of M/V Vulcan, 800 F. Supp. 124, 127 (D. N.J. 1992) ...........................64A.1
Ilva U.S.A., Inc. v. M/V Botic, 1993 AMC 240 (E.D. Pa. 1992), aff’d mem., 998 F.2d 1003,
1993 AMC 2445 (3d Cir. 1993) ..........................................................................................................................66A.5
India, The, 49 F. 76 (5th Cir. 1891).........................................................................................................................15A.154
India, The, 49 F. 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1891)....................................................... 15A.19, 15A.66, 15A.105, 15A.106, 15A.109
Indrapura, The, 171 F. 929, 931 (D. Ore. 1909). ..........................................................................................12A.2, 12A.45
Indus. Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. Emo Trans, Inc., 962 P.2d 983 (Col. Ct. App. 1997).......................................................12A.51
Ingersoll Milling Mach. Co. v. M/V Bodena, 829 F.2d 293, 1988 AMC 223 (2d Cir. 1987) ....................12A.54, 66A.43
Institute of London Underwriters v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 881 F.2d 761,
1989 AMC 2516 (9th Cir. 1989) ......................................................................................................................66A.46
Insurance Co. of North America v. M/V Imperial, 1987 AMC 1480 (E.D. La. 1987) ............................................66A.21
Insurance Co. of North America v. M/V Tokyo Senator 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2553 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) .................6A.22
Integr8 Fuels, Inc. v. Daelim Corporation, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62702, (S.D.N.Y. 2017) ....................................2A.36
Integr8 Fuels, Inc. v. OW Bunker Panama SA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156921 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ............................2A.36
Intercontinental Transportation Co. v. India Supply Mission, 261 F. Supp. 757, 758
(S.D.N.Y. 1966) ...................................................................................................................................15A.17, 16A.17
Irrawaddy, The 171 U.S. 187 (1898) ........................................................................................................................20A.20
Italia di Navigazione, S.p.A. v. M.V. Hermes, 724 F.2d 21, 1984 AMC 1676
(2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam) ...............................................................................................................................66A.24
Itel Containers v. Atlanttrafik Exp. Service Ltd, 909 F.2d 698, 703–704 (2d Cir. 1990) ..........................................2A.10
Itel Container Corp. v. M/V Titan Scan, 139 F.3d 1450, 1998 AMC 1965 (11th Cir. 1998) .....................................66A.5
Itoh (C.) & Co. (America) Inc. v. Hellenic Lines Ltd., 470 F.Supp. 594 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).......................................21A.66
J.C.B. Sales Ltd. v. Wallenius Lines, 124 F.3d 132, 1997 AMC 2705 (2d Cir. 1997) ...............................................66A.5
J. Gerber & Co. v. SS. Sabine Howaldt, 437 F.2d 580, 1971 AMC 539 (2d Cir. 1971) ..........................................66A.29
James N. Kirby, Pty. Ltd. v. Norfolk Southern Railway, 300 F.3d 1300, 2002 AMC 2113
(11th Cir. 2002), rev’d, 543 U.S. 14, 2004 AMC 2705 (2004) ........................................................................66A.11
Jason, The, 225 U.S. 32 (1912) ................................................................................................................................20A.22
Jebsen v. A Cargo of Hemp, 228 F. 143 (D. Mass. 1915) ............................................................... 17A.9, 17A.12, 17A.24
Jenkins Towel Service v. Tidewater Oil Co., 422 Pa. 601 (1966).............................................................................49A.10
Joo Seng Hong Kong Co. v. SS. Unibulkfir, 493 F. Supp. 35, 38 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) ...................................................64A.1
Karran v. Peabody, 145 F. 166 (2d Cir. 1906) .............................................................................................................19A.3
Kemsley, Millbourn & Co. v. United States, 19 F.2d 441 (2d Cir. 1927) ...................................................12A.32, 21A.69

cxi
 TABLE OF U.S. CASES

Keokuk, The, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 517, 519 (1870) ........................................................................................................17A.8

Kerr-McGee Refining Corp. v. La Libertad (La Libertad), 529 F.Supp. 78 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) ..................................21A.56
Kerr-McGee Refining Corp. v. M/T Triumph, 924 F.2d 467 (2d Cir. 1991), cert. denied 502 U.S.
821, 112 S. Ct. 81 (1991), reversing 740 F. Supp. 288 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ..........................................................53A.49
Kimball, The, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 37 (1835) .................................................................................................13A.24, 17A.15
Kirno Hill Corp. v. Holt, 618 F.2d 982, 985 (2d Cir. 1980) ............................................................................2A.10, 23A.1
Knott v. Botany Worsted Mills, 179 U.S. 69, 77 (1898) .............................................................................................66A.3
Komatsu, Ltd. v. States Steamship Co., 674 F.2d 806, 1982 AMC 2152 (9th Cir. 1982) .......................................66A.45
Krauss Brothers Lumber Co. v. Dimon Steamship Corp., 290 U.S. 117 (1933) ........................................................17A.8
Kroll v. Silver Line 116 F. Supp. 443 (N.D. Cal. 1953)............................................................................................12A.27
Krupp Int’l, Inc. v. Federal Atl. Lake Lines, 1982 AMC 1799 (E.D. Mich. 1981) .................................................66A.43
Krystal Inc. v. China United Transport, Inc., 2018 AMC 2365 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................66A.46
Laker Airways, Ltd. v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines 731 F.2d 909, 926 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ...................................21A.97
Larsen v. 150 Bales of Sisal Grass, 147 F. 783 (S.D. Ala. 1906).................................................. 17A.15, 17A.20, 17A.22
Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter Inc., 620 F. Supp. 1084, 1124 n. 32 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff’d, 800 F.2d 1128
(2d Cir. 1986) ...................................................................................................... 11A.66, 15A.148, 15A.149, 16A.21
Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N.Y. 268 (1859) .........................................................................................................................66A.9
Leather’s Best, Inc. v. SS. Mormaclynx, 451 F.2d 800, 1971 AMC 2383 (2d Cir. 1971) .......................................66A.54
Leblond v. McNear, 123 F. 384 (9th Cir. 1903); aff’g 104 F. 826, 830–831 (N.D. Cal. 1900) ....................21A.2, 21A.41
Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Ionia Transp. Co., 174 F. 798, 800 (8th Cir. 1909) ...........................................................16A.2
Leonard J. Buck & Co. Inc. v. M/V Susanna No. 84–0153P (D. Me. 1986) ............................................................11A.46
Leopard Marine & Trading Ltd v. Easy Street Ltd, 896 F.3d 174 ............................................................................39A.17
Libertad, La (Kerr-McGee Refining Corp. v. La Libertad), 529 F.Supp. 78
(S.D.N.Y. 1981) ....................................................................................................................... 53A.2, 53A.17, 53A.28
Liberty Navigation & Trading Co. Inc. v. Kinoshita & Co., 285 F.2d 343 (2d Cir. 1960),
cert. denied 366 U.S. 949 (1961) ..........................................................................................................21A.2, 21A.13
Liebes (H.) & Co. v. Klengenberg, 23 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1928); cert. denied 277 U.S. 596 (1928) ........................21A.69
Lindsay, Gracie & Co. v. Cusimano, 12 F. 503, 504 (C.C.E.D. La. 1882) ..............................................................16AA.2
Lloyd Adriatico Societa di Navigazione v. Consolidation Coal Co. See Adamello, The—
Lombard SS. Co. v. Lanasa & Goffe SS. & Importing Co., 163 F. 433 (D. Md. 1908) .............................................21A.3
Lorentzen v. Brazil Oiticica, Ltd., 145 F.2d 470 (4th Cir. 1944) ................................................................66A.37, 66A.38
Louis Dreyfus Corp. v. 27,946 Long Tons of Corn, 830 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir. 1987) .................... 13A.35, 13A.43, 13A.47,
13A.46, 21A.16
Louise, The, 58 F. Supp. 445 (D. Md. 1945) ....................................................... 12A.40, 13A.33, 13.43, 13A.46, 13A.51
Lovell v. Davis, 101 U.S. 451 (1879) ...........................................................................................................................4A.1
Lucky-Goldstar Int’l (America), Inc. v. SS. California Mercury, 750 F. Supp. 141, 1991 AMC 1018
(S.D.N.Y. 1990) ................................................................................................................................................66A.11
Maine, The, 8 F.2d 291 (S.D.N.Y. 1924) ....................................................................................................12A.17, 12A.34
March, The, 25 F. 106 (D. Md. 1885 ........................................................................................................................19A.17
Mare del Nord, The (Misano di Navigazione S.p.A. v. United States of America), 968 F.2d 273
(2d Cir. 1992) ......................................................................................................................................49A.18, 49A.24
Mare Schiffahrtskontor G.m.b.H. & Co. v. M/V Oceanhaven, 763 F.2d 633 (4th Cir. 1985) ..................................13A.37
Marine Traders Inc. v. Compania de Navegacion Almirante S.A. Panama (The Searaven), 437 F.2d 301
(9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 402 U.S. 996 (1971) .............................................................................................17A.18
Maritime Ventures Int’l Inc. v. Caribbean Trading & Fidelity, Ltd. (The Senhorita) 689 F. Supp. 1341
(S.D.N.Y. 1988) ...................................................................................................................................................2A.18
Marvirazon Compania Naviera S.A. v. H.J. Baker & Bros., 674 F.2d 364 (5th Cir. 1982) .......................................23A.6
Mary Eddy, The, 72 U.S. 486, 488–489 (1867) .......................................................................................... 17A.11, 17A.27
Master Petros, The, 979 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1992); aff’g 790 F.Supp. 70 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)..........................................53A.5
Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc., 514 U.S. 52 (1995) ........................................................................53A.46
Mazza v. J.G. White Engineering Co., 274 F. 990, 992–993 (S.D.N.Y. 1921) .......................................................15A.162
McAndrews v. Thatcher, 70 U.S. 347 (1865) ...........................................................................................................20A.26
McKernin (B.F.) & Co v. United States Lines Inc., 416 F.Supp. 1068 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) ............................21A.73, 21A.74
Mencke v. A Cargo of Java Sugar, 187 U.S. 248 (1902) ..............................................................................................5A.1
Mencke v. Cargo of Java Sugar, 187 U.S. 248 (1902) ................................................................................................40A.5
Mendes Junior International Co. Inc. v. The Sokai Maru, 758 F. Supp. 1169, 1177 (S.D. Tex. 1991)
vacated on procedural grounds, 978 F.2d 920 (5th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................23A.4
Merchants Corp. of America v. 9,655 Long Tons, 238 F. Supp. 572 (S.D. Tex. 1965) ............................................13A.27
Mesocap Industries Ltd. v. Torm Lines, 194 F.3d 1342, 2000 AMC 370 (11th Cir. 1999) .....................................66A.24
Metropolitan Coal Co. v. Howard, 155 F.2d 780 (2d Cir. 1946) ..............................................................................11A.18
Milburn v. 35,000 Boxes of Oranges and Lemons, 57 F. 236, 240 (2d Cir. 1893) .....................................................16A.6
Misano di Navigazione S.p.A. v. United States of America (The Mare del Nord), 968 F.2d 273
(2d Cir. 1992) ......................................................................................................................................49A.18, 49A.24

cxii
 TABLE OF U.S. CASES

Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd v. Société Purfina Maritime, 133 F.2d 552, (9th Cir. 1942), cert. denied,
318 U.S. 781 (1943) ............................................................................................................................13A.27, 13A.31
Mitsui & Co. v. American Export Lines, 636 F.2d 807, 1981 AMC 331 (2d Cir. 1981) .........................................66A.54
Mitsui Marine & Fire Insurance Co. v. Direct Container Line, 119 F. Supp. 2d 412, 2002 AMC 190
(S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff’d mem., 21 Fed. App’x 58 (2d Cir. 2001) .......................................................................66A.49
Mobil Sales & Supply Corp. v. The Banglar Kakoli, 588 F. Supp. 1134, 1142–1146 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ...................12A.21
Montauk Oil Transp. Corp. v. Sonat Marine Inc., 871 F.2d 1169, 1171 (2d Cir. 1989)
(The Hans Maersk, 266 F. at 807) .........................................................................................................15A.19, 25A.3
Morris v. Dept. of Taxation and Finance, 82 N.Y. 2d 135, 603 N.Y.S. 2d 807, 623 N.E. 2d 1157 (1993) .................2A.11
Morrisey v. SS. A. & J. Faith, 252 F. Supp. 54 (N.D. Ohio 1965)............................................................................13A.37
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Co., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) .............................................53A.47
M/V DG Harmony, In re, 533 F.3d 83, 2008 AMC 1848 (2d Cir. 2008) .................................................................66A.58
N.L.R.B. v. Greater Kansas City Roofing, 2 F.3d 1047, 1053 (10th Cir. 1993) .........................................................2A.21
Nancy Lykes, The (General Elec. Co. Int’l Sales Div. v. The Nancy Lykes) 706 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1983) ................12A.49
Nassau Glass Co. v. Noel Roberts, Ltd., 249 F. Supp. 116, 117 (S.D. Fla. 1965) ....................................................12A.51
National Packaging Corp. v. N.Y.K. Line [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 46 (U.S. Dist. Ct.) .................................................10.24
Nebco International v. M/V National Integrity 752 F. Supp. 1207, 1221–1222 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ..............................10A.3
Nemeth v. Gen. SS. Corp., 1983 AMC 885, 694 F.2d 609, 612–613 (9th Cir. 1982).................................12A.51, 66A.45
Neptune, The (1867) 16 L.T. 36 (Dist. Ct. N.Y) ............................................................................................................6.28
New York and Cuba Mail SS. Co. v. Guayaquil and Q.R. Co., 270 F. 200 (2d Cir. 1920) ......................................21A.46
Nitram, Inc. v. Cretan Life 599 F.2d 1359, 1373 (5th Cir. 1979) .............................................................................66A.15
Niver (W.K.). See W .K. Niver Coal Co. v. Cheronea SS. Co—
Nivose, The, 291 F. 412 (D. Md. 1923), aff’d., 298 F. 1022 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
266 U.S. 606 (1924) ........................................................................................................................................15A.136
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty. Ltd., 543 U.S. 14,
2004 AMC 2705 (2004) ............................................................................... 66.50, 66.471, 66A.11, 66A.52, 66A.59
Northern Tankers (Cyprus) Ltd. v. Backstrom 967 F. Supp. 1391 (D. Conn. 1997) ......................................2A.10, 2A.23
Northrop and Johnson Yacht-Ships Inc. v. Royal Van Lent Shipyard BV, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 8797
(11th Cir. 2021)....................................................................................................................................................2A.35
Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Galin, 1988 AMC 878 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) .................................................................66A.24
Oceanic Trading Corp. v. The Freights of The Diana, 423 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1970).....................................................17A.20
Oceano, The, 148 F. 131, 133 (S.D.N.Y. 1906) ........................................................................................................17A.32
Office of Supply, Government of the Republic of Korea v. New York Navigation Co. Inc.,
469 F.2d. 377, 1973 (2d Cir. 1972)........................................................................................................53A.5, 66A.23
Oliver v. Maryland Ins. Co., 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 487, 3 L. Ed. 414 (1812) ..............................................................12A.32
Olivier Straw Goods Corp. v. Osaka Shosen Kaisha, 47 F.2d 878, 1931 AMC 528 (2d Cir. 1931) ........................66A.47
Oluf, The, 19 F. 459 (C.C.E.D. La. 1883)...................................................................................................................16A.2
Otal Investments Ltd., In re, 2008 AMC 1561 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), aff’d in part, vacated in part
on other grounds, 673 F.3d 108, 2012 AMC 913 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) .................................................66A.26
Ore SS. Corp. v. D/S A/S Hassel, 137 F.2d 326 (2d Cir. 1943) ................................................................................11A.24
Oregon, The, 55 F. 666, 673 (6th Cir. 1893) ................................................................................... 21A.2, 21A.25, 21A.64
Orient Shipping Rotterdam B.V. v. Hugo Neu & Sons Inc., 104 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 1996);
aff’g 918 F.Supp. 806 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ...........................................................................................................15A.168
Orsino, The, 24 F. 918 (D. Md. 1885 ........................................................................................................................19A.17
Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (2013) ......................................................................................2A.42
Oxford Paper Co. v. The Nidarholm, 282 U.S. 681 (1931) ............................................................ 11A.3, 11A.34, 11A.36
P. Dougherty Co. v. 2,471 Tons of Coal, 278 F. 799, 803 (D. Mass. 1922) ............................................................15A.166
P.P.G. Industries Inc. v. Ashland Oil Co. Thomas Petroleum Transit Div., 592 F.2d 138
(3d Cir. 1978); cert. denied 444 U.S. 830 (1979) ..............................................................................................21A.82
Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. M/V Gloria 767 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1985) ..........................................................66A.7
Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. M/V Mini Lass, 1983 AMC 2196 (E.D. La. 1982),
aff’d mem., 721 F.2d 817 (5th Cir. 1983) .........................................................................................................66A.21
Pacol (Canada) Ltd. v. M/V Minerva, 523 F. Supp. 579 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)................................................................21A.70
Pan American World Airways v. California Stevedore & Ballast Co., 559 F.2d 1173,
1978 AMC 1834 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) ..................................................................................................66A.45
Pan Cargo Shipping Corp. v. United States, 234 F. Supp. 623, 629 (S.D.N.Y. 1964),
aff’d, 373 F.2d 525, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 836 (1967) .....................................................................................15A.48
Paragon Oil Co. v. Republic Tankers, S.A, 310 F.2d 169, 171 (2d Cir. 1962) ...........................................................5A.11
Paramedics Electromedicina Commercial, Ltda. v. G.E. Med. Sys. Info. Techs, Inc. 369 F.3d 645,654,
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10235 (2d Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................21A.97
Passalacqua (Wm.) Builders v. Resnick Developers South Inc., 933 F.2d 131
(2d Cir. 1991) .......................................................................................................................................... 2A.11–2A.17
Pedersen v. Eugster, 14 F. 422, 423 (E.D. La. 1882) .....................................................................................15A.97, 15.98

cxiii
 TABLE OF U.S. CASES

Pemeno Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Louis Dreyfus Corp., 238 Fed. App’x 6 (5th Cir. 2007)...........................................66A.56
Penn R.R. v. Moore-McCormack Lines Inc., 370 F.2d. 430 (2d. Cir. 1966) .............................................................38A.4
Pennsylvania R.R. Co. v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 370 F.2d 430, 432 (2d Cir. 1966) ........................................15A.17
Pioneer Fuel Co. v. McBrier, 84 F. 495, 499 (8th Cir. 1897) ....................................................................................17A.19
Polar SS. Co. v. Inland Overseas SS. Corp., 136 F.2d 835 (4th Cir. 1943); cert. denied 320
U.S. 774 (1943) ....................................................................................................................... 21A.6, 21A.13, 21A.64
Polar Steamship Co. v. Inland Overseas Steamship Corp 136 F.2d 835, 840 (4th Cir. 1943),
cert. denied, 320 U.S. 774 (1943)............................................................................................ 21A.6, 21A.13, 21A.64
Pool Shipping Co. v. Samuel, 200 F. 36, 40–41 (3d Cir. 1912) ................................................................................16A.24
Portland Flouring Mills Co. v. British & Foreign Marine Ins. Co. 130 F. 860 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
195 U.S. 629 (1904) ..........................................................................................................................................13A.59
Posnan, The, 276 F. 418, 427–428 (S.D.N.Y. 1921) ..............................................................................................15A.160
Progressive Rail, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 981 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2020)....................................................66A.12
Pyman SS. Co. v. Mexican Cont. Ry., 169 F. 281, 283 (2d Cir. 1909) ...................................................................15A.161
Queensmore, The (1893) 53 Fed. Rep. 1022 .............................................................................................................13.114
Ralli v. Troop 157 U.S. 386 (1895) .................................................................................................................20A.1, 20A.6
Red “R” SS. Co. v. North American Transport Co., 91 F. 168, 169–170 (2d Cir. 1898) ..........................................16A.23
Republic Corp. v. Procedyne Corp. 401 F. Supp. 1061, 1066 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) .........................................................21A.5
Revson v. Cinque & Cinque, P.C., 221 F.3d 59, 66 (2d Cir. 2000) ...............................................................................1A.4
Robert C. Herd & Co. v. Krawill Machinery Corp., 359 U.S. 297, 1959 AMC 879 (1959)) ........................66A.1, 66A.9
Robins Dry Dock & Repair Company v. Flint et al., 275 U.S. 303 (1927) ..............................................................21A.13
Robinson v. Noble’s Admrs., 33 U.S. 181 (1834).....................................................................................................21A.47
Roby v. Corporation of Lloyd’s 996 F.2d 1353 (2d Cir. 1993) .................................................................................21A.97
Rohm & Haas Co. v. American President Lines, 1989 AMC 420 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ................................................66A.24
Rosalia, The (1920) 264 F. 266, 285 (2nd Cir.) ................................................................................................3.13, 66.288
Rotterdamsche Lloyd v. Gosho Co., 298 F. 443 (9th Cir. 1924), cert. denied, 266 U.S. 621 (1924) .......................21A.64
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia v. SS. Ioannis Martinos, 1986 AMC 790 (E.D.N.C. 1984) ..................................66A.10
Royal Ins. Co. v. Sea-Land Service Inc., 50 F.3d 723, 1995 AMC 1189 (9th Cir. 1995) ........................................66A.46
Royal Ins. Co. v. Westwood Transpacific Service, 1991 AMC 1028 (W.D. Wash. 1990), aff’d mem.,
988 F.2d 121 (9th Cir. 1993) ............................................................................................................................66A.11
Royal SMIT Transformers BV v. HC Bea-Luna M/V, 2017 AMC 1977 (E.D. La. 2017),
aff’d, 898 F.3d 543, 2019 AMC 1848 (5th Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................66A.13
Royal SMIT Transformers BV v. HC Bea-Luna M/V, 898 F.3d 543, 2019 AMC 1848 (5th Cir. 2018) .................66A.12
Royal Typewriter Co. v. M/V Kulmerland, 483 F.2d 645, 1973 AMC 1784 (2d Cir. 1973) ...................................66A.54
Rupp v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 479 F.2d 674, 1973 AMC 1093 (2d Cir. 1973) ...........................................66A.10
Rupprecht v. Delacamp, 165 F. 381 (S.D.N.Y. 1908), aff’d, 169 F. 1022 (2d Cir. 1909) ..........................................19A.8
S.C.A.C. Transport (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Danaos, 845 F.2d 1157 (2d Cir. 1988) .............................................................11A.74
S/A Industrias Reunidas F. Matarazzo v. Compania de Vapores San Antonio, S.A, 127 F. Supp. 558
(S.D.N.Y. 1954) ...................................................................................................................................................36A.8
Sabine Towing & Transp. Co. v. Merit Ventures, Inc., 575 F. Supp. 1442 (E.D. Tex. 1983) .........................2A.19, 2A.21
Saigon Maru, The, 267 F. 881 (D. Ore. 1920), aff’d 272 F. 799 (9th Cir. 1921), rev’d on other grounds
200 U.S. 490 (1923) .........................................................................................................................................21A.65
Saint. Bernard, The, 105 F. 994 (S.D.N.Y. 1901) .....................................................................................................15A.25
Saint. Ioannis Shipping Corp. v. Zidell Explorations Inc., 336 F.2d 194 (9th Cir. 1964); aff’g
222 F.Supp. 299 (D. Ore. 1963) ..........................................................................................................15A.24, 15A.67
Samuel W. Hall, The, 49 F. 281 (S.D.N.Y. 1892) .......................................................................................................19A.3
San Giuseppe, The, 122 F.2d 579, 583 (4th Cir. 1941) ..................................................................... 12A.3, 12A.6, 12A.13
Santiago v. Sea-Land Service Inc., 366 F. Supp. 1309 (D. P.R. 1973) .......................................................21A.66, 21A.70
Sarnia, The, 278 F. 459 (2d Cir. 1921) ........................................................................................................12A.48, 12A.53
Saturnus, The, 250 F. 407, 408 (2d Cir. 1918), cert. denied 247 U.S. 521 (1918).......................... 17A.3, 17A.16, 17A.25
Scapa Forming Fabrics v. Blue Anchor Line, 243 Fed. App’x 846, 2007AMC 2108 (5th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam) ......................................................................................................................................................66A.43
Schmidt v. Keyser, 88 F. 799, 800 (5th Cir. 1898) ....................................................................................................17A.48
Scholle v. Cuban-Venezuelan Oil Voting Trust 285 F.2d 318, 320 (2d Cir. 1960) ...................................................21A.81
Schooner Freeman, The, v. Buckingham, 59 U.S. 182, 190 (1856) .............................................................17A.3, 17A.34
Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Lozen International, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 2002 AMC 913 (9th Cir. 2002) .....................66A.42
Searaven, The (Beverly Hills National Bank & Trust Co. & Marine Traders Inc. v.
Compania de Navegacion Almirante S.A. Panama) 437 F.2d 301 (9th Cir. 1971);
cert. denied 402 U.S. 996 (1971).......................................................................................................................17A.18
Sears v. Wills (4,885 Bags of Linseed) 66 U.S. 35, 37 (1861) ................................................................... 17A.11, 17A.26
Secrest Machine Corp. v. S.S. Tiber, 450 F.2d 285, 1972 AMC 815 (5th Cir. 1971) (per curiam) .........................66A.10
Senator Linie v. Sunway Line, 291 F.3d 145, 2002 AMC 1217 (2d Cir. 2002) (Sotomayor, J.) ...............66A.56, 66A.57
Servicios-Expoarena C.A. v. Industrial Marine, Inc 135 F.3d 984 (5th Cir. 1998) ....................................................53A.5
Shaw Savill & Albion Co. v. The Fredericksburg, 189 F.2d 952, 954–955 (2d Cir. 1951) ......................................21A.85

cxiv
 TABLE OF U.S. CASES

Sheldon (G.W.) & Co. v. Hamburg Amer. P.-A.-G., 28 F.2d 249 (3d Cir. 1928)........................................................12A.2
Shelter Forest International Acquisition, Inc. v. COSCO Shipping (USA) Inc., 475 F. Supp. 3d 1171,
1192 (D. Ore. 2020)...........................................................................................................................................66A.24
Silva v. Bankers Commercial Corporation, 163 F.2d 602 (2d Cir. 1947) .................................................................13A.37
Simcuski v. Saoeli, 44 N.Y.2d 442, 449 (1978) ........................................................................................................53A.41
Six Hundred Tons of Iron Ore, 9 F. 595 (D. N.J. 1881) ............................................................................................17A.19
Sky Reefer see Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer
Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. v. Smith Cogeneration Int’l, Inc., 198 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999) .................................2A.34
Solhaug, The, 2 F. Supp. 294, 300 (S.D.N.Y. 1931) ...................................................................................17A.20, 17A.24
Sompo Japan Insurance Co. of America v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 762 F.3d 165, 2014 AMC
1817 (2d Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................................................................................66A.12
Son Shipping Co. v. De Fosse & Tanghe, 199 F.2d 687, 1952 AMC 1931 (2d Cir. 1952) ......................................66A.23
Sorensen v. Keyser, 52 F. 163, 165 (5th Cir. 1892) .....................................................................................15.98, 15A.155
Squillante & Zimmerman Sales Inc. v. Puerto Rico Marine Management Inc., 516 F. Supp. 1049
(D.P.R. 1981), aff’d without opinion 685 F.2d 421 (1st Cir. 1982).....................................................................21A.4
Stainless Sales, Inc. v. Evergreen America Corp., 2006 WL 1328845 at *11 n. 15 (E.D. Mich. 2006) ..................66A.56
Standard Electrica S.A. v. Hamburg Sudamerikanische Dampfschiffahrts GmbH [1967] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 193 (U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Cir.)...........................................................................................66.375, 66.377
Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States (The Egg Harbor), 59 F.Supp. 100 (S.D. Cal. 1945);
aff’d 156 F.2d 312 (9th Cir. 1946).........................................................................................................53A.2, 53A.17
Star of Hope, The ,76 U.S. 203, 228 (1869) ...............................................................................................................20A.7
Status Int’l S.A. v. M. & D. Maritime Ltd., 994 F. Supp. 182, 186 n. 4 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ............................. 2A.10, 2A.11
Steamer Eclipse, The, 135 U.S. 599 (1890) ..............................................................................................................21A.95
Steamship Co. of 1912 v. C. H. Pearson & Son Hardwood Co., 30 F.2d 770 (2d Cir. 1929).....................15A.10, 21A.46
Steamship Rutherglen Co. Ltd. v. Howard Houlder & Partners Inc.196 F. 916, 918 (S.D.N.Y. 1910) ....................17A.63
Steamship Rutherglen Co. Ltd. v. Howard Houlder & Partners Inc. 203 F. 848, 850–852
(2d Cir. 1913) ............................................................................ 15A.1, 15A.12, 15A.13, 15A.161, 15A.168, 17A.63
Steel Coils, Inc. v. M/V Lake Marion, 331 F.3d 422, 2003 AMC 1408 (5th Cir. 2003) ..........................................66A.15
Stevenson (T.J.) & Co. Inc. v. 81,193 Bags of Flour, 449 F.Supp. 84 (S.D. Ala. 1976);
aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 629 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1980) ..................................................................13A.53, 15A.148
Stirnimann v. The San Diego, 148 F.2d 141 (2d Cir. 1945)......................................................................................66A.38
Stolt-Nielsen SA, Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group Ltd., Odfjell ASA, Odfjell Seachem AS,
Odfjell USA, Inc., Jo Tankers BV, Jo Tankers, Inc., and Tokyo Marine Co., Ltd. v. Animalfeeds
International Corp. and KP Chemical Corp., 435 F. Supp. 2d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2006),
548 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008), 559 U.S. 662 (2010) .............................................................. 1A.1, 2A.40, 2A.41, 2A.42
Stone & Webster, Inc. v. Triplefine Interna- tional Corp., 118 Fed. Appx. 546; 2004 U.S. App.
LEXIS 26535 (2d Cir. 2004) ...............................................................................................................................62A.2
Styling Plastics Co. v. Neptune Orient Lines, 666 F. Supp. 1406, 1988 AMC 351 (N.D. Cal. 1987) .....................66A.24
Styria, The, 186 U.S. 1027 (1901) ..............................................................................................................13A.51, 13A.52
Sucrest Corp. v. M/V Jennifer 460 F.2d at 102 ........................................................................................... 11A.57, 11A.64
Sugar Products Co. v. Mobile & Gulf Navigation Co., 268 F. 815–17 (5th Cir. 1920) ............................................16A.16
Swift & Company Packers v. Compania Colombiana del Caribe, S.A., 339 U.S. 684, 689 n. 4 (1950)......................2A.9
T.J. Stevenson & Co. v. 81,193 Bags of Flour, 449 F. Supp. 84, 135 (S.D. Ala. 1976),
aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 629 F.2d 338, 371 n. 4 (5th Cir. 1980) ..............................................13A.53, 15A.148
Taisho Kaiun Kabushiki Kaisha v. Gano Moore Co., 14 F.2d 985, 987 (D. Del. 1926).............................................16A.3
Taiwan Int’l Line Ltd. v. Matthew Ship Chartering Ltd., 546 F. Supp. 826, 829 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) ...........17A.16, 17A.25
Tan Hi v. United States, 94 F.Supp. 432 (N.D. Cal. 1950) .............................................................................10A.2, 10A.3
Tapco Nigeria Ltd. v. M/V West Wind 702 F.2d 1252 (5th Cir. 1983) .......................................................................10A.3
Tecomar S.A., In re, 765 F. Supp. 1150, 1991 AMC 2432 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) ...........................................................66A.29
Telenor Mobile Communications AS v. Storm LLC 524 F. Supp. 2d 332, 364 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ...........................21A.97
Teras Chartering, LLC v. Hyupjin Shipping Co., Ltd., 2017 WL 2363632 (WD Wash 2017) ...................................15A.8
Terman Foods Inc. v. Omega Lines, 707 F.2d 1225 (11th Cir. 1983) .......................................................................21A.66
Tessler Brothers (B.C.) v. Italpacific Line, 494 F.2d 438, 1974 AMC 937 (9th Cir. 1974) .....................................66A.45
Texaco Export Inc. v. Overseas Tankship Corp., 573 F.2d 717, 724–725 (2d Cir. 1978).
13 152 F. 170 (2d Cir. 1907)................................................................................................................................21A.6
Thebideau v. Cairns, 171 F. 233 (D. Me. 1909) ........................................................................................................21A.31
Thiti Lert Watana Co. v. Minagratex Corp., 105 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 2001 AMC 80 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ....................66A.11
Thyssen, Inc. v. SS. Eurounity, 21 F.3d 533, 1994 AMC 1638 (2d Cir. 1994) ........................................................66A.29
Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co. v. Retla Steamship Co., 426 F.2d 1372, 1970 AMC 1611
(9th Cir. 1970) ) ................................................................................................................................................66A.16
Towers Charter & Marine Corp. v. Cadillac Ins. Co., 894 F.2d 516, 523–524 (2d Cir. 1990). ................................21A.82
Toyomenka Pacific Petroleum Inc. v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 771 F. Supp. 63, 69
(S.D.N.Y. 1991) ...................................................................................................................................................15A.5
Trans-Asiatic Oil Ltd. S.A. v. Apex Oil Co., 804 F.2d 773, 781 (1st Cir. 1986) ......................................................17A.61

cxv
 TABLE OF U.S. CASES

Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. M/V “OOCL Inspiration,” 137 F.3d 94,
1998 AMC 1327 (2d Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................................................66A.15
Trans-Oceanic Peace Corp. v. India Supply Mission 325 F. Supp. 474, (S.D.N.Y. 1971) .........................13A.57, 13A.58
Tri-Bullion Smelting & Development Co. v. Jacobson, 233 F. 646 (2d Cir. 1916) ..................................................21A.78
Tubacex Inc. v. MV Risan (1995) 45 F.3d. 951 (5th Cir.) .................................................................66.86, 66.114, 66.322
Tweedie Trading Co. v. Barry, 205 F. 721, 723 (2d Cir. 1913) .................................................................................15A.25
Tweedie Trading Co. v. Pitch Pine Lumber Co., 156 F. 88, 89 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1907) ................ 15A.98, 15A.99, 15A.102
Tweedie Trading Co. v. Strong & Trowbridge Co., 195 F. 929 (2d Cir. 1912)...........................................................16A.9
U.S. v. Wessel, Duval & Co., 115 F. Supp. 678 (S.D.N.Y. 1953) ...............................................................................53A.2
Ulrich Ammann Building Equipment Ltd. v. M/V Monsun, 1985 AMC 1965 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) ............................66A.39
United States v. Atlantic Refining Co., 112 F. Supp. 76, 80–82 (D. N.J. 1951) ........................................15A.144, 25A.3
United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 141 L.Ed. 2d 43 (1998) ..............................................................................2A.25
United States v. Bowring & Co., 63 F.2d 224 (2d Cir. 1933) ...................................................................................15A.23
United States v. Davis 767 F.2d 1025, 1038 (2d Cir. 1985)......................................................................................21A.97
United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 5 (1997) .......................................................................................................66A.11
United States v. Ira S. Bushey & Sons Inc. 363 F. Supp. 110, 115 (D. Vt. 1973), aff’d w.o. opinion,
487 F.2d 1393 (2d Cir. 1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 976 (1974) ........................................................................2A.24
United States v. Jon. T. Chemicals, Inc., 768 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1985) ......................................................................2A.24
United States v. Middleton, 3 F.2d 384 (6th Cir. 1924) ............................................................................................21A.74
United States v. Nuestra Senora De Regla, 108 U.S. 92 (1882) ...............................................................................21A.13
United States v. The Lucie Schulte, 343 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1965).............................................................................17A.42
United States v. Wessel, Duval & Co., 115 F.Supp. 678 (S.D.N.Y. 1953)..................................................................53A.2
United Transp. Co. v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 13 F.2d 282–284 (2d Cir. 1926) ............................21A.2, 21A.7
Universal American Barge Corp. v. J-Chem. Inc., 946 F.2d 1131 (5th Cir. 1991) ...................................................11A,75
Universal Leaf Tobacco Co. v. Companhia de Navegacao Maritima Netumar, 993 F.2d 414,
1993 AMC 2439 (4th Cir. 1993) .......................................................................................................................66A.54
Venus Shipping Co. v. Wilson,13152 F. 170 (2d Cir. 1907) .......................................................................................21A.7
Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528,
1995 AMC 1817 (1995) .......................................................................................................... 66A.1, 66A.12, 66A.23
Vinnlustodin HF v. Sea Tank Shipping AS (“The Aqasia”), [2016] EWHC 2514,
[2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 530, 2016 AMC 2415 (Eng. Comm.) ...........................................................................66A.36
Vision Air Flight Service, Inc. v. M/V National Pride, 155 F.3d 1165, 1999 AMC 1168
(9th Cir. 1998) ..................................................................................................................................................66A.42
Vitol, S.A. v. Primerose Shipping Co. Ltd., 708 F.3d 527 (4th Cir. 2013) .................................................................2A.21
W.K. Niver Coal Co. v. Cheronea SS. Co., 142 F. 402, 406 (1st Cir. 1905), 406–407, cert. denied,
201 U.S. 647 (1906) .................................................. 15A.7, 15A.12, 15A.32, 15A.36, 15A.157, 15A.158, 15A.172
W.R. Grace & Co. v. Hanson, 273 F. 486 (9th Cir. 1920).......................................................................15A.142, 15A.145
W.R. Grace & Co. v. Toyo Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha, F.2d 889, 892 (N.D. Cal. 1925),
aff’d 12 F.2d 519, 521 (9th Cir. 1926), cert. denied 273 U.S. 717 (1926) ..............................................12A.6, 12A.7
Waalhaven, The, 36 F.2d 706 (2d Cir. 1929); cert. denied 281 U.S. 747 (1930) ......................................................12A.16
Walker (F.J.) Ltd. v. M/V Lemoncore, 561 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir. 1977)........................................................................10A.2
Warren Corp. v. Pickton S.S., Co., 100 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 1938) ................................................................................36A.8
Wasson v. Stetson Cutter & Co., 214 F. 329, 332 (D. Mass. 1914) ..........................................................................15A.15
Waterman SS. Corp. v. United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co., 155 F.2d 687,
693–694 (5th Cir. 1946) ....................................................................................................................................66A.37
Waterspring S.A. v. Trans Marketing Houston Inc, 717 F. Supp. 181 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) .............................................63A.1
Watts v. Camors 115 U.S. 353, 360 (1885) ........................................................................................... 1A.1, 3A.7, 21A.88
Wellman v. Morse, 76 F. 573 (1st Cir. 1986) ............................................................................................................17A.12
Wemhoener Pressen v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc., 5 F.3d 734, 1993 AMC 2842
(4th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................................................... 66A.11, 66A.12
West Africa Navigation, Ltd. v. Ore & Ferro Corp., 199 F. Supp. 771, 773 (S.D.N.Y. 1961)..................................16A.23
West Arrow, The, 80 F.2d 853 (2d Cir. 1936) ............................................................................................................21A.2
West India SS. Co. v. Field Line, 196 F. 591, 592 (S.D.N.Y. 1910) .........................................................................16A.23
West Point, The (American Cyanamid Co. v. Booth SS. Co.) 95 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1952);
aff’g 99 F.Supp. 232 (S.D.N.Y. 1951) ...................................................................................................12A.9, 12A.24
Westmoreland, The, 86 F.2d 96, 97, (2d Cir. 1936) .................................................................................................49A.30
Willcox, Peck & Hughes v. American Smelting & Ref. Co., 210 F. 89 (S.D.N.Y. 1913) ..........................................20A.4
Willdomino v. Citro Chemical Co ., 272 U.S. 718, 1927 AMC 129 (1927) ...............................................12A.42, 12A.47
William H. Beard Dredging Co. v. Hughes, 113 F. 680 (S.D.N.Y. 1902), aff’d, 121 F. 808
(2d Cir. 1903) ...................................................................................................................................................21A.56
William J. Quillan, The, 180 Fed. 681 (2d Cir. 1910); cert. denied 218 U.S. 682 (1910) ..........................................6A.22
William Passalacqua Builders v. Resnick Developers South Inc., 7, 933 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1991) ................ 2A.11, 2A.12
Wong Wing Fai Co., S.A. v. United States, 840 F.2d 1462, 1466 (9th Cir. 1988) ......................................................15A.8
Wood v. Keyser, 84 F. 688, 692 (N.D. Fla. 1897) ...................................................................................................15A.102

cxvi
 TABLE OF U.S. CASES

Wordsworth, The, 88 F. 313 (S.D.N.Y. 1898) .............................................................................................................20A.3

World Wide Steamship Co. v. India Supply Mission, 316 F. Supp. 190 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)........................................12A.44
Wuerttembergische v. M/V Stuttgart Express, 711 F.2d 621, 1984 AMC 2738
(5th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) ..............................................................................................................................66A.45
Yang Machine Tool Co. v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 58 F.3d 1350, 1995 AMC 2153 (9th Cir. 1995) ......................66A.46
Yone Suzuki v. Central Argentine Railway, 27 F.2d 795, 797, 800–804, 806 (2d Cir. 1928),
cert. denied, 278 U.S. 652 (1929)............................................. 15A.5, 15A.38, 15A.99, 15A.154, 15A.155, 16A.21,
17A.50, 17A.52, 17A.55, 17A.62, 25A.3
Zampano v. Quinn, 6 N.Y.3d 666, 706 (2006) ............................................................................................53A.41, 66A.23

cxvii
 Table of Arbitrations
United Kingdom
London Arbitration—
3/79, L.M.L.N. 2 .................................................... 6.59
5/79, L.M.L.N. 2 .................................................. 25.15
10/80, L.M.L.N. 12 ................................................ 6.64
13/80, L.M.L.N. 14 .............................................. 14.51
28/80, L.M.L.N. 27 ................................................ 43.4
14/82 L.M.L.N. 71 ............................................... 15.59
17/82, L.M.L.N. 76 ............................. 6.2, 33.14, 35.8
18/82, L.M.L.N. 77 .................................................. 8.2
1/83, L.M.L.N. 85 .................................................. 14.9
4/83, L.M.L.N. 91 .......................................25.13, 59.3
5/83, L.M.L.N. 94 ................................................ 25.12
4/85, L.M.L.N. 139 ................................................ 6.18
5/85 L.M.L.N. April 1985 ................................... 15.63
10/85, L.M.L.N. 155 .............................................. 38.4
1/86, L.M.L.N. 161 ............................................ 66.374
12/86, L.M.L.N. 179 ............................................... .6.7
4/87, L.M.L.N. 188 .............................................. 14.55
10/87, L.M.L.N. 201 ............................................ 14.51
12/87, L.M.L.N. 204 ................................................ 9.1
13/87, L.M.L.N. 205 ............................................ 17.37
2/88, L.M.L.N. 225 ................................................ 6.56
3/89, L.M.L.N. 243 ................................................ 6.14
18/89 L.M.L.N. 254 ............................................. 16.21
2/90, L.M.L.N. 267 .....................................39.3, 39.10
7/90, L.M.L.N. 285 ................................................ 6.17
12/90, L.M.L.N. 286 ................................................ 9.3
18/90 L.M.L.N. 285 ............................................. 16.21
2/91, L.M.L.N. 299 .................................................. 9.1
5/91, L.M.L.N. 299 .............................................. 17.26
11/91, L.M.L.N. 304 .............................................. 42.1
22/91, L.M.L.N. 316 .............................................. 13.2
6/92, L.M.L.N. 321 .................................................. 9.1
23/92, L.M.L.N. 332 .............................................. 49.2
3/93 L.M.L.N. 351 ............................................... 15.59
4/93 L.M.L.N. 351 ................................................. 15.8
7/93, L.M.L.N. 353 .............................................. 17.14
8/93, L.M.L.N. 354 ...................................14.37, 14.55
14/93, L.M.L.N. 358 .............................................. 42.1
15/93, L.M.L.N. 359 .............................................. 4.12
1/94, L.M.L.N. 383 ................................................ 4.21
5/94, L.M.L.N. 386 .............................................. 15.17
12/94, L.M.L.N. 387 ................................................ 1.3
5/95, L.M.L.N. 405 ................................................ 33.7
9/95, L.M.L.N. 408 ............................................ 13.106
17/95, L.M.L.N. 414 .............................................. 5.19
3/96, L.M.L.N. 426 ................................................ 1.20
12/96, L.M.L.N. 445 .............................................. 1.20
cxviii
14/96, L.M.L.N. 446 ...................................3.39, 14.51
9/97, L.M.L.N. 460 .......................................5.55, 5.64
11/97, L.M.L.N. 463 ...................................5.70, 15.65
20/97, L.M.L.N. 473 .............................................. 4.20
4/98, L.M.L.N. 481 .............................................. 16.21
13/98, L.M.L.N. 488 ...................................6.18, 14.36
20/98, L.M.L.N. 493 .............................................. 38.6
4/99, L.M.L.N. 504 ................................................ 23.4
7/99, L.M.L.N. 505 .............................................. 14.48
11/99, L.M.L.N. 510 .............................................. 43.1
12/99, L.M.L.N. 511 .............................................. 5.19
13/99, L.M.L.N. 511 .......................................... 18.207
15/99, L.M.L.N. 519 ............................................ 14.40
Arbitration (October 2000 Unreported) ................... 38.16
10/00, L.M.L.N. 545 ................................................ 9.4
12/00, L.M.L.N. 546 ............................................ 27.21
16/00 (L.M.L.N. 547.......................................... 18.236
6/03, L.M.L.N. ......................................................... 9.6
8/03, L.M.L.N. 615 ................................................ 38.4
9/03, L.M.L.N. 616 ................................................ 39.7
12/61 (2003) L.M.L.N. 615 on “WIPON”.......... 15.57
18/04 (2004) L.M.L.N. 647 ................................... 39.8
27/04, L.M.L.N. 651 .............................................. 37.2
3/05, L.M.L.N. 659 ................................................ 23.7
14/05, L.M.L.N. 669 ............................................ 15.59
16/05, L.M.L.N 672 ............................................. 15.29
17/05, L.M.L.N. 674 .............................................. 41.5
2/06, L.M.L.N. 684 ................................................ 21.5
3/06, L.M.L.N. 685 .......................................5.70, 35.9
7/06, L.M.L.N. (1(2)) 688 ...........................24.4, 24.5,
24.13, 24.16
13/06, L.M.L.N. 698 ...................................13.72, 34.9
14/06, L.M.L.N. 698 ............................................ 10.20
18/06, L.M.L.N. 702 ........................... 1.18, 3.23, 3.24
19/06, L.M.L.N. 705 ............................................ 18.23
12/07, L.M.L.N. 719 ................................................ 9.1
18/07, L.M.L.N. 718 ............................................ 13.12
18/07, L.M.L.N. ....................................................... 9.1
21/07, L.M.L.N. 725 .....................................23.8, 38.4
2/08, L.M.L.N. 734 ................................................ 43.4
3/08, L.M.L.N. 734 .....................................13.72, 34.9
6/08, L.M.L.N. 744 .............................................. 11.12
10/08, L.M.L.N. ................................................... 14.42
11/08, L.M.L.N. 749 ...................... 2.1, 2.2, 25.4, 39.7
11/10, L.M.L.N. ................................................... 15.17
20/10, L.M.L.N. 807 .....................................50.4, 53.3
9/11, L.M.L.N. 833 ...................................13.31, 15.30
2/13, L.M.L.N. 870 ................................................ 43.2
7/13, 872 L.M.L.N. 833........................ 1.3, 1.16, 2.31
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
4/14 L.M.L.N. February 2014 ............................. 15.36
20/14 L.M.L.N. ...................................................... 15.8
3/15 L.M.L.N. February 2015 ............................. 15.28
5/15 L.M.L.N. March 2015 ................................. 15.62
9/15 L.M.L.N. 9 June 2015 ............................... 21.146
12/15 L.M.L.N. ...................................................... 15.8
13/15 L.M.L.N. August 2015 .............................. 38.18
4/16 L.M.L.N. ........................................31.134.1, 46.2
5/16 L.M.L.N. March 2016 ................................. 15.28
21/16 L.M.L.N. August 2016 .............................. 15.39
1/17 L.M.L.N. January 2017 ............................... 15.72
3/17 L.M.L.N. January 2017 ............................... 15.65
17/17 L.M.L.N. May 2017 .................................. 16.11
18/17 L.M.L.N. June 2017 .................................. 16.15
22/17 L.M.L.N. September 2017 ........................ 16.21
23/17 L.M.L.N. September 2017 ............15.28, 15.65,
38.8, 40.3
3/18 L.M.L.N. January 2018 ............................... 16.21
16/18 L.M.L.N. July 2018 ................................... 15.63
19/18 L.M.L.N. August 2018 .....................15.8, 16.21
10/19 L.M.L.N. April 2019 ................................. 15.49
12/19 L.M.L.N. May 2019 ......................15.16, 15.17,
15.26, 15.39
13/19 L.M.L.N. June 2019 .......................15.49, 15.63
16/19 L.M.L.N. August 2019 ...................15.39, 15.43
20/14 L.M.L.N. December 2014 ......................... 15.39
21/19 L.M.L.N. September 2019 ........................ 15.26
22/19 L.M.L.N. October 2019 ............................. 15.34
1/21 L.M.L.N ....................................................... 16.21
12/22 L.M.L.N. April 2022 ................................. 15.72
Singapore
Singapore Arbitration 3/18 L.M.L.N.
September 2018................................................. 15.49
A. Bottachi S.A. v. Philipp Brothers Latin
America Corp., 410 F. Supp. 375, 377,
1976 AMC 315, 317 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) .......... 20A.19
A.P.J. Priti, The, SMA 2605 (1989) ....................... 5A.19
A&D Properties v. Volta River 1984
AMC 464 (E.D. La. 1983) ............................ 21A.50
ADM Int’l SARL v. Beton Provincial,
Ltée, SMA 4348 (2018) .................... 11A.3, 21A.85,
39A.22, 51A.1, 53A.15
AOT Ltd v. Caribbean Petroleum
Corp., SMA 2010 (2010) .......2A.33, 2A.34, 37A.21
Aaby v. States Marine Corp. (The Tento),
181 F.2d 383, 1950 AMC 947
(2d Cir. 1950), cert. denied
340 U.S. 829 (1950) .......................................... 3A.3
Abdel Moumen, The, SMA 1583
(1981) ............................................... 15A.90, 15A.91
Abu Yussuf, The, SMA 1834 (1983) ...... 12A.36, 21A.91
Abul Kalam Azad, The, SMA 2228
(1986) ................................................. 44A.1, 53A.26
Accord Audre, The, SMA 4072 (2010) ................ 21A.91
Achilles, The, SMA 2156 (1985)........... 37A.21, 38A.11,
38A.16, 38A.33,
38A.64, 41A.15
Acmi, The, SMA 1988 (1984) .............................. 21A.61
Acwoo Int’l Steel Corp. v. Toko Kaiun Kaish,
Ltd., 840 F.2d 1284, 1287–1288, 1988
AMC 2922 (6th Cir. 1988) ............................ 66A.17
Adamas, The, SMA 3194 (1995) ............ 41A.15, 41A.16
cxix
Adamastos, The, 1999 AMC 1879,
SMA 3416 (1999) ............................................ 62A.2
Adonis T., The, SMA 1824 (1983) ..................... 21A.102
Adventure I, The, SMA 3835 (2004) .................. 15A.46,
15A.62, 15A.65, 15A.67
Aegean Glory, The, SMA 4093
(2010) ................................................. 53A.2, 53A.15
Aegis Topic, The, SMA 1308 (1979) ................ 15A.124,
15A.125
Agathonissos, The, SMA 4248
(Arb. at N.Y. 2015) ........................... 15A.17, 37A.3,
38A.3, 38A.58
Aghios Spindon, The, 1967 AMC 1902,
SMA 194 (1966) ............................................ 25A.10
Agnette Dania, The, SMA 2512 (1988) ................. 27.A2
Agrifos Fertilizer and Transammonia, Inc.,
In re Arbitration between,
SMA 4049 (2009) .......................................... 37A.20
Ajax, The, and the Mina, SMA 1947 (1984) ....... 15A.63
Akmi, The, SMA 2022 (1984) .............................. 13A.67
Akti, The, SMA 1165 (1977) ................................ 53A.16
Al Deerah, The, SMA 3244 (1996) ........ 34A.18, 34A.23
Al Nafees, The, Ibn, SMA 3512
(1998) ................................................. 16A.15, 48A.1
Al Saudia, The, SMA 1865 (1983)......... 53A.35, 53A.38
Aladin, The, SMA 2697 (1990) .......................... 15A.144
Alagoas, The, SMA 1400 (1980) ............................ 35A.2
Alam Teguh, The, SMA 3008 (1993) .................... 7A.15,
7A.32, 35A.15
Alaska, The, SMA 3290 (1996) .............................. 39A.4
Albatross, The, SMA 2606 (1989)............. 3A.20, 13A.9,
15A.67, 25A.11
Alexand, M., The, SMA 1476 (1980) .................. 19A.16
Alexander Valentin, The, SMA 3084
(1994) ........................................................... 15A.131
Alexandria IV, The, SMA 1917 (1983) ................ 38A.39
Alfios, The, SMA 296 (1968) ............................... 17A.68
Alicampos, The, SMA 2543 (1989)................... 15A.107,
15A.112, 15A.113
Alkaios, The, SMA 2084 (1985) .......................... 13A.22
Alkaios, The, SMA 3582 (1999) ............ 15A.45, 38A.11
Alkimos, The, SMA 4388 (2020) .............. 36A.7, 36A,9,
63A.1
Alkyonia, The, SMA 1813 (1983) ........................ 13A.12
Alkyonis, The, SMA 3014 (1993) ...................... 15A.142
Allegiance, The, SMA 1980 (1984)............ 35A.5, 35A.6
Allegiance, The, SMA 2262 (1985)....................... 35A.3,
35A.5, 35A.6
Almare Quinta, The, SMA 1537 (1981)................ 37A.9,
38A.9, 38A.39
Almare Terza, The, SMA 2027 (1984) .................. 37A.9,
38A.58 39A.8
Alpheos, The, SMA 3763 (2002)............................ 7A.31
Altair, The, SMA 3338 (1997) .............................. 37A.13
Altus, The, SMA 2620 (1990) ............... 25A.10, 38A.39,
38A.51, 38A.60,
39A.1, 39A.11
Alvorada, The, SMA 2131 (1985) .......................... 3A.47
Am. Dornier Mach. Corp. v. MSC Gina,
2002 AMC 560, 563 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) .......... 12A.56
Amalia del Bene, The, SMA 3533 (1999) ........... 19A.16
Amaryllis, The, SMA 3046 (1994) ...................... 11A.50,
15A.147, 16A.17,
21A.11, 21A.61
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS

Amelia Grimaldi, The, SMA 2326 Araneta MA-AO, The SMA 889 (1974) ................ 25A.4
(1986) ................................................. 44A.1,53A.18, Arapaho, The, SMA 1562 (1981) ........................ 38A.39,
53A.26,53A.33 38A.40, 39A.7,
Amelia, The, SMA 2463 (1987) ............ 37A.10, 37A.14, 39A.15, 40A.2
49A.24 Arbitration between Agrifos Fertilizer
Amerada Hess v. Mobil Apex, 21 1979 and Transammonia, Inc. In Re,
AMC 2406 (2d Cir. 1979) ............................. 20A.14 SMA 4049 (2009) .......................................... 37A.20
American Anthracite & Bituminous Coal Arbitration between Alumina Transport Corp.
Corp. v. Ilios Shipping & Trading and Occidental Chemical Co., In Re,
Corp. S.A., 1957 AMC 24 SMA 2136 (1985) .............................. 7A.33, 21A.35
(Arb. at N.Y. 1956) ........................................ 34A.16 Arbitration between Australia–New Zealand
American Chemical, The, SMA 3099 (1994) ........ 43A.2 Direct Line, et al. and Transportacion
American Chemist, The, SMA 3189 (1995) ........ 65A.15 Maritima Grancancolombiana, S.A.,
American Dornier Mach. Corp. v. MSC In Re, SMA 3689 (2001) ............................... 11A.71
Gina, 2002 AMC 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)......... 12A.56 Arbitration between B.V. United Gas Carriers
American Energy, The, SMA 3141 (1995)........... 65A.15 and Hidragas de Centro America, In Re,
American Home Assurance Co. v. Wallenius SMA 2047 (1984) ............................................ 41A.5
Wilhelmsen Lines A.S. 445 Fed. Arbitration between Bulknova S.A. Bahamas
App’x 371, 2011 AMC 2968 and Ming Jade Investments, S.A., In Re,
(2d Cir. 2011) ................................................. 66A.41 SMA 3688 (2001) .......................................... 21A.64
Americas Insurance Co. v. Stolt-Nielsen, Arbitration between Cargoport Transportation,
Inc. 2004 AMC 2542, 2546–2547 C.A. and Siderurgica del Orinoco, In Re,
(S.D.N.Y. 2004).............................................. 13A.38 SMA 3701 (2001) ............................................ 7A.24
Amoco Cadiz, The, 1984 AMC 2124 Arbitration between Chemical Trading Inc.
(N.D. Ill. 1984) ................................................ 2A.24 and Meridian Resources and Developments
An An, The, SMA 3792 (2003) .............. 16A.16, 21A.60 Inc., In Re, SMA No. 2904 (1992) .............. 15A.55,
Anadria, The, SMA 2392 (1987) .......................... 17A.64 37A.12, 38A.14
Anangel Prosperity, The, SMA 2764 Arbitration between Clipper Shipping Ltd.
(1991) ........................................................... 15A.117 and Stone Consolidated Corp./
Anastasia II, The, SMA 1903 (1983) ................... 11A.45 Abitibi-Consolidated Inc.,
Andreos Sea, The, SMA 979 (1975) ................... 38A.12, In Re, SMA 3694 (2001) ................... 7A.24, 16A.20
38A.20, 38A.65 Arbitration between Companhia de
Anera-Domino of California, The/Jefferson Navegacao Maritima Netumar
Trading, SMA 3115 (1994).............................. 53A.5 and Trans World Steel Inc.,
Anett II, The, SMA 3433 (Arb. at N.Y. In Re, SMA 2383 (1987) ............................. 15A.113
1997) ..................................................... 5A.26, 20A.1 Arbitration between Daelim Corp. and
Angearctic, The, SMA 1901 (1983) ................... 15A.129 Integr8 Fuels, Inc., In Re, SMA 4389
Angelic Spirit and Petriana, The, (2020) (Tsimis, Lambert, Loh) ........................ 2A.36
SMA 3160 (1995) .......................................... 13A.20 Arbitration between Dapco Trading Inc.
Angelica, The, SMA 693 (1972) ............................ 3A.13 and Del Monte Banana Co., In Re,
Angelina F, The, SMA 3911 (2006) ......... 7A.22, 16A.16 SMA 1847 (1981) .......................................... 15A.59
Aniara, The, SMA 3319 (1996) ............. 37A.13, 38A.10, Arbitration between Deiulemar Compagnia
45A.11 di Navigazione, SpA and Transocean
Aniara, The, SMA 3574 (1999) ............................ 45A.11 Coal Company, Inc. and Anker Trading
Anodad Naree, The, SMA 3526 (1999) ................. 25A.8 S.A, In Re, SMA 3775 (2003) ........... 7A.33, 7A.36,
Anson, The, SMA 1360 (1979) .................. 43A.1, 60A.2 21A.7
Antalya, The, SMA 2595 (1989) ....................... 15A.154, Arbitration between Edlow International Co.
15A.159, 15A.160, and BBC Chartering and Logistics
16A.21 GmbH & Co. K.G., In Re, SMA
Antco Shipping Ltd. (The Atrotos) 973 3822 (2004) .......................................... 6A.5, 16A.20
AMC 2070 (Arb. at N.Y. 1972) ................... 21A.51, Arbitration between Fahnestock & Co. Inc.
34A.14, 34A.16, and Waltman, In Re, 935 F.2d 512, 518.
35A.2, 40A.20 (2d Cir. 1991) ................................................. 53A.47
Antonios Demades, The, SMA 1370 Arbitration between Fertexport Inc. and
(1979) ............................................... 13A.61, 13A.65 Agrinde Shipping Corp., In Re,
Antria Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Triton Int’l SMA 1731 (1982) ........................................ 15A.130
Carriers Ltd., 1980 AMC 678, 680 Arbitration between Garnac Grain and
(S.D.N.Y. 1976), 681 (E.D. Pa. 1978); Caytrans Project Services Ltd.,
aff’g without opinion 609 F.2d 500 In Re, SMA 3722 (2002) ....................... 3A.6, 3A.38
(3rd Cir., 1979) .................................. 17A.8, 17A.24 Arbitration between Guinomar and Martin
Aphrodite Transoceanic, The, SMA 1461 Marietta Aluminum Corp., In Re,
(1980) ................................................. 37A.6, 37A.14 SMA 2534 (1988) ...................7A.24, 7A.33, 7A.36,
Aquagem, The, SMA 1436 (1980) ....................... 16A.16 21A.12, 21A.35
Aralda, The, SMA 1883 (1983) ..................... 4A.3, 4A.6, Arbitration between IBE Shipping Corp. and
37A.6, 53A.33 Exmar N.V, In Re, SMA 3966 (2007) ............ 7A.38

cxx
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS

Arbitration between Jebsen Carriers Ltd Archon/Prinkipos, The, SMA 1501

and Gravetal Bolivia S.A., In Re, (1980) ............................................... 38A.34, 38A.66
SMA 3525 (1999) .......................... 15A.49, 15A.136 Ardea, The, 1955 AMC 871, 874
Arbitration between Man (E.D. & F.) Cocoa Inc. and (Arb. at N.Y. 1953) ........................................ 25A.11
Cross Chartering N.V., Argo Leader, SMA No. 2065 (1985) ........................ 3A.3
In Re, SMA 3909 (2006) ................................. 7A.24 Argo Navis, The, SMA 145 (1966) .................... 15A.109
Arbitration between McAllister Brothers Inc. Argofax, The, SS., 1962 AMC 2378
and A. & S. Transportation Co., In Re, (Arb. at N.Y. 1962) .............................. 3A.10, 13A.9
SMA 1989 (1984) ............................... 7A.33. 21A.9, Argonaftis, The, SMA 3291 (1996) ........ 53A.33, 65A.12
21A.35 Aristidis, The, 2001 AMC 1954, SMA
Arbitration between N.V. Rotterdamsche 3686 (2001); 333 F.3d 383, 2003
Kolen Centrale and Dover SS. Co., AMC 1521 (2d Cir. 2003). .........5A.8, 5A.25, 11A.76
In Re, 1958, AMC 1184, 1189, Arizona, The, SMA 1259 (1978) .......................... 21A.57
1192–3 (Arb. at N.Y. 1958) ........... 15A.55, 15A.100 Arizpa, The, 63 F.2d 42, 43–44, 1933
Arbitration between Nereus Shipping, S.A. AMC 224 (4th Cir.), cert. denied
and Island Creek Coal Sales Co., 290 U.S. 648 (1933) ........................ 17A.54–17A.56
In Re SMA 1763 (1982) ............... 15A.25, 15A.164, Arktis Sky, The (Assoc. Metals & Minerals
15A.166, 15A.167, 15A.172 Corp. v. The M/V Arktis Sky) 1991 AMC
Arbitration between PHS Van Ommeren (France) 1499 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), vacated and remanded
and N.V. Stoomvaart Maatschap- pij; on other grounds, 978 F.2d 47, 1993
“De Maas” (as Owners) and Universal AMC 509, 513 (2d Cir. 1992)........... 11A.30, 66A.5
Shipping Corporation (as Charterers), Armada Parcel Services Ltd. v. Inachos
1969 AMC 2199 (Arb. at N.Y. 1965) ............. 14A.9 Shipping Co. Ltd., 1994 AMC 346
Arbitration between Poseidon Schiffahrt (D. Minn. 1993) ............................................. 17A.15
GmbH and Transocean Coal Company, Armonikos, The, SMA 3867 (2004) ..................... 11A.65
In Re, SMA 3742 (2002) ............................. 15A.163 Arosa, The, SMA 2725 (1990) ............................. 13A.12
Arbitration between Promotora de Navegacion, Artemis, The, LMZ, SMA 4144 (2011) ............... 21A.39
S.A. and Sea Containers Ltd., Ascension, The, SMA 2861 (1992) ...................... 21A.80
In Re 131 F. Supp. 2d 412 Asian Glory, The, SMA 2035 (1984) .................... 36A.7,
(S.D.N.Y. 2000).................................................. 2A.6 53A.18, 53A.33,
Arbitration between Retla SS. Co. and 53A.38, 53A.40, 53A.43
Canpotex Ltd. In Re SMA 1115 (1977) ....... 25A.10 Assicurazioni Generali v. D’Amico,
Arbitration between Rotterdamsche Kolen 766 F.2d 485, 489–490, 1986
Centrale and Dover SS. Co. In Re 1958 AMC 1051, 1057 (11th Cir. 1985)................ 66A.10
AMC 1184, 1191 (1958)................................ 25A.10 Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v.
Arbitration between Scandinavian OBO M/V Lumbe, 1993 AMC 700
Carriers and AMCI Export Corporation, (D. N.J. 1991) .................................................. 66A.5
In Re, SMA 3814 (2003) ................................. 7A.35 Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v.
Arbitration between SK Shipping Co. Ltd. The Jasmine 983 F.2d 410,
and Cofersa Commodities A.G. and 1993 AMC 957 (2d Cir. 1993) ......................... 1A.1,
Nova Coal A.G., In Re, SMA 3896 11A.18, 11A.57
(2005) ............................................................... 7A.33 Associated Metals v. M/V Star Skarven,
Arbitration between Stolt Tankers, Inc. and 1995 AMC 505 (S.D. Fla. 1994)..................... 66A.5
Wings Investment Ltd., In Re, Association Technique Internationale de
SMA 3417 (1998) ............................ 38A.19, 39A.10 Compagnies d’Assurances Maritime et
Arbitration between Sunroc Shipping Co. Inc. Transports v. Cast Eur. (1983) Ltd.,
and People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 662 F. Supp. 1443, 1988 AMC 305
SMA, In Re, 1123 (1977) .............................. 16A.15 (N.D. Ill. 1987) ................................................ 66A.5
Arbitration between TMT Coal Co., Inc. Astra Lift, The, SMA 3270 (1996) ........................... 1A.1
and Normarine, Ltd., In Re, Astra Oil Co., Inc. v. Rover Navigation,
SMA 3695 (2001) ............................................ 2A.22 Ltd. (The Emerald) 344 F.3d 276,
Arbitration between Vigo Steamship Corp. 2003 AMC 2514 (2d Cir. 2003) ......... 2A.33–2A.36,
and Int’l Minerals and Chemical Corp, 2A.39
SMA 705 (1972) (Busch, Besman, Astro Altair, The, SMA 3841 (2004) .................... 38A.48
Byrne) ................................................................. 3A.5 Astro, The, SMA 1816 (1983) .............................. 53A.18
Arbitration between Western Bulk Carriers Astromar, The, SMA 4004 (2008) .......................... 13A.8
and Bunge Latin-America LLC and Astramar II, The, SMA 2572 (1989) .......38A.15, 49A.23
Interamericas Commodities Trading Inc., Athena, The, SMA 1229 (1978) ........................... 15A.43
In Re, SMA 4258 (2015)54 ............................. 2A.31 Athena, The, SMA 1874 (1983) ........................... 53A.38
Arcadia, The, SMA 934 (1975) ............................ 38A.55 Athena, The, SMA 2178 (1985) ........................... 39A.20
Archangelos Michail, The, SMA Athenian Horizon, The, SMA 1197 (1977) .......... 21A.59
1306 (1979) ................................... 15A.84, 15A.136, Athenian, The, SMA 1279 (1978) .......................... 35A.2
15A.156, 16A.21 Atlantic Coast Yacht Sales, Inc. v. M/V Leon,
Archangelos Michail, The, SMA 2003 AMC 1871, 1876–1877
No.1626 (1982) .............................................. 15A.84 (D. Md. 2003) .................................. 12A.54, 12A.58

cxxi
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
Atlantic Current, The, SMA 2567 (1989) ............ 11A.37
Atlantic Emperor, The, SMA 2504 (1988) ............ 2A.26,
53A.31, 53A.37,
53A.39
Atlantic Empress, The, SMA 1506 (1980) .......... 38A.26,
38A.39, 38A.43
Atlantic Jupiter, The, M/V, SMA
No. 4257 (2015) ................................................. 3A.3
Atlantic Leo, The, SMA 4181 (Arb. at
N.Y. 2012) ...................................................... 21A.28
Atlantic Monarch, The, 1975 AMC 1991,
SMA 939 (1975) ............................................ 38A.35
Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. v. Poseidon
Schiffahrt, GmbH, 313 F.2d 872,
874–875, 1963 AMC 665, 668–669
(7th Cir. 1963) ................................................ 66A.43
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Good Hope
Refineries, 604 F.2d 865, 1980
AMC 470 (5th Cir. 1979) ............... 17A.15, 17A.18,
60A.3
Atlantic, The, SMA 2870 (1992) .......................... 21A.52
Atlantic Sky, The, SMA 1774 (1983) ................... 21A.98
Atlantis II, The, SMA 3725 (2002) ...................... 21A.17
Atlas, The, SMA 3553 (1999) ................ 21A.56, 21A.86
Aton V (SMA 3094 (1994) ..................................... 19A.7
Atrotos, The (Compania Naviera Atrotos
S.A. v. Antco Shipping Ltd.
(The Atrotos), 1973 AMC 2070
(Arb. at N.Y. 1972) ......................... 21A.51, 34A.14,
34A.16, 35A.2, 40A.20
Auriga Primo, The, SMA 1096 (1977)................. 21A.44
Aurora Jade, The, SMA 3121 (1994) ................... 13A.21
Aurora Jade, The, SMA 3454 (1998) ................... 16A.17
Aurora Maritime Co. v. Abdullah Mohamed
Fahem & Co., 85 F.3d 44, 1996
AMC 1755 (2d Cir. 1996) ............................. 17A.14
Avenger, The, SMA 1179 (1977) ............ 53A.21, 53A.30
Azija, The, SMA 2845 (1992) ................................ 42A.3
Aztec Maiden, The, SMA 4031 (2009) ................. 11A.5,
11A.20
B. Elliott (Canada) Ltd. v. John T. Clark
& Son, 704 F.2d 1305, 1308 and n. 3,
1983 AMC 1742, 1746 and n. 3
(4th Cir. 1983) ................................................ 66A.10
B.A.P.Talara, The, SMA 3000 (1993)................... 38A.23
BBC Sealand, The, SMA 3750 (2002) ................... 13A.4
Bahama Spirit, The, SMA 3849 (2004)...... 5A.18, 5A.35
Balbina, The, SMA 2454 (1988) ................ 5A.31, 25A.9
Balboa, The, SMA 2876........................................ 38A.16
Balsa, The, SMA 3308 (1996) ................................ 5A.29
Balsa 9, The, SMA 2954 (1993)................ 3A.17, 6A.10,
11A.34
Balsa 21, The, SMA 2899 (1992)......................... 16A.15
Baltic Mercur, The, SMA 3894 (2005) ............... 11A.71,
21A.66
Baltico, The, SMA 2192 (1985) ........................... 38A.57
Baltimore, The, ITB, SMA 4099 (2010) .............. 37A.11
Baltimore Sirius, The, SMA 3323 (1996) .............. 3A.28
Baltimore Trader, The, SMA 2632 (1990) .......... 38A.39,
38A.60, 46A.1
Banja Luka, The, SMA 1293 (1979) ...................... 27.A3
Bank One Louisiana N.A. v. M/V Mr. Dean,
293 F.3d 830, 838, 2002 AMC
1617 (5th Cir. 2002) ........................ 17A.37, 17A.45
cxxii
Banner, The, SMA 1929 (1984) ............ 38A.32, 38A.65,
49A.3, 49A.8
Barbarossa, The SMA 2783 (1991) ...................... 25A.11
Barge 450–11/Tug Mars, The,
SMA 3466 (1998) ........................... 21A.31, 21A.67,
41A.2, 49A.29
Barge Patricia Sheridan, The, SMA
3569 (1999) .................................................... 11A.13
Barge RTC 340, The, SMA 1735
(1982) ................................................... 53A.4, 53A.7
Barry, The, SMA 2154 (1985) ................................ 25A.6
Bayern, The, SMA 2628 (1990) ............ 38A.39, 39A.23,
41A.19, 41A.29
Bei Ji Xing, The, SMA 3702 (2001) ..................... 3A.40,
6A.15, 16A.15
Belle Haven, The, SMA 3307 (1996)................... 39A.21
Beresford Metals Corp. v. S/S Salvador,
779 F.2d 841, 1986 AMC 874
(2d Cir. 1985) ................................................. 66A.48
Berge Bonde, The, SMA 1845
(1983) ................................................ 37A.4, 38A.59,
38A.63, 38A.65
Berge Bragd, The, SMA 3478 (1998) .................. 21A.14
Bergesen d.y. A/S v. Lindholm, 1991
AMC 2839, 760 F. Supp. 979
(D. Conn. 1991) ............................................... 2A.19
Berisford Metals Corp. v. S/S Salvador,
1986 AMC 874, 779 F.2d 841, 846
(2d Cir. 1985) ................................................. 12A.58
Berrak N, The, SMA 3850 (2004) ...................... 15A.155
Bertling Logistics Pool v. Construtora
Norberto Odebrecht S.A. SMA 4108
(Arb. at N.Y. 2011) .......................................... 7A.37
Beryl, The, SMA 2779 (1991) ................................ 34A.5
Biloxi Belle, The, SMA 3957 (2007) ................... 16A.21
Binladen BSB Landscaping v. M/V
(The Nedlloyd Rotterdam) 759
F.2d 1006, 1015–1017, 1966,
1985 n. 12, 1966 AMC 2113
(2d Cir. 1985) ................................... 66A.45, 66A.54
Bipasha, The, SMA 2651 (1990) .............................. 3A.1
Biscayne Sun, The, SMA 1478 (1980 .................... 3A.19
Bjorgfjell, The, SMA 1144 (1977).......................... 53A.5
Blanchland, The, SMA 322 (1969) ............. 3A.41, 3A.42
Bloomer Choc. v. Nosira Sharon Ltd.,
1994 AMC 1807, 776 F. Supp. 760,
768 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), aff’d 963 F.2d
1522, 1994 AMC 1807 (2d Cir. 1992).......... 11A.25
Bluestone, The, SMA 2868 (1992) ..................... 15A.102
Bold Blue, The, SMA 3718 (2002) ......... 7A.25, 21A.62,
21A.93
Bold Venture, The, 638 F. Supp. 87, 1987
AMC 182 (W.D. Wash. 1986) ....................... 17A.44
Bomi, The, SMA 1485 (1980) ................................ 34A.9
Bona Fulmar, The, SMA 3787 (2003) ................. 11A.21,
53A.2
Bonanno (Vincenzo) v. The Tweedie Trading
Co., 1952 AMC 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1952) ........... 21A.33
Boni, The, SMA 3053 (1994) ................ 11A.49, 13A.26,
16A.17, 20A.18, 21A.2,
21A.15, 34A.14
Borkum, The, SMA 1065 (2010) (Mordhorst)
(“laytime based on the tonnage
for which freight was paid”) ....................... 15A.117
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
Botic, The, M/V, 1993 AMC 240
(E.D. Pa. 1992) (See also Ilva
U.S.A., Inc. v. M/V Botic) ................ 11A.20, 66A.5
Bottachi (A.) S.A. v. Philipp Brothers
Latin America Corp., 410 F.Supp. 375,
1976 AMC 315 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) ................... 20A.19
Bow Antisana, The, SMA 3824 (2003) ................ 21A.12
Bow Lady, The, SMA 3810 (2003) ....... 21A.83, 38A.22,
39A.23, 63A.1
Bow Marino, The, SMA 3853 (2004) .................. 41A.17
Bow Petros, The, SMA 3245 (1996) .................... 39A.10
Bow Petros, The, SMA 3922 (2006) .................... 38A.45
Bow Princess, The, SMA 2949 (1993)................... 41A.6
Bow Saturn, The SMA 3880 (2005)....................... 2A.30
Bow Trajectory, The, SMA 4355 (2018) ............. 53A.15,
66A.15
Bowoon No. 7, The, SMA 2299 (1986) ................. 53A.5
Brage Vibeke, The, SMA 3073 (1994) ................. 49A.16
Bralanta, The, SMA 1679 (1982) ......................... 39A.20
Bralanta, The, SMA 2762 (1991) ......................... 41A.15
Brazilian Sky, SMA 2999 (1993) ......................... 11A.22
Brazilian Sky, The, SMA 2999 (1993) .........21A.71, 53A.15
Brown & Root, Inc. v. M/V Peisander,
648 F.2d 415, 419–425, 1982
AMC 929 (5th Cir. 1981) .............................. 66A.45
Bunge Corp. v. M/V Furness Bridge, 558
F.2d 790, 1977 AMC 2109 (5th Cir. 1977),
cert. denied, 435 U.S. 924 (1978) ................... 5A.14
Bunge Edible Oil Corp. v. M/V Torm Rask,
949 F.2d 786, 788, 1992 AMC 2227
(5th Cir. 1992); cert. denied 505
U.S. 1207 (1992).............................. 12A.52, 66A.24
Burmah Endeavor, The, SMA 1545
(1981) ............................................... 53A.32, 53A.38
Byzantion, The, SMA 2597 (1989) ...................... 38A.58
C. Duke, The, SMA 3990 (2007) ....................... 15A.137
CSX Hawaii, The. SMA 3992 (2008) .................. 11A.58
Cabo Tamar, The, SMA 3705 (2001) ................... 53A.37
Cabot Corp. v. S.S. Mormacscan, 441 F.2d
476, 1971 AMC 1130 (2d Cir. 1971)............ 66A.10
Calmaquip Engineering West Hemisphere
Corp. v. West Coast Carriers Ltd.,
650 F.2d 633, 1984 AMC 839
(5th Cir. 1981) ................................................ 12A.53
Cape Grenville, The, SMA 1990 (1984) .............. 17A.66
Cape Tankers Inc. v. Chemoil Corporation,
SMA 3746 (2002) .............................................. 4A.3
Capetan Carras, The, SMA 1908 (1983) ............... 34A.3,
38A.67, 39A.1
Capira, The, SMA 2241 (1986) .............................. 16A.2
Captain Demosthenes, The, SMA 1569
(1981) ............................................................. 21A.30
Captain Gregos, The, SMA 2404
(1987) .......................................38A.4, 39A.1, 40A.5
Captain Nicholas, The, SMA 2150 (1985) ........... 13A.22
Captain P. Egglezos, The, SMA 4164
(2012) ........................................................... 15A.139
Cargoport Transportation, C.A. and Siderurgica
del Orinocco, In re Arbitration between,
SMA 3701 (2001) ............................................ 7A.24
Carib Sun, The, SMA 1250 (1983)
(Cederholm)...................................................... 3A.16
Caribou, The, SMA 2695 (1990) ............... 15A.5, 39A.1,
39A.7, 41A.25, 49A.25
cxxiii
Carlantic, The, SMA 2315 (1986) ........................ 53A.10
Carle & Montanari, Inc. v. American Export
Isbrandtsen Lines, 275 F. Supp. 76, 78,
1667 AMC 1637, 1639 (S.D.N.Y. 1967),
aff’d, 386 F.2d 839 (2d Cir. 1967)................ 66A.10
Carlisle The, 771, 719–720 F.2d 80,
815–816, 1986 AMC 305, 319–320
(3d Cir. 1985) .................................. 53A.15, 53A.21,
53A.28
Carman Tool & Abrasives, Inc. v. Evergreen
Lines, 871 F.2d 897, 1989
AMC 913 (9th Cir. 1989) .............................. 66A.46
Carnival Cruise Lines Inc. v. Shute, 499
U.S. 585, 113 L.Ed. 2d 622,
1991 AMC 1697 (1991) .................................... 2A.2
Carolyn, The, SMA 1189 (1977) ............................ 43A.1
Cassandros, The, SMA 3114 (1994) ..................... 21A.28
Cate Brovig, The, SMA 1281 (1978) ................... 38A.24
Caterpillar Overseas, S.A. v. Marine Transport,
Inc., 900 F.2d 714, 725–726,
1991 AMC 75 (4th Cir. 1990) ......... 12A.51, 66A.11
Cayambe, The, SMA 2218 (1986) ........................ 13A.21
Centerchem Products Inc. v. A/S Rederiet
Odfjell (The Oak) 1972
AMC 373 (E.D. Va. 1971) ............................ 53A.17
Cepheus, The, 1990 AMC 1058, 1071,
1081–1091 (Arb. at N.Y. 1990)...................... 5A.35,
12A.18, 20A.17
Cerro Sales Corp. v. Atlantic Marine
Enters., 403 F. Supp. 562, 566, 1976
AMC 375, 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) ................... 66A.24
Cetragpa Asia Pte. Ltd. v. XCoal Energy &
Resources LLC: SMA 4221 (2013) ............... 21A.7,
21A.35
Chang Han Tan Suo, The, SMA 4070
(2010) ............................................... 39A.21, 39A.24
Charleston, The, SMA 3377 (1997)...................... 39A.21
Chembulk Hong Kong, The, SMA 4071
(2010) ............................................................. 15A.84
Chembulk New York, The, SMA 3868
(2004) ............................................................. 39A.21
Chembulk Trading LLC v. Chemex Ltd.,
2003 AMC 1441, 1444–1445
(E.D. La. 2003) .............................................. 17A.16
Chembulk Vancouver, The, SMA
3699 (2001) ............................21A.13, 37A.9, 43A.2
Chemical Explorer, The, SMA 2554 (1989) ........ 49A.13
Chemical Venturer, The, SMA 1331 (1979) ........... 40A.7
Chemifalcon, The, SMA 3128 (1994) ........ 37A.8, 49A.24
Cherry Duke, The, SMA 1467 (1980).......... 34A.9, 43A.3
Cherry Lord/Viking Trader, The,
SMA 1995 (1984) .............................. 34A.10, 35A.7
Cheshire, The M/V, SMA 3123
(1994) ........................................3A.3, 6A.11, 6A.14,
15A.149, 38A.56, 41A.7
Chimiste Sayid, The, SMA 2475 (1988) .............. 39A.20
China Shipping Container Lines Co.
Ltd. v. JC Horizon Ltd., SMA
4337 (2018) ....................................... 7A.32, 16A.21,
21A.16, 21A.25
China Trade & Development Corp. v.
The M/V Choong Yong. 837
F.2d 33, 1988 AMC 880
(2d Cir. 1987) ..................................... 2A.12, 21A.97
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
Chios Charm, The, SMA 2983
(1993) ...................................7A.17, 16A.16, 21A.61
Chollada Naree, The, SMA 4112
(2011).................................................. 16A.15, 48A.1
Christina C., The, SMA 1688
(1982) ............................................... 15A.128, 16A.3
Christina Pezas, 149 F. Supp. 678, 1958
AMC 240 (S.D.N.Y. 1957) ................................ 3A.5
Christina, The, SMA 656 (1971) .......................... 20A.26
Cisco, The, SMA 2993 (1993) ................................ 62A.1
Cities Service Transp. Co. v. Gulf Refining
Co., 79 F.2d 521, 1935
AMC 1513 (2d Cir. 1935) ................................. 5A.1
Cities Service Valley Forge, The,
SMA 954 (1975) ............................... 38A.49, 39A.6,
40A.2, 61A.2
Clairhill, The, SMA 1002 (1976).......................... 36A.10
Clairhill, The, SMA 1226 (1978).............. 37A.9, 41A.17
Claudio R, The, SMA 2031 (1984) ............ 45A.3, 45A.9
Cleanthes, The, SMA 1640 (1981) ....................... 13A.21
Cleveland, The, SMA 3747 (2002) ..................... 15A.151
Clipper Shipping Ltd. and Stone Consolidated
Corp./Abitibi-Consolidated Inc.,
In Re, SMA 3694 (2001) ................... 7A.24, 16A.20
Clipperventure L., The, SMA 3289
(Arb at N.Y. 1996) ............................... 2A.26, 53A.1
Cluden, The, SMA 1765 (1982) ............................. 3A.45
Compania Naviera Atrotos S.A. v. Antco
Shipping Ltd. (The Atrotos), 1973
AMC 2070 (Arb. at N.Y. 1972) ................... 21A.51,
34A.14, 34A.16,
35A.2, 40A.20
Compania Naviera Epsilon S.A., In Re,
Complaint of, 506 F.2d 1395
(2d Cir. 1974); aff’g 1974 AMC
2608 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) .................................... 13A.31
Compania Naviera Puerto Madrin S.A. v.
Esso Standard Oil Co., 1962 AMC
147 (S.D.N.Y. 1961) ...................................... 53A.12
Complaint of Delphinus Maritima S.A,
In Re, 1982 AMC 796, 804–805
(S.D.N.Y. 1982).............................................. 13A.49
Concord, The, SMA 2215 (1980) ......................... 16A.17
Condor, The, SMA 3268 (1996) ........... 15A.142, 65A.12
Connecticut, The, SMA 980 (1975)........................ 38A.3
Constantinos, The, SMA 932 (1975) .................. 15A.124
Constructores Tecnicos, S. de R.L. v.
Sea-Land Service, Inc., 945 F.2d 841,
844–845, 1992 AMC 1284, 1289
(5th Cir. 1991) ................................. 12A.54, 12A.55,
66A.43
Continental Reliance, The, SMA 2366
(1987) ................................................ 7A.14, 21A.45,
21A.58
Contship Containerlines, Ltd. v. PPT Industries, Inc.,
442 F.3d 74, 2006 AMC 686, 689,
691, 442 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2006) ....... 6A.24, 66A.58
Contship v. Howard, 309 F.3d 910, 2002
AMC 2727 (6th Cir. 2002) ................................ 1A.1
Coraje, The, SMA 1686 (1982) .............................. 25A.7
Coral I, The, SMA 3287 (1996) ............... 6A.19, 16A.17
Coral Temse, The, SMA 2677 (1990) ....... 37A.8, 38A.56,
49A.7, 49A.15
Corinthian, The, SMA 1851 (1983)........ 21A.80, 21A.100
cxxiv
Cornish Shipping Ltd. v. International Nederlanden
Bank, N.V., 53 F.3d 499, 1995
AMC 2582 (2d Cir.), 516 U.S.
867 (1995) ...................................................... 17A.22
Corta Atalaya, The, SMA 2985 (1993) ............... 38A.18,
65A.13
Costanza M., The, SMA 1919 (1983) .................. 16A.17
Cove Communicator, The, SMA 1716
(1982) ............................................................. 39A.20
Cove Leader, The, SMA 1653
(1982) .............................................. 38A.31, 38A.33,
38A.63, 46A.2
Cove Liberty, The, SMA 3131 (1994)................ 15A.101
Cove Spirit, The, SMA 1769 (1982) ...... 38A.39, 39A.23
Cove Tide, The, SMA 2420 (1987) ...................... 38A.56
Cradle of Liberty, The, SMA 2219 (1986) ............. 53A.1
D G Harmony, The, M/V, In Re, 533 F.3d 83,
92–94, 2008 AMC 1848 (2d Cir. 2008)........ 66A.58
D’Artagnan, The, SMA 2685 (1992) ...................... 15A.5
Da Qing 88, The, SMA 3458 (1998) ....... 38A.44, 40A.18
Da Yuan Hu, The, SMA 4323 (2017) ...... 39A.23, 41A.20
Dampskibselskabet Norden v. Gano Moore
Co., 1923 AMC 398 (S.D.N.Y. 1923) ........... 25A.10
Danita, The, SMA 1391, 1980 AMC 435,
440, 441 (1979) .................................... 16A.3, 16A.4
Dapco Trading Inc. and Del Monte Banana
Co., In re Arbitration between,
SMA 1847 (1981) .......................................... 15A.59
Daphne, The, SMA 2539 (1988) ........... 38A.30, 38A.34,
38A.40, 38A.61, 42A.2
Daval Steel Products v. M/V Acadia Forest,
683 F. Supp. 444, 1988 AMC
1669 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ...................................... 66A.5
De Laval Turbine, Inc. v. West India Indus.,
502 F.2d 259, 269–270, 1974 AMC
1156, 1171 (3d Cir. 1974) ............... 66A.10, 66A.11
Deiulemar Compagnia di Navigazione, S.p.A.
and Transocean Coal Company, Inc. and
Anker Trading S.A., In Re Arbitration
between, SMA 3775 (2003)................ 7A.33, 7A.36,
21A.7
Delaware Trader, The, SMA 4266 (2015) ............ 65A.19
Delphina, The, SMA 3508 (1999) .......................... 5A.37
Delphinus Maritima S.A., In Re, Complaint
of, 1982 AMC 796 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) ............. 13A.49
Delta Commodities Inc. v. The Jo Oak,
1990 AMC 820, 826 (E.D. La. 1989) ............. 5A.14
Deltagracht, The, SMA 4247 (2015) ........ 21A.31, 49A.1
Demetra, The, SMA 2822 (1991) ........... 39A.20, 41A.27
Deneb, The, SMA 3100 (1994) ............................ 37A.15
Desert Leader, The, SMA 1571 (1981) ................ 38A.11
Despina, A.L., The, 1977 AMC 2661,
SMA 1136 (1977) .................... 34A.4, 35A.5–36A.7
Despina, The, SMA 3540 (1999) ........................ 15A.102
Deutsche Shell v. Placid Ref. Co., 1992
AMC 196, 207–208 (E.D. La. 1991) ........... 20A.16,
20A.19
Diamond Park, The and the Diamond Emerald,
SMA 3576 (1999) .......................................... 65A.15
Diamond Wave, The, SMA 3085 (1994) .............. 49A.12
Dibrell Bros. v. Prince Line, 58 F.2d 959,
1932 AMC 896 (2d Cir. 1932) ...................... 20A.30
Dicaronia, The, 1969 AMC 2196
(Arb. at N.Y. 1969) .......................... 11A.72, 13A.12
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
Dimitrakis, The, SMA 3150 (1995) ...................... 11A.45
Divine Star, The, SMA 2883 (1992) ................... 41A.15,
41A.27, 41A.30
Domingo de Larrinaga, The 1928 AMC 64 ............ 20.31
Dominique, The, SMA 1088 (1977) ................... 15A.117
Doris, The, SMA 1663 (1982) .............................. 39A.20
Dorothea, The, SMA 3895 (2005) ........................ 13A.13
Dorsid Trading Co. v. SS. Rose, 343 F.
Supp. 617, 623, 1973 AMC 457
(S.D. Tex. 1972) ............................................. 66A.17
Drew Ameroid International v. M/V Green
Star, 681 F. Supp. 1056, 1057, 1988
AMC 2570, 2571 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ................ 13A.3,
13A.18, 13A.37
Dryad, The, SMA 703 (1972) ............................... 21A.64
Duncombe Trading, S.A. and Winfield
Business, S.A., In Re SMA 3361 (1997) ...... 21A.91
Dzintari, The, SMA 3771 (2003) .......................... 65A.15
E.A.S.T. Inc. v. Alaia, 1989 AMC 2024,
2034–2038 (5th Cir. 1989) .................. 17A.4, 17A.8
E.M. Tsangaris, The, SMA 1200 (1978) ................ 34A.8
Eagle Terminal Tankers Inc. v. Insurance
Company of U.S.S.R. (Ingosstrakh) Ltd.
(The Eagle Courier) 1981 AMC 137,
145 (2d Cir. 1981) .......................................... 20A.5,
20A.7, 20A.9
Eagle Voyager, The, SMA 987 (1975) ................. 35A.13
Eagle, The, SMA 3070 (1994) ............... 15A.56, 15A.62,
38A.9, 40A.19
East Asiatic Trading Co. v. Navibec Shipping
Ltd. 1979 AMC 1043, 1046
(S.D.N.Y. 1978).............................................. 17A.24
Eber, The, SMA 3876 (2005) ............. 15A.142, 15A.149
Eddie Steamship Co., Ltd. SMA
1051 (1976) .................................................... 21A.27
Edipsos, The, SMA 2177 (1985) .............. 3A.45, 16A.17
Edso Exporting LP v. Atlantic Container
Line AB, 471 Fed. App’x 8, 9, 2012
AMC 1811 (2d Cir. 2012) ............................. 66A.41
Egeon, The, SMA 1208 (1978) ............................. 17A.61
Eirini L., The, SMA 3366 (1996) ......................... 37A.15
El Amaan, The, SMA 2492 (1988)....................... 13A.23
El Crusader, The, SMA 2298 (1986) .................... 21A.65
El Zorro, The, 1981 AMC 2883
(5th Cir. 1981) ................................................ 49A.27
Elafi, The, SMA 1860 (1983) ................................. 25A.7
Eland, The SMA 4027 (2009)................................. 35A.7
Elbe Ore, The, SMA 2561 (1989) .......... 21A.19, 21A.70
Eldina, The, SMA 1147 (1977)..................... 3A.14, 6A.9
Electro-Tec Corp. v. S/S Dart Atlantica,
1985 AMC 1606, 598 F. Supp. 929,
932–933 (D. Md. 1984) ................................. 12A.51
Elektra, The, SMA 941 (1974) ................. 53A.5, 53A.12
Elise Schulte, The SMA 3918 (2006)..................... 2A.30
Elite, The, SMA 3173 (1995) ................. 53A.16, 53A.49
Elizabeth Bandi, The, 1926 AMC 839
(E.D.N.Y. 1926) ............................................. 21A.48
Ellerman Lines v. Gibbs 1986 AMC 2217
(Can. Fed. Ct. App. 1986) ............................. 20A.12
Ellinara, The, SMA 1711 (1982) .......................... 13A.23
Ellinora, The, SMA 2195 (1986) .............. 6A.12, 11A.38
Elliott (B.) (Canada) Ltd. v. John T. Clark &
Son, 704 F.2d 1305, 1983
AMC 1742, (4th Cir. 1983) ........................... 66A.10
cxxv
Elmina, The, SMA 2614 (N.Y. 1989) .................. 41A.15,
41A.29
Elota, The, SMA 2432 (1987) ................. 25A.10, 37A.9,
38A.53, 38A.56, 39A.12
Emerald, The (Astra Oil Co., Inc. v. Rover
Navigation, Ltd.), 344 F.3d 276,
2003 A.M.C. 2514 ........................................... 2A.33
Encourager, The, SMA 3048 (1994).................... 15A.74,
15A.75, 15A.126
Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v. SS.
Hong Kong Producer, 422 F.2d 7,
1969 AMC 1741 (2d Cir. 1969), cert.
denied, 397 U.S. 964 (1970) ......................... 12A.53
Endurance, The, SMA 3054 (1994) ...................... 11A.56
Energy Creation, The, SMA 2025 (1984) ........... 38A.27,
38A.49, 38A.58,
39A.1
Energy Explorer, The, SMA 3033 (1993) .............. 7A.29
Energy Freedom, The, SMA 2545 (1989) ........... 11A.48,
11A.49
Energy Resource, The, SMA 2017 (1984) .......... 41A.15,
1A.25
Entity, The, SMA 3200 (1995) ............... 53A.17, 53A.32
Eos, The, SMA 4002 (2008) ................... 11A.51, 53A.22
Epos, The. SMA 4335 (2018) .............. 15A.140, 21A.46,
35A.1, 37A.21
Epta, The, SMA 2837 (1990).............................. 15A.117
Eptalofos, The, SMA 2597 (1989)........... 38A.20, 42A.3,
49A.25
Eptanissos, The, SMA 2201 (1985) ........ 41A.19, 41A.25
Erisort, The, SMA 1022 (1976) ............................ 15A.66
Ermis, The, SMA 2960 (1993) ................... 14A.3, 43A.3
Esperanza, The, SMA 461 (1970) .......................... 14A.4
Espoir, The, SMA 2254 (1986)................... 37A.5, 37A.6
Esso Kumamoto, The, SMA 1637 (1982) .............. 35A.9
Esso Nederland v. M.T. Trade Fortitude,
1977 AMC at 2148 ........................................ 53A.28
Esso Providence, The, SMA 2079
(1985) ............................................... 38A.58, 39A.22
Eugenie S. Embiricos, The SMA 1127
(1977) ............................................... 17A.68, 25A.10
Eurogas, The, SMA 3005 (1993) .............. 34A.6, 34A.12
Evagelistria, The, 1969 AMC 232
(Arb. at N.Y. 1969) ........................................ 19A.13
Evgenia G, The, SMA 1657 (1982)........................ 3A.44
Evros, The, SMA 1059 (1976).............................. 38A.58
Evros, The, SMA 2353 (1987).............................. 13A.22
Excomm Mariner, The, SMA 1348
(1978) ............................................... 34A.12, 53A.30
Exi, The, SMA 2709 (1990) ................................. 16A.17
Express Patriot, The, SMA 3899 (2005) ................ 23A.7
Extraco II, The, SMA 1705 (1982) ........................ 3A.48
F .P. Clipper, The, SMA 3118 (1994) ................. 11A.18,
11A.56
F MC Corporation v. S.S. Marjorie Lykes,
Inc., 851 F.2d 78, 80, 1988 AMC
2113 (2d Cir. 1988)......................... 66A.39– 66A.41
Faarabi, The, SMA 3696 (2001) ............................. 7A.26
Fabian, The, SMA 1492 (1980) ............. 38A.25, 38A.33,
38A.63, 38A.64, 38A.66
Fadex Chemical Corp. v. Lorentzen 44 N.Y.S.
2d 789, 1944 AMC 940
(Mun. Ct. of N.Y. 1943) ................................ 12A.29
Fairchem Colt, The, M/T, SMA 3998 (2008) ...... 38A.69
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
Fairfield Venture, The, SMA 2452
(1988) ............................................... 38A.52, 38A.56
Falcon Carrier, The, SMA 4217
(2013) ............................................... 65A.17, 65A.20
Falcon, The, SMA 3421 (1998) .............. 41A.22, 41A.30
Fanis, The, SMA 2980 (1993) ............. 13A.71, 15A.105,
15A.109
Fannie, The, SMA 3719 (2002) .......................... 15A.137
Fay, The, SMA 915 (1975) ................................... 19A.16
Federal Calumet, The, SMA 1667
(1982) ................................................. 5A.22, 17A.64
Federal Insurance Co. v. Sabine Towing &
Transp. Co., 783 F.2d 347, 351–352,
1986 AMC 1860 (2d Cir. 1986) ................... 21A.38,
21A.39
Federal Insurance Co. v. Union Pacific
Railroad Co 651 F.3d 1175, 2012
AMC 1303 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................... 66.12
Federal Miramichi, The, SMA 4332
(2017); SMA 4344 (2018) .............. 13A.51, 53A.41,
66A.23
Federica, The, S/N, M/T, SMA 4289
(2016) ............................................................. 15A.52
Fedmet Corp. v. M/V Buyalyk, 194 F.3d
674, 678, 2000 AMC 337
(5th Cir. 1999) ................................................ 66A.23
Fedra, The, SMA 3386 (1997) ................................ 3A.48
Feliz Duckling, The, SMA 3611 (2000) ............... 21A.71
Fermar v. Peninsular Ship, 1993 AMC
1803 (E.D. La. 1992) ....................................... 23A.1
Ferrostaal, Inc v. The Sersou 1999 AMC 2352
(S.D.N.Y. 1999)................................................ 12A.4
Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Sea Phoenix, 447
F.3d 212, 219–228, 2006 AMC 1217
(3d Cir. 2006) ................................................. 66A.46
Fertilore S.A.S. v. Nitron Corporation,
SMA 4292 (2016) .......................... 15A.139, 37A.21
Ficus, The, SMA 2473 (1988) .................... 21A.7, 37A.8
Fidelity L., The, SMA 3051 (1994)...................... 53A.18
Filikon L., The, SMA 1556 (1981)....................... 53A.38
Fina America, The, SMA 2867 (1992) ................ 38A.16,
65A.12
Finesse L, The and The Fantasy L, SMA
3213 (1995) ....................................... 38A.71, 40A.7,
40A.20, 41A.30
Finnco Victoria, The, SMA 1683
(1982) ............................................... 13A.35, 13A.64
Fiona Jane, The, SMA 1767 (1982) ........ 36A.10, 45A.3,
45A.8
Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Orient Overseas
Container Line Ltd., 2003 AMC 1795,
1799 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2003) ............................. 12A.30
Firestone International Co. v. Isthmian
Lines Inc., 1964 AMC 1284
(S.D.N.Y. 1964 ...................13A.36, 13A.43, 13A.46
Flamenco, The, SMA 3477 (1998) ....................... 38A.39
Folger Coffee Co. v. Olivebank, 201 F.3d
632, 2000 AMC 844 (5th Cir. 2000) ............ 20A.22
Fort Fraser, The, 1992 AMC 1575
(E.D. La. 1991) .............................................. 49A.27
Fort St John, The, SMA 2682 (1990) .........37A.10, 38A.13
Fortis Corporate Insurance, S.A. v. Viken
Ship Management AS, 597 F.3d 784,
792, 2010 AMC 609 (6th Cir. 2010)
(O’Connor, J.) ................................................ 66A.11
cxxvi
Forum Pioneer, The, SMA 2640 (1990) ............. 15A.124
Four Island, The, SMA 3997 (2008) .................... 36A.11
Framura, The, SMA 3006 (1993) ......................... 39A.24
Frances Hammer, The, SMA 2182 (1985) .......... 41A.15,
41A.19
Francosteel Corp.. v. M/V Deppe Eur.,
1990 AMC 2962 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ................... 66A.5
Free Envoy, The, SMA 4023 (2009) .................. 15A.143
Fro, The SMA 809 (1973) ...................................... 27.A4
Front Tobago, The, SMA 4106 (2010) ................. 20A.24
Frosso K, The, SMA 778 (1973) ............................ 3A.43
Frota Argentina, The, SMA 2978 (1993) ............ 11A.10,
11A.53, 11A.57, 49A.28
Frotanorte, The, 1973 AMC 2315,
SMA 694 (1972) ...............15A.24, 15A.69, 15A.70,
15A.83, 15A.84, 38A.22
Fu Chiao, The, SMA 1089 (1977) ............................ 3A.1
Fu Ning Wan, The and The Asphalt
Summer SMA 4256 (2015) ............... 21A.83, 62A.3
G.F. Co. v. Pan Ocean Shipping Co., 23
F.3d 1498, 1994 AMC 1739
(9th Cir. 1994) ................................................ 66A.17
Galban Lobo Trading Co. S.A. v. The
Diponegaro, 103 F. Supp. 452, 454,
1952 AMC 181, 183 (S.D.N.Y. 1951) ......... 17A.38,
17A.39
Garbis, The, SMA 1647 (1980) .................. 35A.5, 35A.6
Garcia & Diaz v. Maguire Inc.,7 1936
AMC 136 (E.D. Pa. 1936)............................. 21A.49
Garganey, The, SMA 4095 (2010) ........................ 15A.74
Gaz Fountain, The, SMA 3066 (1994) ................ 35A.10,
39A.18
Gaz Horizon, The, SMA 3165 (1995) ....... 34A.6, 34A.10,
39A.9, 53A.33
Gemini Navigation Inc. v. Philipp Brothers
1974 AMC 1122, 1128–1129, 1133
(2d Cir. 1974) ................................................. 20A.23
General Elec. Co. v. M/V Nedlloyd, 817
F.2d 1022, 1029, 1987 AMC 1817
(2d Cir. 1987) ................................................. 66A.45
Genmar Boss, The, SMA 3781
(2003) .................................................. 34A.5, 37A.6,
37A.7, 37A.14, 62A.3
George v. Kramo Transportation, 1993
AMC 748 (E.D. La. 1992) .............................. 2A.21
George Vergottis, The, SMA 1214 (1978)........... 38A.57,
41A.2
Georgian Glory, The, SMA 1628 (1981).............. 17A.68
Georgios Xylas, The, SMA 1345 (1979)............ 15A.110
Gerber (J.) & Co. v. S.S. Sabine Howaldt,
437 F.2d 580, 1971 AMC 539
(2d Cir. 1971) ................................................. 66A.29
Gertrud Salamon, The, SMA 4036 (2009) ............... 1A.2
Giannis, The, SMA 1606 (1981) ............................ 3A.15
Gigi, The, SMA 1540 (1981) .............................. 15A.129
Gilia, The, 1972 AMC 1738, 1741
(Arb. at N.Y. 1972) .......................... 19A.15, 37A.13
Gina Juliano, The, SMA 1786 (1983) ........ 25A.6, 25A.7
Giovannella D’Amico, The, 1970 AMC
379 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) ....................... 49A.27, 53A.19,
53A.23, 53A.26
Glefi I, The M/T, SMA 3199 (1995) .................... 21A.63
Glen Maye, The, SMA 4125 (2011) ............. 3A.1, 3A.31
Glidden Co. v. Hellenic Lines Ltd., 315 F.2d 162,
1963 AMC 2006 (2d Cir. 1963) .................... 21A.31
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
Global Oil Tools, Inc. v. Expeditors Int’l of
Wash., Inc., 2019 AMC 2087
(E.D. La. 2019) .............................................. 66A.46
Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. United States
(The Zaca), 105 F.2d 160, 166, 1939
AMC 912, 920 (2d Cir. 1939)....................... 12A.45
Globe Comet, The, SMA 1610 (1981) ................. 38A.13
Gluck v. Isbrandtsen Co., 1961 AMC 1549
(City Ct. 1960) ............................................... 12A.29
Go Go Rambler, The, SMA 2811 (1991) ............ 49A.28,
53A.2
Go Go Regal, The, SMA 3093 (1993–1994).......15A.143,
21A.9, 38A.55
Go Go Rider, The, SMA 1877 (1983) .................. 13A.18
Go Go Runner, The, M/T, SMA No. 1746
(1982) ..................................................... 3A.3, 53A.1
Golden Breeze, The, SMA 1237 (1978)............... 21A.33
Golden Eagle, The, SMA 2213 (1986)................. 40A.13
Golden Eagle, The, SMA 2530 (1988)................... 5A.24
Golden Fleece, The, SMA 641 (1971) ................ 15A.76,
17A.66
Golden Light, The, SMA 1561 (1981) ................ 15A.37,
15A.89
Golden Nagos, The, SMA 2770 (1991)................. 7A.16,
16A.15
Golden Oak, The, SMA 2518 (1988);
SMA 2312 (1986) .......................................... 35A.12
Golden Oak, The, SMA 2551 (1989) ................... 40A.20
Golden Polydinamos, The, et al, SMA 3460
(1998) ............................................................... 53A.5
Golden Tennyo, The, SMA 2381 (1987) ............ 15A.102
Golden Tennyo, The, SMA 3117 (1994) ............ 15A.128
Goldmar, The , SMA 3902 (2005) ............. 2A.30, 2A.38
Good Herald, The, SMA 1930 (1983) ................ 21A.101
Good Luck, The, SMA 4182 (2012) .................... 13A.14
Good Pioneer, The, SMA 2317 (1986)....... 7A.18, 21A.9
Goodpasture Inc. v. M/V Pollux, 602 F.2d 84,
1979 AMC 2515; reh’g denied 606
F.2d 321 (5th Cir. 1979) .................................. 17A.9
Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland v. The
Boeing Co., 998 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1993) ......... 2A.28
Gowen, Inc. v. F/V Quality One, 2001
AMC 1478, 1483 (1st Cir. 2001) .................. 17A.38
Grace (W.R.) & Co. v. S.C. Loveland Co.,
1990 AMC 2515 (4th Cir. 1990) ................... 21A.90
Grand Brilliance, The, SMA 1960 (1984) ............ 39A.20
Grand, The, SMA 2548 (1989) ............................ 36A.10,
41A.28, 42A.1
Granheim, The (United States Steel International
Inc. v. The Granheim), 540 F.Supp.
1326, 1982 AMC 2770 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) ...... 49A.31
Great Republic, The, 1979 AMC 379, 384
(S.D.N.Y. 1979).............................................. 53A.25
Greenland Rex, The, SMA 3368 (1997) .............. 39A.18
Greenpack of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. American
President Lines, 684 F.3d 20, 27
(1st Cir. 2012) ................................................ 66A.46
Gresham, The, SMA 1876 (1983) ........................ 53A.36
Grifone, The, SMA No. 1319 (1979) ....................... 3A.3
Grigorpan, The, SMA 2988 (1993) ............. 3A.1, 3A.11,
21A.65
Guadalupe, The, SMA 2656 (1989)......... 49A.28, 53A.2,
53A.15
Ha Sklenar, The, SMA 4287 (2016) ..................... 21A.25
cxxvii
Halki, The, SMA 1759 (1982) ................. 38A.58, 60A.1,
60A.2
Hallborg, The, SMA 2639 (1990) ........................... 7A.23
Hamimi, The, SMA 3502 (1998) .......................... 11A.72
Hans Leonhardt, The, SMA 2820 (1991) .......... 15A.145,
16A.17
Hans Maersk, The, 266 F. 806,
808 (2d Cir. 1920) ............. 15A.17, 17A.54–17A.56
Hansa Partner, The, SMA 2813 (1991) .............. 15A.117
Hansa, The, SMA 646 (1971) ............. 15A.104, 15A.105
Hanze Gendt, The, SMA 4395 (2020);
SMA 4426 (2021) ......................1A.3, 36A.7, 36A.8
Happy Empress, The, SMA 2599 (1989) ............ 41A.15,
41A.29, 41A.30, 42A.1
Haralabos, The, SMA 2033 (1984) ......... 53A.18, 53A.45
Harmony, D.G., The, M/V, In Re, 2005
AMC 2528, 394 F. Supp. 2d 649
(S.D.N.Y. 2005)................................................ 6A.25
Harmony, D.G., The, M/V, In Re, 533 F.3d 83,
92–94, 2008 AMC 1848 (2d Cir. 2008).......... 6A.58
Harold K. Hudner, The, SMA 3619 (2000) ......... 65A.15
Hartlear, The, & the Tokyo Venture,
SMA 1785 (1983) .......................................... 12A.37
Havbris, The, SMA 3503 (1999) ............................ 36A.3
Hayes-Leger Associates, Inc. v. M/V Oriental
Knight, 765 F.2d 1076, 1986 AMC
1724 (11th Cir. 1985) ...................... 16A.15, 66A.54
Hellenic Champion, The, SMA 1867 (1983) ....... 16A.16
Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. United States 512 F.2d
1196, 1975 AMC 697, 715, 716
(2d Cir. 1975) ....................12A.22, 12A.42, 13A.24,
13A.48, 13A.49
Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee, 36 F.3d 143,
146 n. 5, 1995 AMC 1047
(1st Cir. 1994) ................................................ 66A.46
Hera, The, SMA 2467 (1988) ................................. 7A.24
Herd (Robert C.) & Co. v. Krawill Machinery
Corp., 359 U.S. 297, 1959 AMC 879 ............ 66A.1,
66A.9
Himoff Indus v. Seven Seas Shipping Corp.,
1976 AMC 1030 (N.Y. Sup. 1976) ................... 4A.1
Hoegh Fountain, The, SMA 2738 (1991)............. 39A.20
Hokkai Maru, The, 1937 AMC 2890
(E.D.N.Y. 1937) ............................................. 53A.28
Holborn Oil Trading Ltd. and Interpetrol
Bermuda Ltd., Matter of Arbitration
between, 747 F.Supp. 840, 1992 AMC 819
(S.D.N.Y. 1991)................................................ 2A.18
Holger Sif, The, SMA 3076 (1994) .................... 15A.156
Holma, The, SMA 912 (1975) .............................. 38A.33
Holstenwall, The, SMA 871 (1974)........................ 25A.6
Holzman A.G. & (Phillip) A.L v. The SS.
Hellenic Sunbeam, 1977 AMC
1731 (1977) .................................................... 21A.83
Hornbeck Offshore Operators, Inc. v. Ocean
Line of Bermuda, Inc. 1994 AMC 1716,
1723–1724 (E.D. Va. 1994) ........................... 17A.14
Hose Marti, The, SMA 3172 (1995) ..... 34A.14, 34A.18,
34A.23, 40A.8
Howard Smith v. The Maranon, 1974
AMC 1553, 1556 (2d Cir. 1974)................... 20A.22
Howard Vesper, The, SMA 1491 (1980) ................ 60A.2
Hugo N, The, LPG/C, SMA 4115 (2011) ....... 2A.4, 61A.2
Hugo N, The, LPG/C, SMA 4175 (2012) ........... 21A.26,
53A.15
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
I , The, M/T, SMA 3199 (1995) ........................... 21A.63
Ida, The, SMA 4276 (2016) .................................. 16A.22
Igloo Norse, The, LPG/C, SMA 4021
(2007) ................................................. 53A.2, 53A.21
Iligan Integrated Steel Mills, Inc. v. SS. John
Weyerhaeuser, 1975 AMC 33, 507 F.2d 68,
72 (2d Cir. 1974)) .......................................... 12A.57
Ilkon Tak, The, SMA 804 (1973) ........... 15A.89, 15A.92
Ilva U.S.A., Inc. v. M/V Botic 1993 AMC
240 (E.D. Pa. 1992), aff’d mem.,
998 F.2d 1003, 1993 AMC 2445
(3d Cir. 1993) ..................................... 11A.20, 66A.5
In Nahala, The, SMA 1927 (undated) ................. 38A.20,
38A.33, 38A.55,
38A.69
In Salah, The, SMA 1576 (1978) ............ 34A.8, 34A.12,
34A.16, 38A.39,
39A.1, 40A.5, 53A.1
In the Matter of the Arbitration between
Holborn Oil Trading Ltd. and Interpetrol
Bermuda Ltd., 747 F. Supp. 840, 844
(S.D.N.Y. 1991)................................................ 2A.10
In the Matter of the Arbitration between
Jebsen Carriers Ltd. and Gravetal Bolivia
S.A. et al., SMA 3525 (1999) ........... 14A.2, 25A.14
In the Matter of the Arbitration between
Keystone Shipping Co. and Chas. Kurz
Co., Inc., 762 F. Supp. 28
(S.D.N.Y. 1992)...................................... 2A.4, 61A.2
Inalotte Blumenthal, The, SMA 1364
(1979) ........................................... 15A.102, 15A.111
Independence, The, SMA 2765 (1991) ................. 21A.80
Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative Association
Inc. v. SS. Sovereign Faylenne
(The Sovereign Faylenne) 1978 AMC
1514, 1533–1534 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) ................ 17A.67
Infra, The, SMA 3105 (1994) (Nelson,
Siciliano, Martowski) .................................... 15A.50,
15A.157, 38A.20
Ingeniero Huergo, The, SMA 2436 (1987) .......... 34A.12
Ingersoll Milling Machine. Co. v. M/V Bodena,
829 F.2d 293, 301, 1988 AMC 223,
234 (2d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484
U.S. 1042 (1988).............................. 12A.54, 66A.43
Institute of London Underwriters v. Sea-Land
Service, Inc., 881 F.2d 761, 766, 1989
AMC 2516 (9th Cir. 1989) ............................ 66A.46
Insurance Co. of North America v. M/V
Imperial, 1987 AMC 1480
(E.D. La. 1987 .............................................. 66A.21.
Inter Pride, The, M/N, SMA 4360
(Arb. at. N.Y. 2019) ....................................... 12A.42
International Barges Inc. v. Kerr-McGee
Corp., 1979 AMC 450 (10th Cir. 1978) ....... 19A.19
International Chartering Services, Inc. v. Eagle
Bulk Shipping 2015 AMC 2587
(S.D.N.Y. 2015)................................................ 24A.1
Intrepid Colocotronis, The, SMA 794 (1973) ...... 16A.17
Ioannis Carras, The, SMA 1544 (1987) ............... 38A.36
Ioannis Carras, The, SMA 1810 (1983) ................. 43A.4
Ionian Mariner, The, 1971 AMC 1107
(Arb. at N.Y. 1971) .............................. 13A.8, 13A.9
Ira, The, SMA 3874 (2005) ................................ 15A.149
Iris Halo, The SMA 4268 (2014) ......................... 21A.26
cxxviii
Isbrandtsen Co. v. India Supply Mission
(Arb. at N.Y. 1959) ........................................ 15A.50
Island Gem, The, SMA 2560 (1989) .......... 7A.9, 21A.91
Italia di Navigazione, S.p.A. v. M.V.
Hermes, 724 F.2d 21, 22–23, 1984
AMC 1676, 1677–1678 (2d Cir. 1983)......... 66A.24
Itel Container Corp. v. M/V Titan Scan,
139 F.3d 1450, 1998 AMC 1965
(11th Cir. 1998) ................................................ 66A.5
Izurza, The, SMA 2712 (1990) ............................. 34A.16
J .C.B. Sales Ltd. v. Wallenius Lines,
124 F.3d 132, 136–137, 1997 AMC
2705, 2711–2712 (2d Cir. 1997) ..................... 66A.5
J. Gerber & Co. v. SS. Sabine Howaldt, 437
F.2d 580, 588, 1971 AMC 539
(2d Cir. 1971) ................................................. 66A.29
Jackie Hause, The (N.H. Shipping Corp. v.
Freights of the Jackie Hause) 81 F.Supp.
165, 1961 AMC 83 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) ............ 17A.18
Jahre Venture, The, SMA 3812 (2003) ................... 53A.5
Jamaica Commodity Trading Co. v. Connell
Rice & Sugar Co. Inc., SMA 2643-A
(1990) ................................................................. 7A.1
Jamaica Nutrition Holdings Ltd. v. United
Shipping Co., 643 F.2d 376, 380–381,
1981 AMC 2883, 2888 (5th Cir. 1981) ........ 21A.85
James N. Kirby, Pty. Ltd. v. Norfolk Southern
Railway, 300 F.3d 1300, 1308, 2002 AMC
2113, 2122 (11th Cir. 2002), rev’d, 543
U.S. 14, 31–32, 2004 AMC 2705, 2717
(2004) ............................................................. 66A.11
Janega, The, SMA 2461 (1987) ................................ 3A.5
Janus, The and The Atlantis, SMA 2952
(1993) ................................................... 2A.8, 34A.16
Jarabella, The, SMA 1550 (1980) ........................... 34A.7
Jebsen Carriers Ltd. v. Gravetal Bolivia
S.A. et al. SMA 3525 (1999) .............. 5A.31, 3A.39
Jerom, The, SMA 2657 (1990) ............................. 41A.26
Jin He, The, SMA 3188 (1995) .............................. 38A.4
Jindo v. Tolten, 2003 AMC 1312, 1318–1319
(C.D. Cal. 2001)............................................. 12A.57
Jo Anne, The, SMA 3026 (1993)............................ 53A.2
Jo Brevik, The, SMA 3919 (2006) ......... 11A.69, 53A.15
Jo Eik, The, SMA 3905 (2005) ............................ 49A.33
Jo Hegg, The, SMA 4019 (2008) ......................... 38A.57
Jo Rogn, The, SMA 2735 (1990) ......................... 35A.12
Joana, The, SMA 1695 (1982) ................................ 25A.7
Jodie D, The, SMA 3510 (1999) .............. 16A.15, 48A.1
Johanna Oldendorff, The, 1975 AMC at
1831–1836, [1974] A.C. 479, [1973]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285 .......................... 15A.39–15A.42
John F. Dillon & Co., LLC v. Foremost
Maritime Corp., 2004 AMC 1677
(S.D.N.Y. 2004)...................................... 2A.4, 61A.2
John K., The, SMA 1936 (1984) ........................ 15A.119
Johnson Chemsun, The, SMA 2782
(1991) ............................................... 49A.12, 49A.24
Jones v. Flying Clipper 116 F. Supp. 386,
1954 AMC 259 (S.D.N.Y. 1953) ................... 12A.49
Josco Huizhou, The, SMA 4416 (2020) ................ 7A.30,
15A.139
Joseph P. Grace, The, SMA 1768 (1983) ............... 34A.8
Jubilee Venture, The, SMA 1456 (1980) ................ 35A.3
Judy Litrico, The, SMA 3836 (2004) ....... 15A.46, 15A.62
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
Juko Maru, The, SMA 1112 (1977)...................... 35A.14
Juventia, The, SMA 2491 (1988)........................ 15A.113
Kale I, The, SMA 3516 (1999)............................. 16A.17
Kallistratos, The, SMA 2428 (1987) .................. 15A.158
Kampos, The, SMA 1542 (1981)............. 34A.2, 34A.16,
53A.12
Kandalaksha, The, SMA 3883 (2005) .................... 62A.2
Kanoc Naree, The, SMA 3557 (1999).................... 3A.20
Kapetan Markos N.L., The,
SMA 1373 (1979) .............38A.33, 38A.36, 38A.64,
38A.66, 38A.67, 39A.4,
40A.9, 42A.2
Kapitonas A. Lucka, The, SMA 3968
(2007) ............................................................. 53A.17
Kardamyla, The, SMA 3126 (1994) ....................... 3A.29
Karina Danica, The, SMA 3736 (2002) ............. 15A.149
Katerina P., The, SMA 3098 (1994) ..................... 39A.21
Katingo H., The, SMA 1012 (1975) ....................... 34A.4
Kato, The, SMA 1521 (1981) ............................... 53A.32
Kent Explorer, The, SMA 3904 (2005) ................ 15A.70
Keytrade Africa S.A., In Re, SMA 4290
(2016) ............................................................. 21A.97
Khian Wave, The, SMA 1146 (1977) ................... 17A.68
Kilchem Mediterranean, The, SMA 3020
(1993) ................................................. 49A.2, 49A.14
Kimolos, The, SMA 1999 (1984) ......................... 13A.21
King Cadmus, The, SMA 1881 (1983) .................. 53A.7
Kinzan Maru, The, SMA 3465 (1998) ................. 16A.17
Kissavos, The, SMA 1243 (1977) .......... 38A.33, 38A.36
Kittanning, The, SMA 3056 (1994) ........................ 2A.30
Knock Taggart, The, SMA 3001
(1993) .................................15A.56, 38A.30, 38A.40
Komatsu, Ltd. v. States Steamship Co., 674
F.2d 806, 1982 AMC 2152
(9th Cir. 1982) ................................................ 66A.45
Konkar Indomitable, The, SMA 1394A
(1980) ............................................................. 21A.86
Konkar Pioneer, The, SMA 1212, 1977
AMC 1794 (1976).......................................... 15A.51
Korea (Office of Supply, Government of the
Republic of) v. N.Y. Navigation Co., Inc.,
469 F.2d 377, 1973 AMC 1238
(2d Cir. 1972) ................................................. 17A.18
Korinthiacos Gulf, The, SMA 1553 (1981).......... 13A.22
Koyo Kaiun Co. Ltd. v. Liquistream
Americas Inc., SMA 4347 (2018) ................. 39A.21
Kriti Akti, The, SMA 3845 (2004) ......................... 2A.30
Kriti Art, The, SMA 3838 (2004) ........................... 2A.30
Krossfonn, The, SMA 933 (1975) ........................ 11A.41
Krupp Int’l, Inc. v. Federal Atl. Lake Lines,
1982 AMC 1799, 1802–1804
(E.D. Mich. 1981) .......................................... 66A.43
Krystal Inc. v. China United Transport, Inc.,
2018 AMC 2365 (C.D. Cal. 2017)................ 66A.46
Kuroshio Rex, The, SMA 2513 (1988) ................ 11A.68
Kurt Illies, The, SMA 2778 (1991) ........................ 37A.9
Kymo, The, 1975 AMC 2643, SMA 948
(Arb. at N.Y. 1975) ........................................ 38A.64
L.R. Mimosa SMA 4338 (2018) ........................... 65A.20
La Guajira, The, SMA 3101 (1994) ....................... 37A.9
Labrador, The, SMA 2472 (1988) ........................ 11A.42
Laconian, The, SMA 3063 (1994) ........................ 53A.15
Lady Dorothy, The, SMA 984 (1975) .................. 39A.14
Lady Helene, The, SMA 3457 (1998) ................... 5A.19,
21A.31, 35A.8
cxxix
Lady V, The, SMA 3071 (1994) ........................... 20A.25
Lago Atitlan, The, SMA 1880 (1983) .................... 5A.28
Lagoven Paria, The, SMA 3052 (1994) ................ 5A.38,
15A.146
Lake Ontario, The, SMA 2773 (1991) ................... 3A.27
Lake Palourde, The, SMA 1137 (1976) ................. 38A.3
Lake Sayany, The, 300 F. 47, 50, 1924
AMC 1056, 1060 (4th Cir. 1924).................... 16A.5
Las Rosas, The, SMA 3202 (1995) ...................... 11A.40
Lauberhorn, The, SMA 2699 (1990) ................... 38A.40,
40A.21, 53A.49
Laurissa, The, SMA 3532 (1999) ........................... 53A.9
Leage, The, SMA 1320 (1979) ............................. 13A.21
Leather’s Best, Inc. v. S.S. Mormaclynx,
451 F.2d 800, 815, 1971 AMC 2383,
2403 (2d Cir. 1971) ....................................... 66A.54
Ledea, The, SMA 1662 (1982) ............. 15A.118, 17A.66
Leira, The, SMA 3230 (1995) .............................. 21A.56
Lelaps, The, SMA 2840 (1992) ............... 15A.9, 15A.13,
15A.14, 15A.16
Lendoudis Kiki, The, SMA 2323 (1986).............. 17A.29
Lepanto Glory, The, SMA 3492 (1998) ............... 19A.16
Leprechaun Spirit, The, SMA 1056
(1976) ................................................... 45A.3, 45A.4
Leslie, The, SMA 1586 (1981) .............. 21A.42, 21A.56,
21A.80
Lewis v. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1976 AMC
1275 (5th Cir. 1976), reh’g denied 545
F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1977) .............................. 21A.95
Lina, The, SMA 3914 (2006)................................ 19A.10
Lion of Mykonos, The, M/V, SMA 787 (1973)...........8A.3
Lito, The, SMA 2740 (1991) ..................... 6A.29, 44A.1,
53A.18
Livingstone, The, SMA 2903 (1992) .................... 41A.15
Llano, The, SMA 1411 (1980) ............... 38A.43, 38A.46,
40A.9
Lloyd Royal Belge v. American Coal Exporting
Co., 23 F.2d 846, 847, 1927 AMC
1397 (S.D.N.Y. 1927) .................................... 17A.48
Loizos v. Compania Naviera Limitada, 94 F.
Supp. 111, 112, 1951 AMC 134, 135
(E.D. Pa. 1950) .............................................. 17A.40
London Confidence, The, SMA 1396
(1979) ............................................... 53A.26, 53A.30
Long Phoenix, The, SMA 1599 (1981) ............... 38A.40,
40A.21
Lorenzo Halcoussi, The, 1984 AMC
1608 (E.D. La. 1983) ...................... 53A.18, 53A.21,
53A.28
Lossiebank, The, 1938 AMC 1033 ............................ 6.28
Lotos, The, SMA 1949 (1984) ................................ 37A.9
Loukas 1, The, SMA 4124 (2011) ............ 38A.16, 61A.2
Lowlands Green, The, SMA 4402, 4408
(2020–2021) ..................................... 21A.96, 21A.97
Lucija, The, SMA 3139 (1995) ............................. 38A.56
Lucky-Goldstar Int’l (America), Inc. v. S.S.
California Mercury, 750 F. Supp. 141,
144–146, 1991 AMC 1018
(S.D.N.Y. 1990).............................................. 66A.11
Luctor, The, SMA 2947 (1993) .............................. 37A.7
Lugano Venture, The SMA 3468 (1998) ................ 53A.9
Luossa, The, 1936 AMC 213, 216,
(Arb. at N.Y. 1935) .......................... 17A.65, 17A.71
Lux Creator, The, SMA 3089 (1994) ................... 11A.78
M . Alexand, The, SMA 1476 (1980) .................. 19A.16
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
Maaskant, The, SMA 2688 (1990) ....................... 21A.19
Maaslot, The, SMA 3167 (1995) .................. 6A.6, 6A.12
Machitis and Thassitis, The,
SMA 1178 (1977) ............................................ 23A.2
Magellan Rex, The, SMA 2977 (1993) ................ 21A.10
Magpie, The, SMA 3948 (2006) ........................... 41A.20
Maharshi Dayanand, The (Shipping Corp.
of India Ltd. v. Sun Oil Co.)
1986 AMC 2752 (E.D. Pa. 1983) ................ 38A.36,
38A.49, 38A.63,
38A.66, 39A.22
Maid of Psara 1926 AMC 1256, 1257
(S.D.N.Y. 1926).............................................. 15A.99
Maistros, The, SMA 1339 (1979) ....................... 15A.117
Malcolm Baxter Jr., The, 277 U.S. 323, 1928
AMC 960 (1928)................ 12A.39, 13A.40–13A.47
Malmohus, The, SMA 2119 (1985) ........ 13A.21, 53A.33
Malyovitza, The, M/V, SMA 4011 (2008) ......... 15A.149
Man Liberty Island, The SMA 4291 (2016) .......... 43A.4
Manthos, The, SMA 1500 (1980) ........... 17A.67, 17A.69
Manthos, The, SMA 3016 (1993) .......... 14A.5, 15A.149,
38A.39
Mantinia, The, SMA 2030 (1984) ........................ 34A.16
Mantinia, The, SMA 2801 (1991) ........................ 41A.27
Mar Tirreno, The, SMA 897 (1974) ..................... 15A.78
Mara, The, SMA 3744 (2000) ................ 21A.40, 49A.27
Marcos M.F., The, SMA 2107
(1985) ............................................... 15A.117, 23A.4
Mare Di Kara, The, SMA 3238
(1996) ................................................. 38A.70, 41A.8
Marhava, The, SMA 2976 (1993) .................. 3A.9, 6A.4,
6A.11, 11A.14, 11A.34,
Maria A, The, SMA 3439 (1998) ......................... 15A.60
Maria Forsyth, The. SMA 1693
(1982) ................................................. 34A.9, 34A.14
Maria G.L., The, SMA 2506 (1988).......... 5A.16, 5A,23,
17A.61, 17A.66
Maria Jose T., The, SMA 2205
(1986) ............................................... 11A.27, 13A.69
Maria K, The, SMA 795 (1973) ............................. 3A.43
Maria Lolli-Ghetti, The, 1977 AMC 953,
SMA 974 (Arb. at N.Y. 1975) ...................... 39A.16,
40A.6, 40A.9
Maria Strathatos, The, 1952 AMC 347
(Arb. at N.Y. 1951) ........................................ 21A.32
Maria V, The, SMA 3989 (2007) .......................... 21A.56
Maria Von Barssel, The, SMA 2673 (1990)........... 7A.20
Marilyn O, The, SMA 3163 (1995) ........................ 6A.18
Marina di Alimuri, The, SMA 2655 (1990) ........... 3A.39
Marine Chemist/Ogden Charger, The, SMA
1909 (1983) ......................................... 19A.7, 37A.8,
49A.24, 49A.26
Marine Floridian, The, SMA 3575 (1999) ........... 35A.12
Marine Fuel Supply & Towing Inc. v.
The Ken Lucky, 859 F.2d 1405, 1989
AMC 390 (9th Cir. 1988) .............................. 17A.42
Marine Sulphur Queen, The, 460 F.2d 89 1972
AMC 1122 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied
409 U.S. 982 (1972) ....................... 11A.17, 11A.18,
11A.21, 11A.63
Marine Traders Inc. v. Seasons Navigation
Corp., 422 F.2d 804, 1970 AMC
1494 (2d Cir. 1970) ......................... 17A.17, 17A.20
Marivic, The, SMA 1732 (1982) .......................... 11A.26
Markos I, The,SMA 4285 (2016) ......................... 16A.17
cxxx
Markos N., The, SMA 2892 (1992) ....................... 23A.5
Marlene Green, The, M/V, SMA 4009
(2008) ............................................................. 11A.44
Marofa, The, SMA 1815 (1983) ............. 53A.38, 53A.40
Marpesia, The, 292 F. 957, 973, 1923
AMC 1110 (2d Cir. 1923) ................. 17A.48, 38A.4
Marta Z, The, SMA 2602 (1989).......................... 13A.35
Martha A., The, SMA 2584 (1989) ...................... 35A.12
Martha A., The, SMA 3352
(Arb. at N.Y. 1997) .......................................... 5A.27
Martha A., The, SMA 3861 (2004) ....................... 37A.5,
38A.39, 40A.15
Mary Ann, The, SMA 1365 (1979) ..................... 39A.16,
40A.6, 40A.9
Mary Ellen Conway, The, SMA 1965
(1984) ............................................... 38A.56, 49A.28
Mary S., The, SMA 1355 (1979).......................... 21A.19
Maryland Trader, The, SMA 849
(1974) ...................................5A.37, 16A.17, 65A.15
Masefield Trading, AG v. Shell Oil Company,
SMA 3855 (2004) .............................65A.15, 66.305
Master Petros, The, SMA 2784 (1991) .................. 53A.5
Master Shipping Agency Inc. v. The Farida,
571 F.2d 131, 1978
AMC 1267 (2d Cir. 1978) ............................... 20A.1
Matten I, The, SMA 1515 (1981) ......................... 13A.18
Maya Farber, The, SMA 1841 (1983) ................. 19A.19,
29A.23, 38A.14,
38A.56, 49A.8, 61A.2
Medjoy, The, SMA 1707 (1982) ........................... 13A.68
Meistersinger, The, SMA 1296 (1979) ................. 13A.12
Mercandian Queen, The, SMA 2713 (1990) ............ 5A.9
Mercedes, The, SMA 2284 (1986) ......................... 34A.3
Mercure, The SMA 3600, 3785
(2003) .................................21A.14, 21A.19, 65A.12
Merhanik Yuryev, The, SMA 3138
(1995) ..................................................... 6A.6, 6A.12
Meridian Lion, The, SMA 3739
(Arb. at N.Y. 2002) .......................................... 7A.30
Mesis, The, SMA 2610 (1989) ............................. 16A.15
Mesocap Industries Ltd. v. Torm Lines,
194 F.3d 1342, 1345, 2000 AMC 370,
374 (11th Cir. 1999) ...................................... 66A.24
Mesologi, The, SMA 1486 (1980) .............. 38A.4, 39A.1
Messiniaki Frontis, The, 1982 AMC 1241,
SMA 1630 (Arb. at N.Y. 1982) ..................... 40A.17
Messiniaki Gi, The, SMA 1292 (1979) ................ 38A.59
Metallgesellschaft A.G. v. M/V Capitan
Constante, 790 F.2d 280, 282, 1986
AMC 1817 (2d Cir. 1986) .............. 13A.16, 13A.21,
13A.23, 34A.11
Meteora, The, SMA 2981 (1993).......................... 11A.29
Meteora/Metsovon, The, SMA 2955 (1993) .......... 65A.8
Michael C., The, SMA 1658 (1982) .................... 38A.26,
38A.41, 38A.63
Michael C. Lemnos, The, SMA 1906
(1983) ............................................................... 5A.37
Michael, The, SMA 1168 (1977) .............. 11A.64, 53A.2
Michael, The, SMA 1277 (1978) ............................ 40A.7
Midas Touch, The, SMA 2248 (1986) ................. 36A.10,
39A.20
Milta, The, SMA 3083 (1994) .............................. 21A.49
Miltiades, The, SMA 4105 (2010) ........................ 15A.60
Mincio, The (Navigazione Generale Italiana v.
Spencer Kellogg & Sons Inc.) 92 F.2d 41,
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
1937 AMC 1506 (2d Cir.); cert.
denied 302 U.S. 751 (1937) ................ 20A.1, 20A.5
Mini Lioness, The, SMA 1948 (1984) ................. 16A.17
Mini Loaf, The, SMA 2301 (1986) ............ 23A.2, 23A.3
Ministry of Commerce v. Marine Tankers
Corp., 194 F. Supp. 161, 163 n. 6, 1961
AMC 320 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) ............................ 17A.63
Mistral, The, SMA 2724 (1990) ........................... 17A.31
Mitsui & Co. v. American Export Lines,
636 F.2d 807, 821, 1981 AMC 331,
351 (2d Cir. 1981) ......................................... 66A.54
Mitsui Marine Fire & Ins. Co. v. Direct
Container Line, Inc., 2002 AMC 190,
119 F. Supp. 2d 412, 415–417
(S.D.N.Y. 2000) , aff’d mem., 21 Fed.
App’x 58 (2d Cir. 2001) ............................... 12A.58,
66A.49, 66A.54
Miztli, The, SMA 2165 (1985) ............................... 53A.8
MN Inter Pride, The, SMA 4360
(Arb. at. N.Y. 2019) ........................... 12A.29, 19A.2
Mobil Aladdin, The, SMA 2537 (1989) ............... 53A.43
Mobil Challenger, The, SMA 2758 (1991) ............ 43A.2
Monarch, The, 1976 AMC 17
(Arb. at N.Y. 1976) ........................................ 21A.42
Moondance, The, SMA 3967
(Arb. at. N.Y. 2007) ........................... 7A.28, 21A.55
Mopa Daniel, The, SMA 3209 (1995).................... 37A.9
Mormacsea, The, 1983 AMC 1524
(2d Cir. 1983) ................................................. 53A.28
Mormacvega, The (Du Pont de Nemours
Int’l S.A. v. The Mormacvega) [1973]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 267 (U.S. Dist. Ct.);
493 F.2d 97, 1974 AMC 67
(2d Cir. 1974) ...........................6.29, 12A.55, 66.358
Mosdale, The, SMA 740 (1972) ........................... 16A.17
Mount Athos, The, SMA 493 (1970)...... 11A.26, 11A.52
Mount Vernon Victory, The, SMA 1204
(1978) ............................................................... 42A.4
Mount Vernon Victory, The, SMA 1879
(1983) .....................................4A.1, 39A.20, 40A.20
Mountain Blossom SMA 3067 (1994) ................. 38A.49
Mountain Blossom, The, SMA 3067 (1994) ........ 40A.15
Mountain Blossom, The, SMA 3959 (2007) ......... 3A.32,
49A.24
Mountain Lady, The, SMA 3704
(2001) ....................................5A.31, 16A.4, 38A.18,
39A.19, 41A.15, 65A.12
Mountain Lady, The, SMA 3821 (2004) .............. 49A.13
MT Vanni D, The, SMA 3903 (2005) .................... 2A.22
MTM Santos, The, SMA 4356 (2019) ................. 45A.12
Muhammadi Steamship Co., Ltd. v. The
People’s Democratic Republic of
Yemen, SMA 1346 (1979) ................. 16A.15, 48A.1
Multiflex Orion, The, SMA 3770 (2003) ............. 15A.98
Mundogas Rio, The, SMA 2723 (1990) .............. 49A.23,
49A.27
Munguia, The, SMA 2342 (1986) ............ 38A.9, 38A.64
N.H. Shipping Corp. v. Freights of The
Jackie Hause (The Jackie Hause),
181 F. Supp. 165, 1961 AMC 83
(S.D.N.Y. 1960).............................................. 17A.18
NCC Arar, The, SMA 3837 (2004) ......... 21A.93, 34A.3,
1A.2, 53A.48, 63A.1
NS United Kaiun Kaisha Ltd. v. Cogent Fibre
Inc., 2015 AMC 2029 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) .......... 62A.2
cxxxi
Nai Noemi, The, SMA 1449 (1980) ....................... 49A.4
Namik Kemal, The, SMA 1242 (1978) ................ 25A.12
Namrun, The, SMA 4156 (2011) (Siciliano,
Lofberg, Desmond)
(Shanghai, port charter) ................... 15A.22, 15A.45
Nani, The, SMA 3311 (1996) ............................... 16A.17
Nasos S., The, SMA 3082 (1994)......................... 21A.54
Naviera Despina Inc. v. Cooper Shipping
Co. Inc., 1987 AMC 2380
(S.D. Ala. 1987) ............................................... 23A.6
Navigazione Generale Italiana v. Spencer
Kellogg & Sons Inc. (The Mincio),
92 F.2d 41, 1937 AMC 1506 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied 302 U.S. 751 (1937) ........ 20A.1, 20A.5
Nea Tyhi, The, SMA 2571 (1989) .......................... 5A.23
Neapolis, The, SMA 2341 (1986) ......................... 53A.37
Neda, The, SMA 1893 (1983) .............................. 13A.22
Nedi, The, SMA 1604 (1981) .......37A.5, 37A.10, 3A.24
Negotiator, The, SMA 4165 (2012) ...................... 39A.21
Neil Armstrong, The, SMA 759 (1973),
1973 AMC 1060, 1067 ................... 25A.11, 38A.13,
38A.20, 38A.50, 38A.64,
39A.11, 39A.16
Nemeth v. General Steamship Corp.,
694 F.2d 609, 611–613, 1983
AMC 885, 866 (9th Cir. 1982)........ 12A.51, 66A.45
Nemos, The, SMA 2356 (1987).............................. 3A.48
Neptune Corona, The, SMA 3407 (1995) ............ 38A.48
Neptune Dorado, The, SMA 3987 (2007) .............. 21A.9
Nereus Shipping S.A. and Island Creek
Coal Sales Co., In re Arbitration
between, SMA 1763 (1982).......... 15A.25, 15A.164,
15A.166, 15A.167, 15A.172
Nestor, The, SMA 3541 (1999) .......................... 15A.109
Nestor, The, SMA 3816 (2003) ............................ 15A.82
New Endeavor, The, SMA 3721 (2002) ........ 2A.3, 2A.4,
7A.32, 35A.12
New Navigation, The, SMA 4151 (2010) ............. 5A.20,
15A.142
New Way, The, 1977 AMC 88, SMA
1043 (1976) ........................................ 21A.64, 62A.1
New York Getty, The, SMA 2210 (1986) ............ 38A.47
New York, The, SMA 1551 (1981) ........................ 34A.4
Nichimen Co. v. M/V Farland 462 F.2d 319,
333, 1972 AMC 1592–1593
(2d Cir. 1972) ................................................. 11A.35
Nicolaas D.C., The, 1982 AMC 1489
(5th Cir. 1982) .................................................. 6A.23
Nicolas Kairis, The, 1962 AMC 1568,
1576 (Arb. at N.Y. 1961)............... 15A.119, 21A.51
Nicopolis, The, 1992 AMC 663, 666
(S.D.N.Y. 1991)................................................ 62A.1
Nicopolis, The, SMA 2745 (1991) ...................... 38A.43,
41A.19, 42A.3
Nigma, The, SMA 1598 (1981) ................. 7A.10, 21A.8,
38A.57
Nike, The, SMA 2856 (1992) ............................... 53A.37
Niki, The, SMA 3963 (2007) ................................ 41A.20
Nikos Kazantzakis, The, SMA 1728 (1982) ......... 41A.2,
38A.3
Ninfea, The, 1953 AMC 1669
(Arb. at N.Y. 1953) .......................... 12A.28, 12A.35
Nissho-Iwai Co. v. The Stolt Lion, 1986
AMC 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); on remand
617 F.2d 907 (2d Cir. 1980) .......................... 11A.18
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS

Nitrochem Distribution Ltd. v. Vikingshuset Office of Supply, Government of the Republic

Shipping Inc., SMA 4157 (2012) .................. 21A.29 of Korea v. New York Navigation
Nomadic Lady, The, SMA 3543 (1999) ............. 15A.173 Co. 469 F.2d 377, 380, 1973
Nora, The, 1953 AMC 1629 (Arb. at AMC 1238 (2d Cir. 1972) ............................. 66A.23
N.Y. 1953) ........................................................ 14A.6 Ogden Charger, The, SMA 1504
Nord Baltic, The, SMA 3687 (2001) ................... 41A.25, (1980) ................................34A.14, 38A.12, 39A.20,
41A.29 46A.2, 60A.1, 61A.1
Nordic Patriot, The, SMA 1329 (1979) .................. 40A.7 Okland, The, 1981 AMC 655,
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. James N. SMA 1483 (Arb. at N.Y. 1980) ......... 53A.4, 53A.15
Kirby, Pty. Ltd., 543 U.S. 14, 20, 29, Olga, The, SMA 3818 (2003) ................................. 11A.3
2004 AMC 2705, 2708 (2004) 125 S. Olivier Straw Goods Corp. v. Osaka
Ct. 385 ............................................... 6A.59, 66A.11, Shosen Kaisha, 47 F.2d 878, 1931
66A.52 AMC 528 (2d Cir. 1931) ................. 12A.32, 66A.47
Norgas Pilot, The, LPG/C, SMA 3984 Olympic Sponsor, The, SMA 3711 (2001);
(2007) .................................21A.19, 37A.13, 37A.17 2002 AMC 266 ...........................2A.3, 2A.4, 2A.37,
Norina, The, 1968 AMC 207 5A.35, 5A.39, 23A.1,
(Arb. at N.Y. 1967) ........................................ 15A.49 31.4, 40A.3
Norse Falcon, The, SMA 2324 Olympos, The, SMA 169 (1967) ............................ 13A.8
(1986) .............................................. 38A.55, 41A.21, OMI Charger, The, SMA 2621 (1989) ................. 39A.23
49A.6, 49A.25 Omnium Pride, The, SMA 1354 (1979) .............. 16A.14,
Norse Venture, The, SMA 2330 (1986)................ 49A.24 16A.17
North Atlantic and Gulf Steamship Co, Omnium Pride, The, SMA 1519 (1981) ................. 14A.8
In re, 204, 320 F.2d 628 (2d Cir. 1963); Opal Sun, The, SMA 3664 (2001)........................ 65A.15
aff’g 204 F.Supp. 899, 1963 AMC 871 Orduna S.A. v. Zen-Noh Grain Corp.,
(S.D.N.Y. 1962).............................................. 17A.22 913 F.2d 1149, 1991 AMC 346
North Countess, The, SMA 907 (1975)................ 15A.44 (5th Cir. 1990) ......................................... 5A.4, 5A.5,
North Princess, The,1960 AMC 1997, 5A.9, 5A.10
2001 (Arb. at N.Y. 1960)..............................15A.111 Orient Mid-East Lines v. Orient Transporter
North Wave, The, SMA 2042 (1984)) .................. 15A.49 1974 AMC 2593, 2599–2603
Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Galin, 1988 (5th Cir. 1974) ................................... 20A.5, 20A.13,
AMC 878, 879 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) ................... 66A.24 20A.24
Nortween Vilja, The, SMA 3058 (1994) ................ 3A.12 Orient Rose, The, SMA 2176
Noto, The, SMA 1032 (1976) ............................... 19A.16 (1985) .................................15A.57, 15A.59, 15A.61
Nova Caledonia, The, SMA 4066 (2010)............. 15A.52 Orient Shipping Rotterdam B.V. v. Hugo
Numerous cases of this type are discussed Neu & Sons Inc 918 F Supp. 806
above in Chapter 7. In The Josco (S.D.N.Y.), 1996 AMC 1366–1371,
Huizhou, SMA 4405 (2020) .......................... 21A.41 aff’d, 104 F.3d 356
Nyhammer, The, SMA 2747 (1991) .................... 38A.61, (2dCir.1996) ................................. 15A.168–15A.173
40A.16 Osaka Shosan Kaisha v. Pacific Export
O.M.I. Charger, The, SMA 2621 (1989) .............. 39A.23 Lumber Co., 260 U.S. 490,
Oak, The (Centerchem Products Inc. v. 1923 AMC 55 (1923) ............17A.3, 17A.8, 17A.25
A/S Rederiet Odfjell) 1972 AMC 373 Osman Mete, The, SMA 3823 (2004) ...... 7A.13, 16A.15
(E.D. Va. 1971) .............................................. 53A.17 Ostertor, The, SMA 527 (1970) .............. 15A.86, 15A.91
Ocean Commander, The, SMA 2933 (1992) ........ 21A.45 Otal Investments Ltd., In Re, 2008 AMC
Ocean Hauler, The, SMA 1721 (1982)................. 11A.39 1561, 1586–1588 (S.D.N.Y. 2008),
Ocean Klipper, The, SMA 3939 (2006) ........ 3A.9, 6A.4, aff’d in part, vacated in part on
21A.9, 21A.50 other grounds, 673 F.3d 108, 2012
Ocean Merchant, The, SMA 1905 (1983) .............. 19A.6 AMC 913 (2d Cir. 2012) ............................... 66A.26
Ocean Noble, The, SMA 2385 (1987)................ 21A.102 Overseas Fruit, The, SMA 1076 (1976) ............... 17A.61
Ocean Prince, The, SMA 2517 (1988) ................. 11A.42 Overseas Progress, The, SMA 1201 (1978) ........... 27.A2
Ocean Princess, The, SMA 1180 (1977) .............. 49A.25 Overseas Washington, The, SMA 1801 (1983) ...... 53A.1
Ocean Ranger, The, and Other Ships, P.&E. Shipping Corp. v. Empresa Cubana
SMA 541 (1970) .............................................. 3A.42 Exportadora e Importadora de Alimentos
Ocean Tanker, The, M/T, SMA No. 2930 (The Ruth Ann), 335 F.2d 678, 680,
(1992) ................................................................. 3A.3 1964 AMC 2006, 2009 (1st Cir. 1964) ......... 12A.21
Ocean Venture, The, SMA 2355 (1987) ................. 35A.9 Paal Wilson & Co. A/S v. Louisiana
Ocean Voyager, The, SMA 1304 (1979) ................ 36A.7 Pacific Corp., 1986 AMC 840,
Oceanid, The, SMA 2923 (1992).............................. 8A.5 842 (D. Ore. 1984) ........................................ 15A.68
Octonia Sun SMA 2424 (1987) ............................ 21A.92 Pacific Bangshen, The, SMA 4062 (2010) ......... 15A.138
Octonia Sun, The, 1988 AMC 832, Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. M/V
SMA 2424 (Arb. at N.Y. 1987) ....... 53A.18, 53A.33 Mini Lass, 1983 AMC 2196
Octonia Sun, The, SMA 2424 (1987)..... 41A.15, 41A.21 (E.D. La. 1982), aff’d mem.,
Octonia Sun, The. 1988 AMC 832, 721 F.2d 817 (5th Cir. 1983) ......................... 66A.21
SMA 2424 (Arb. at N.Y. 1987) ..................... 53A.46 Pacmerchant, The, SMA 2505 (1987) .................... 13A.7

cxxxii
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
Pacmerchant, The, SMA 2743
(1991) ........................................... 15A.119; 15A.120
Paikon, The, SMA 1523 (1980) ............... 43A.2, 53A.19,
53A.32
Pal Eagle, The, SMA 3132 (1994) ........... 5A.32, 16A.17
Palmco v. American President Lines,
1978 AMC 1715 (D. Ore. 1977
and 1978)........................................................ 53A.28
Paloma Del Mar, The, SMA 1071
(1976) ................................................. 21A.7, 21A.42
Pam, The, SMA 1289 (1979) .................. 49A.21, 49A.27
Pan American World Airways v. California
Stevedore & Ballast Co., 559 F.2d 1173,
1175–1177, 1978 AMC 1834
(9th Cir. 1977) ................................................ 66A.45
Panagiotis L., The, SMA 2618 (1989) ................. 15A.59
Panam Clipper, The, SMA 2214 (1986) ................ 39A.1,
39A.15
Panayia Moutsaina, The, SMA 1004
(1976) ........................................................... 15A.105
Pandora, The, SMA 1466 (1980) .......................... 17A.15
Paraskevi II, The, SMA 3752 (2002) ................. 15A.149
Park SS. Co. v. Cities Service Oil Co188
F.2d 804, 806, 1951 AMC 851
(2d Cir. 1951), cert. denied 342
U.S. 801 (1951).................................................. 5A.6
Paros, The, SMA 1669 (1982) ............... 15A.90, 15A.91,
21A.7, 21A.20, 21A.43
Parskevi II, The, SMA 4034 (2009) ..................... 53A.22
Partnership, The, SMA 2322 (1986) ..................... 11A.64
Pasithea, The, SMA 2434 (1987).......................... 38A.57
Passat, The, SMA 1131 (1977) ........................... 15A.104
Patricia Star, The, SMA 1855 (1983) .................. 15A.30,
15A.32, 15A.86
Peaceventure L., The /Prideventure L,
The, SMA 3137 (1994).................... 15A.51, 38A.20
Pebble Beach, The, SMA 2302 (1986)................... 23A.6
Pebblw Beach, The, SMA 2464 (1988)................ 15A.16
Pegny, The, SMA 1015 (1976) ............... 38A.34, 38A.36
Penavel, The, SMA 2014 (1984) ........................ 15A.136
Penny Conway, The, SMA 2343 (1986) 53A.12, 53A.32
Penteli, The, SMA 904 (1974) .............................. 36A.10
Pericles, The, 1967 AMC 2762
(Arb. at N.Y. 1967) .......................................... 14A.9
Persepolis, The, SMA 2271 (1986) ....... 36A.10, 38A.55,
41A.15, 41A.30
Perseus, The, SMA 2307 (1986)............. 38A.58, 38A.69
Petrojam Trader, The, SMA 3493 (1998). ............ 65A.20
Petros Hadjikyriakos, The, SMA 2002
(1984) ............................................................... 40A.4
Philippi, The, SMA 1367 (1979) .............. 16A.4, 17A.66
Philippine Jasmine, The, SMA 2458
(1988) ..................................................... 7A.6, 19A.4
Phillip Holzman A.L. v. The Hellenic
Sunbeam, 1977 AMC 1731, 1734
(S.D.N.Y. 1977).............................................. 21A.85
Phillips Oklahoma, The, 1983 AMC 1528
(S.D.N.Y. 1983)............................... 53A.15, 53A.21,
53A.26, 53A.28
Phoenix Star, The, M/T, SMA 2120
(1985) ................................................ 6A.13, 41A.19,
49A.4, 49A.19
Phoros SMA 4074 (2010) ....................................... 3A.34
Pico El Toro, The, SMA 4352 (2018) .................... 7A.35
cxxxiii
Pino v. Protection Maritime Ins. Co. Ltd., 599
F.2d 10, 1979 AMC 2459 (1st Cir. 1979),
cert. denied 444 U.S. 900 (1979), on
remand 490 F. Supp. 277
(D. Mass. 1980) ............................................. 21A.95
Pisces, The, SMA 1529 (1981) ............................. 53A.17
Pitria Star Navigation Co. v. Monsanto Co.,
1986 AMC 2966 (E.D. La. 1984) ................... 6A.27
Point Julie, The, SMA 1267 (1978)....................... 49A.5,
49A.21, 49A.24
Point Susan, The, SMA 1838 (1983)................... 15A.67,
15A.89, 15A.92
Polly, The, SMA 874 (1974) ................... 17A.61, 17A.68
Polyfreedom, The, 1975 AMC 1826,
SMA 926 (1975) .............................. 15A.50, 15A.43
Polyxene C., The, SMA 2349 (1987) .................. 40A.14,
41A.15, 41A.30
Pontiaki Doxa, The, SMA 3236 (1996)................ 16A.17
Pontos Mariner, The, SMA 1692 (1982) .............. 15A.73
Pooja, The, SMA 3798 (2003) .............. 15A.45, 15A.103
Porsanger, The, SMA 2881 (1992) ....................... 21A.86
Poseidon Schiffahrt GmbH and Transocean
Coal Company, In re Arbitration between,
SMA 3742 (2002) ........................................ 15A.163
Poseidon, The, SMA 2198 (1986) .......................... 7A.12
Posidon, The, SMA 3732 (2002) ........... 12A.21, 21A.31,
21A.58, 38A.14,
49A.23, 62A.3
Prairie Grove, The, 1976 AMC 2589,
SMA 1020 (1976) ............................................ 53A.5
Prairie Grove, The, 1977 AMC 2139
(S.D.N.Y. 1977)................................. 53A.4, 53A.16,
53A.19, 53A.28
President Cleveland, The, SMA 2986
(1992) ............................................................. 11A.43
Pretty Lady, The, SMA 4373
(2019) .............................................. 7A.30, 15A.139,
21A.41, 37A.20
Pride, The, SMA 3691 (2001) .............................. 14A.10
Primo, The, SMA 3335 (Arb. at N.Y. 1997) .......... 5A.34
Prince of Tides, The, SMA 4146
(2011)......................................11A.59, 53A.2, 62A.4
Profitis Elias, The, SMA 3015
(1993) ............................................... 15A.56, 38A.15
Promar, The, SMA 4063 (2010) ........................... 53A.17
Prosperity, The, SMA 2880 (1992) ......................... 16A.4
Proteus, The, SMA 3136 (1994) ................. 5A.23, 5A.34
Providence, The, SMA 1641 (1982) ..................... 17A.66
Puerto Madrin S.A. v. Esso Standard
Oil Co., 1962 AMC 147, 157–158,
165 (S.D.N.Y. 1961) ....................... 15A.24, 15A.44,
15A.148, 15A.149, 38A.4
Racal Survey U.S.A., Inc. v. M/V Count Fleet,
2001 AMC 456, 467, 231 F.3d 183
(5th Cir. 2000) ................................................ 17A.16
Rachel B, The, SMA 3889 (2005); SMA 3920
(2006);.SMA 4150 (2011).............................. 37A.19
Raffaele Cafiero, The, SMA 2152 (1985) .............. 53A.1
Rainbow Line Inc. v. The Tequila, 480 F.2d
1024, 1027 n. 6, 1973 AMC 1431,
1435 n. 6 (2d Cir. 1973) .................... 17A.4, 17A.45
Raphael, The, SMA 3739, 3355
(2002) ....................................38A.2, 38A.57, 39A.1,
39A.13, 39A.25, 50A.1
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS

Redhead, The, SMA 4129 (Arb. at (E.D. La. 2017), aff’d, 898 F.3d 543,
N.Y. 2011) .......................................................... 8A.6 548–550, 2019 AMC 1848
Regal Sword, The, SMA 1682 (5th Cir. 2018) .................................. 66A.12, 66A.13
(1982) ............................................... 15A.70, 21A.80 Royal Typewriter Co. v. M/V Kulmerland,
Regent Ranger, The, SMA 1564 483 F.2d 645, 1973 AMC 1784
(1981) ............................................... 5A.34, 15A.117 (2d Cir. 1973) ................................................. 66A.54
Resolute, The. SMA 2465 (1988) .......... 53A.11, 53A.35, Ruhr Ore, The, SMA 3504 (1999)........................ 65A.13
53A.41, 53A.43 Rupp v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 479
Retla SS. Co. and Canpotex Ltd., In re F.2d 674, 1973 AMC 1093
Arbitration between, SMA 1115 (2d Cir. 1973) ................................................. 66A.10
(1977) ............................................... 66A.16, 66A.17 Ruth Ann, The (P. & E. Shipping Corp. v.
Rich Duke, The, SMA 3444 (1997) ................... 21A.102 Empresa Cubana Exportadora e
Rio Sun, The, SMA 1546 (1981).............. 37A.9, 38A.11 Importadora de Alimentos) 335
Robert C. Herd & Co. v. Krawill F.2d 678, 1964 AMC 2006
Machinery Corp., 359 U.S. 297, (1st Cir. 1964) ................................................ 12A.25
301, 1959 AMC 879, 882 (1959) ........ 66A.1, 66A.9 SK Shipping Co. Ltd. and Cofersa
Roble, The, SMA 4130 (2011) ............................. 21A.71 Commodities A.G. and Nova Coal
Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. M/V Incotrans, 1994 A.G., In re Arbitration
AMC 71, 74, 998 F.2d 316, 318 between, SMA 3896 (2005)............................. 7A.33
(5th Cir. 1993) ................................................ 12A.57 SN Federica, The, 23 SMA 4224
Rockwell International Corp. v. M/V (Arb. at N.Y. 2013) ........................................ 16A.18
Incontrans Spirit 1994 AMC 71 SPM Corp. v. M/V Ming Moon, 1992
(5th Cir. 1993) ................................................ 12A.59 AMC 2409, 965 F.2d 1297, 1303
Rodina, The, SMA 1971 (1984) ........................... 21A.44 (3d Cir. 1992) ................................................. 12A.51
Rodosto, The, SMA 2222 (1986)........... 49A.27, 49A.28, Sabina, The, SMA 3960 (2007) .......................... 15A.137
53A.2 Saima Dan, The, SMA 468 (1969) ....................... 15A.71
Rohm & Haas Co. v. American President Saint. Johns N.F. Shipping Corp. v. S.A.
Lines, 1989 AMC 420 Companhia Geral Commercial do
(S.D.N.Y. 1988).............................................. 66A.24 Rio de Janeiro, 263 U.S. 119, 1923
Rokos V, The, 1978 AMC 1358, AMC 1131 (1923) .......................................... 12A.47
SMA 1169 (1977) ................................ 36A.6, 36A.7 Saint. Paul, The, SMA 697 (1972) ....................... 25A.10
Rokos V, The, SMA 1443 (1980) ........................... 3A.25 Saint. Peter, The, SMA 1193 (1978) .................... 53A.21
Romantic, The, SMA 4299 (2017) ........... 2A.32, 34A.24 Saint Vassilios, The, M/V, SMA 3491
Ropner (Sir R.) & Co. v. Emmons Coal (1998) ............................................................... 41A.9
Mining Corp., 31 F.2d 948, 1927 Salina, The, SMA 2433 (1987) ............................ 41A.17,
AMC 113 (3d Cir. 1929) ............................... 17A.48 41A.18, 41A.20
Rosario Del Mar, The, SMA 2965 (1993) ............. 42A.2 Sally D., The, SMA 2379 (1987) ......................... 15A.44
Rosenbruch v. American Export Isbrandtsen Sally Stove, The, SMA 2320 (1986) ...... 17A.29, 21A.65
Lines Inc., 543 F.2d 967, 1976 AMC 487 Salvia Star, The, SMA 2046 (1984) ..................... 15A.78
(2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. San Fernando, The SMA 4340 (2018) ................. 21A.15
939, 1976 AMC 2684 (1976) ........................ 12A.49 San George, The, SMA 2564 (1989) ........................ 7A.1
Ross Industries Inc. v. M/V Gretke San Jacinto, The, SMA 1405 (1980) .................... 53A.30
Oldendorff, 483 F. Supp. 195, 1980 San Remo II, The, SMA 4037 (2009) ................. 15A.69,
AMC 1397 (E.D. Tex. 1980) ......................... 12A.23 15A.137, 38A.22
Ross Isle, The, SMA 1340 (1979) ........................ 15A.45 Sandefjord, The, 1980 AMC 2157,
Rossi, The, SMA 3470 (1998) ................. 35A.3, 38A.68, SMA 1437 (1980) ................................ 39A.7, 40A.9
65A.13 Sanko Bay, The, SMA 1565 (1981) ....................... 35A.3
Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale (N.V.and Sanko Prestige, The, SMA 1438 (1977)............... 38A.57
Dover SS. Co. In Re 1958 AMC 1184, Sanko Steamship Co., Ltd. v. Sherwin
1191 ((Arb. at N.Y. 1958) ............................. 25A.10 Alumina, In Re, LPSMA 4135
Rova, The, SMA 3424 (1998) ................................ 3A.30 (2011).................................................. 3A.33, 14A.11
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia v. SS. Santa Margherita, The, SMA 3796 (2003) ........... 53A.31
Ioannis Martinos, 1986 AMC 790, Santiago, The, SMA 2574 (1989) ......................... 38A.13
799–802 (E.D.N.C. 1984) .............................. 66A.10 Sarah, The, SMA 2671 (1990) .................................. 6A.7
Royal Ins. Co. v. Sea-Land Service Inc., Sava, The, SMA 2563 (1989) ................................. 16A.2
50 F.3d 723, 726–729, 1995 AMC Sayany, The, SMA 3130 (1994) ........................... 16A.15
1189 (9th Cir. 1995) ...................................... 66A.46 Scandinavian OBO Carriers and AMCI Export
Royal Ins. Co. v. Westwood Transpacific Scapa Forming Fabrics v. Blue Anchor Line,
Service, 1991 AMC 1028, 1029–1030 243 Fed. App’x 846, 849, 2007
(W.D. Wash. 1990), aff’d mem., 988 AMC 2108 (5th Cir. 2007) ............................ 66A.43
F.2d 121 (9th Cir. 1993) ................................ 66A.11 Schleswig-Holstein, The, SMA 1288
Royal SMIT Transformers BV v. HC (1978) .............................................. 38A.20, 38A.26,
Bea-Luna M/V, 2017 AMC 1977, 1984 38A.28

cxxxiv
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
Schnell v. The Vallescura (The Vallescura)
293 U.S. 296, 1934 AMC 1573 (1934) ........ 53A.22
Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg-American Line,
294 U.S. 454, 1935 AMC 423 (1935) .......... 21A.95
Scorpius, The, SMA 3155 (1995) ................ 3A.2, 7A.29,
37A.16, 65A.12
Scottish Lion, The, SMA 2163 (1985) ................. 53A.42
Sea Challenger, The, SMA 1199 (1978)............... 17A.68
Sea Jade, The, SMA 3346 (1997)......................... 21A.49
Sea Light II, The, SMA 3907 (2005) .................... 7A.21,
16A.16, 21A.44
Sea Melody, The SMA 4204 (2013)..................... 25A.14
Sea Royal, The, SMA 2279 (1986) .......... 16A.17, 63A.1
Sea Transporter, The, SMA 2566 (1989) ............. 11A.55
Sea Wind, The, SMA 3560 (1999) ......................... 14A.9
Sea-Land Service v. Aetna Ins. Co., 1976
AMC 2164, 2166 n. (2d Cir. 1976) ............. 20A.14,
20A.15, 20A.21
Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Lozen International,
LLC, 266, 285 F.3d 808, 818,
2002 AMC 913 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................... 66A.42
Seadancer, The, SMA 4131 (2011) ....................... 21A.21
Seaford, The, 1975 AMC 1553, 1558–1559,
SMA 951 (Arb. at N.Y. 1975) ........ 11A.11, 11A.59,
11A.64
Seaking, The, SMA 4104 (2010) ............. 39A.5, 39A.16,
39A.24, 42A.3
Sealift Bulkers Inc. v. Republic of Armenia
96 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2000 AMC 1650
(D. D.C. 2000) ............................................... 20A.31
Sealnes, The. SMA 2055 (1985) ............. 15A.30, 15A.59
Seamount International Association Ltd.
and Scan-Trans, Inc. (Houston) v.
Kuehne & Nagel Ltda., SMA
4120 (2011) ...................................................... 13A.9
Searoad Shipping Co. v. E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Co., 361 F.2d 833, 1966
AMC 1405 (5th Cir. 1966); cert.
denied 385 U.S. 973 (1966) .......................... 12A.50
Seaways Hatteras, The, SMA 4428
(2021) ....................................1A.4, 34A.19, 34A.21,
34A.25, 34A.21, 34A.25
Secrest Machine Corp. v. S.S. Tiber, 450
F.2d 285, 287, 1972 AMC 815, 817
(5th Cir. 1971) ................................................ 66A.10
Sedco, Inc. v. The SS. Strathewe, 1986
AMC 2801, 2806–2807, 800 F.2d 27,
31–32 (2d Cir. 1986) ...................... 12A.33, 12A.57,
12A.58
Seguros Banvenez S.A. v. The Oliver
Drescher, 761 F.2d 855, 1985
AMC 2168 (2d Cir. 1985) ............................. 12A.54
Senator Linie GmbH & Co. KG v. Sunway
Line, Inc. (2002) 291 F.3d 145,
2002 AMC 1217, 1242–1247
(2d Cir. 2002) ..........................6A.20, 6A.21, 6A.24,
12A.54, 66A.56–66A.58
Senicoli Sierra, The, SMA 2966
(1993) ................................................................. 6A.8
Serena, The, SMA 1159 (1977) ............................ 21A.80
Serifopoulos, The, SMA 4114 (2011) ................... 38A.57
Shannon and EPAC-Empresa Publica,
In Re, SMA 1830 (1983) ............................... 13A.18
cxxxv
Sherwin Alumina, LP v. Western Bulk
Carriers KS, SMA 4148 (2011) ..................... 14A.11
Shetland Liberty, The, SMA 2787
(1991) ............................................................. 40A.18
Shin Ming, The, SMA 1161 (1977) ...................... 16A.17
Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. v. Sun
Oil Company, (The Maharshi Dayanand),
1986 AMC 2752 (E.D. Pa. 1983) ................ 38A.36,
38A.49, 38A.63,
38A.66, 39A.22
Shoun Nectar, The, SMA
3133 (1994) ................................... 11A.54, 15A.143,
38A.43, 38A.60
Siboto, The, SMA 1469 (1980) ............................ 40A.12
Sichem Eva, The, SMA 4170 (2012) ................... 21A.86
Sideri, The, SMA 1932 (1984) ................ 3A.19, 12A.38,
17A.61, 25A.14
Sideris, The, SMA 310 (1957) ............................ 15A.100
Sigmoil Resources N.V. v. Burmpac Transport
and Trading Co., 1989 AMC 2874
(S.D.N.Y. 1989).............................................. 21A.19
Silksworth, The, SMA 398 (1969)............................ 8A.4
Silver Constellation, The, SMA 977 (1975)........... 3A.28
Silver Glory, The, SMA 2909 (1992) ......... 21A.53, 25A.2
Silver Lady, The, 618 F. Supp. 132, 137,
1987 AMC 2318, 2322 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) ........ 62A.1
Silver Wind, The, SMA 4091 (2010) .................. 13A.18,
34A.10
Singa Sailor, The, SMA 2902 (1992) ................. 15A.129
Sir R. Ropner & Co. v. Emmons Coal Mining
Corp., 31 F.2d 948, 950, 1927
AMC 113 (3d Cir. 1929) ............................... 17A.48
Sissy, The, SMA 1085 (1977) ..................... 16A.3, 25A.3
Sister Katingo, The, SMA 910 (1975).................. 39A.14
Sitamarie, The, SMA 3828 (2004)....................... 38A.16,
65A.12
Siteam Merkur, The, SMA 4016 (2008).............. 13A.18,
34A.8
Siteam Merkur, The, SMA 4086 (2010)................. 3A.32
Skomvaer, The, 297 F. 746, 750, 1924
AMC 507, 510 (2d Cir. 1924)........ 15A.21, 15A.23,
15A.75, 15A.142,
15A.144
Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. at 537, 1995 AMC
at 1823 .............................................................. 66A.1
Smith (J. Howard) v. The Maranon, 1974
AMC 1553 (2d Cir. 1974) ............................. 20A.22
Smith Maritime, Inc. v. Lizza Equipment
Leasing, LLC SMA 4334 (2017) ....... 6A.31, 12A.10,
40A.7
Sobral, The, SMA 3277 (1996) .............. 41A.10, 41A.31
Solar, The, SMA 2522 (1988).................... 6A.13, 43A.2,
49A.11, 49A.12
Soldrott, The, SMA 3185 (1995) ............................ 3A.38
Solomon, The, SMA 3106 (1994) ............ 5A.31, 21A.56
Solstad, The, SMA 1568 (1981) ............................. 37A.7
Sompo Japan Insurance Co. of America v.
Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 762
F.3d 165, 2014 AMC 1817
(2d Cir. 2014) ................................................. 66A.12
Son Shipping Co. Inc. v. DeFosse & Tanghe
et al., 199 F.2d 687, 689, 1952AMC
1931 (2d Cir. 1952) .............39A.18, 53A.5, 66A.23
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
Sonisbon, The, SMA 2185 (1986) ........... 3A.18, 13A.22,
14A.7
Sonja, The, 732 F. Supp. 1276, 1990
AMC 2491, 2500–2501
(S.D.N.Y. 1990)............................... 53A.15, 53A.21,
53A.25, 53A.26, 53A.29
Sophia Transoceanic, The, SMA
1050 (1976) .................................................... 16A.17
Sophie, The, SMA 852 (1974) ............................ 15A.129
South Cross, The, SMA 2444 (1987) ......... 3A.35, 13A.22
Southern Progress, The, SMA 2559
(1989) .................................................................11A.16
Sovereign Faylenne, The (Indiana Farm
Bureau Cooperative Association Inc. v.
SS. Sovereign Faylenne) 1978 AMC
1514, 1532 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) .......................... 11A.35
Spartus Corp. v. The Yafo 590 F.2d 1310,
1979 AMC 2294 (5th Cir. 1979) ................... 12A.28
Spartus, The, 590 F.2d 1310, 1979 AMC
2294 at 2300–2305 (5th Cir. 1979) ............... 12A.50
Speybridge, The, SMA 1536 (1981) .................... 38A.58,
39A.23, 40A.2,
40A.18, 41A.30
Spray Cap, The, SMA 1706 (1982) ........................ 3A.36
Spring Odessa, The, SMA 1642 (1982) .............. 53A.15,
53A.16, 53A.32
Staland, The, SMA 1636 (1982) ............ 53A.35, 53A.38,
53A.40, 53A.41,
53A.43
Stavborg I/S v. National Metal Converters
Inc., In Re, 500 F.2d 424, 429,
1974 AMC 1021 (2d Cir. 1974) .................... 17A.67
Steamship Argofax, The, 1962 AMC
2378 (Arb. at N.Y. 1962)..................... 3A.10, 13A.9
Steel Coils, Inc. v. M/V Lake Marion,
331 F.3d 422, 430–432, 2003
AMC 1408 (5th Cir. 2003) ............................ 66A.15
Stella Azzurra, The, SMA 3330
(Arb. at N.Y. 1996) ........................................ 39A.21
Stellar Hope, The, SMA 3248 (1996) .................. 65A.15
Stena Conquest, The, SMA 4075
(2010) ................................................. 21A.39, 53A.2
Stephanie, The SMA 2604 (1989) .............. 37A.9, 41A.2
Stevedoring Services of America v. Ancora
Transport, N.V., 59 F.3d 879, 1995
AMC 2688 (9th Cir. 1995) .............................. 2A.23
Stevens Shipping & Term. Co. v. Japan
Rainbow, II M.V., 2003 AMC 1647, 1652,
334 F.3d 439, 444 (5th Cir. 2003) ................ 17A.42
Stilianos S, The, SMA 2056 (1985) ..................... 16A.16
Stinice, The, SMA 4139 (2011) .............................. 53A.2
Stolt Advance, The, SMA 3010 (1993) ............. 15A.164,
15A.167, 38A.42
Stolt Azalea, The, SMA 4102 (2010) .................. 38A.20,
38A.41, 38A.45
Stolt Capricorn, The, SMA 2359 (1987) .............. 41A.29
Stolt Confidence, The, SMA 3884 (2005) .............. 37A.5
Stolt Courier, The, SMA 2968 (1993) .................. 15A.37
Stolt Eagle, The, SMA 3065 (1993) ..................... 11A.73
Stolt Hawk, The, SMA 1404 (1980) .................... 49A.28
Stolt Magnolia/Stolt Suisen, The,
SMA 3888 (2005) .......................................... 39A.24
Stolt Osprey, The, SMA 2591 (1989) ................... 41A.15
cxxxvi
Stolt Pride, The, SMA 3647 (2000)...................... 39A.21
Stolt Resolute, The, SMA 3482 (1998) ................ 53A.15
Stolt Sapphire, The, SMA 3153 (1995) .................. 7A.19
Stolt Span, The, SMA 3288 (1996) ...................... 38A.11
Stolt Surf, The, SMA 2256 (1986) ............ 6A.16, 39A.1,
39A.15, 40A.13
Stolt Tankers B.V. v. Allianz Seguros
S.A 11 Civ. 2331 (SAS), 2011
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67755, 2011
AMC 1711 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2011) ........... 21A.97
Stolt Tankers Inc. and Wings Investment
Ltd., In Re, Arbitration between,
SMA 3417 (1998) .......................................... 38A.19
Stolt Tankers, B.V. v. Kennedy Hunter
N.V., SMA 4424............................................. 21A.97
Stolt Tenacity/Forever Crane, The,
SMA 3079 (1994) ........................... 11A.40, 11A.67,
53A.15
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds International
Corp., 435 F. Supp. 2d 382
((S.D.N.Y. 2006), 548 F.3d 85
(2d Cir. 2008), 559 U.S.
662 (2010) ............................................. 1A.1, 2A.40,
2A.41, 2A.42
Stolt, Confidence, The, SMA 3884,
4106 (2005) .................................................... 38A.16
Strider Isis, The and the Strider Juno,
SMA 2296 (1993) ................................ 3A.3, 13A.19
Strimon, The, SMA 3807 (2003) ............................ 39A.2
Strong Icelander, The, SMA 3353 (1997) .......... 21A.103
Stylianos Restis 1974 AMC 2343, 2345
(S.D.N.Y. 1972)................................................ 6A.28
Styling Plastics Co. v. Neptune Orient Lines,
666 F. Supp. 1406, 1413, 1988 AMC 351,
360–361 (N.D. Cal. 1987) ............................. 66A.24
Sucrest Corp. v. M/V Jennifer 455 F.
Supp. 371, 1978 AMC 2520
(D. Me. 1978) ................................... 11A.7, 11A.21,
11A.33, 6A.26
Sugar Islander, The, SMA 2805 (1991) ............... 16A.16
Sun Admiral, The, SMA 3831 (2004) ..........7A.27, 7.29,
19A.7
Sun Rose, The, M/T, SMA 3359
(1997) ............................................... 41A.23, 41A.30
Sun Sapphire, The, SMA 3539 (1999) ................. 38A.16
Sunny Chemi, The. SMA 3712 (2001)................ 11A.69,
53A.15
Sunrise Delta, The, SMA 2633 (1990) ................. 11A.55
Sunroc Shipping Co. Inc. and People’s
Republic of Bangladesh, In re
Arbitration between, SMA 1123 (1977)........ 16A.16
Supervision, The, SMA 2630 (1990) ...................... 3A.37
Swakop, The, SMA 4113 (2011) .......... 15A.25, 15A.145
TBC Prestige,The, SMA 4368 (2019) .................... 7A.30
TMT Coal Co., Inc. and Normarine, Ltd.,
In re Arbitration between, SMA
3695 (2001) ...................................................... 2A.22
Ta Chi Navigation (Panama) Corp., In Re,
677 F.2d 225, 1982 AMC 1710
(2d Cir. 1982) ................................................... 57A.4
Tai Cheung, The, SMA 2596 (1989) ................... 38A.16,
38A.55, 60A.2
Tai Ning, The, SMA 3568 (1999) .......................... 14A.2
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
Tai Shan, The, 1953 AMC 887, 897 111 F.
Supp. 638 (S.D.N.Y. 1953), aff’d
218 F.2d 822 (2d Cir. 1955) ............ 12A.26, 12A.45
Taipan, The, SMA 3761 (2002) .............................. 41A.8
Tais C, The, SMA 4128 (2011) ................ 11A.15, 21A.7
Tariq, The, SMA 446 (1969)................................. 25A.12
Tarstar Shipping Co. v. Century Shipping
Ltd., 597 F.2d 837, 1979 AMC 1096
(2d Cir. 1979); aff’g 451 F.Supp. 317,
1979 AMC 1011 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) ................. 17A.23
Tatry, The, SMA 2555 (1989) ................................. 37A.5
Taxiarchis, The, SMA 2406 (1987) ............ 3A.22, 3A.23
Tbilisi, The, SMA 3935 (2006) ............... 2A.26, 21A.25,
21A.31, 21A.40,
21A.83, 21A.86
Team Augwi, The and Fiona Jane,
The, SMA 2378 (1987)........................ 5A.17, 34A.8
Team Augwi, The, SMA 1260 (1978) .................... 5A.17
Team Jupiter, The, SMA 4183 (2012) ................. 21A.19,
35A.11, 37A.18
Team Tankers As v. Lukoil Pan Americas,
LLC (The Loukas 1), SMA 4124
(2011).................................................... 5A.28, 11A.3
Tecomar S.A., In Re, 765 F. Supp. 1150,
1175–1176, 1991 AMC 2432
(S.D.N.Y. 1991).............................................. 66A.29
Tenacity, The, SMA 4311 (2017)............................ 39A.3
Teng Fei Hai, The, SMA 3726 (2002) ................. 11A.70
Tenhyaku, The, SMA 2919 (1992) ......................... 27.A5
Tento, The (Aaby v. States Marine Corp.),
181 F.2d 383, 1950 AMC 947
(2d Cir. 1950), cert. denied 340
U.S. 829 (1950).................................................. 3A.3
Terrier, The, 1935 AMC 959
(Arb. at N.Y. 1935) .......................................... 14A.2
Tessler Brothers (B.C.) v. Italpacific
Line 494 F.2d 438, 443, 1974
AMC 937 (9th Cir. 1974) .............................. 66A.45
Texaco Wisconsin, The SMA 1615 (1981) .......... 39A.18
Texas City Refining, Inc. v. Burmah
Oil Tanker Ltd., SMA 2501 (1988)............... 53A.16
Thekos, The, SMA 2405 (1987) ............................. 5A.30
Theodohos, The, 1980 AMC 96,
SMA 1372 (1979) .............................. 38A.39, 40A.9
Theofilos J. Vatis, The, SMA 2088 (1985)........... 15A.78
Thiti Lert Watana Co. v. Minagratex Corp.,
105 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 1080, 2001
AMC 80, 83 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ...................... 66A.11
Thyssen, Inc. v. The SS. Eurounity,
21 F.3d 533, 539, 1994 AMC 1638
(2d Cir. 1994) ................................................. 66A.29
Tiber, The, SMA 3778 (2003)............................... 34A.15
Tide Crown, The, 1985 AMC 189
(S.D. Tex. 1983) .............................. 53A.15, 53A.16,
53A.28
Tirgu Mures, The, SMA 1427 (1980).... 15A.67, 15A.89,
15A.92
Titika, The, SMA 1608 (1981) .................. 41A.2, 53A.1,
53A.21
Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co. v.
Retla Steamship Co 426 F.2d 1372, 1374,
1378 1970 AMC 1611, 1613, 1619
(9th Cir. 1970 ................................... 66A.16, 66A.17
cxxxvii
Tokyo Venture, The, SMA 1785 (1983) (also see
Hartlear, The, and the Tokyo Venture) .......... 17A.66
Tonci Topic, The, SMA 2627 (1990).................. 15A.109
Top Glory, The, SMA 3538 (1999) .......... 3A.28, 15A.57
Torm Gunhild, The, SMA 3863 (2004) ................ 49A.12
Torvanger, The, SMA 2758 (1991) ......................... 41A.2
Trade Courier SMA 2309 (1986).......................... 15A.71
Trade Courier, The, SMA No. 2394 (1987) ............. 3A.3
Trade Endeavour, The, SMA
1648 (1982) ........................38A.28, 38A.64, 38A.67
Trade Fortitude, The (Esso Nederland v. M.T.
Trade Fortitude), 573 F.2d 1296
(2d Cir. 1977); aff’g without opinion,
1977 AMC 2144 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) ................ 53A.16,
53A.28
Trade Justice, The, SMA 1325 (1979) .................. 53A.1,
53A.16, 53A.18
Trade Nomad, The, SMA 1987 (1988)..................... 3A.3
Trade Ocean, The, SMA 1670 (1982) .................. 13A.12
Trade Resolve, The, SMA 3125
(1994) ................................................. 16A.17, 34A.7
Trans-Gulf, The, SMA 416 (1969) ......... 15A.130, 25A.3
Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v.
M/V “OOCL Inspiration,” 137 F.3d 94,
98–99, 1998 AMC 1327 (2d Cir. 1998)........ 66A.15
Transpacifzc Lines Inc. v. Marianas
Maritime Corp., 1979 AMC 1467
(D. Marianas Islands 1978) ........................... 21A.64
Transportacion Maritima Grancolombiana,
S.A., SMA 3689 (2001) ................................. 11A.71
Tricon Energy, Ltd. v. Xiamen Superchain
Logistics Development Co., Ltd.,
SMA 4341 (2018) ............................................ 2A.31
Trinity, The, SMA 1920 (1983) ............................ 53A.18
Trisun, The, SMA 2327 (1986)............... 34A.13, 53A.18
Triumph, The, SMA 2508 (1988),
SMA 2642 (1990.............................. 34A.13, 53A.49
Tropeoforos, The, SMA 3148 (1995) .................. 11A.19,
11A.26, 11A.47
Tropez Comfort, The, SMA 2616 (1989) ............... 37A.5
Trudy, The, SMA 3098 (1994).............................. 39A.19
Tug Caribe, The, SMA 1573 (1981)..................... 11A.55
Tug Five Brothers, The, SMA 2484 (1988) ......... 13A.50
Tulip B, The, SMA 1495 (1980) ............... 37A.4, 43A.2,
43A.3
Turmoil, The, SMA 2842 (1992) .............................. 7A.7
Turret Crown, The, 297 F. 766, 1924 AMC
253 (2d Cir. 1924); 284 F. 439
(4th Cir. 1922) ................................................ 12A.41
Tychos, The, SMA 1408 (1980) ............. 34A.12, 53A.31
UACC, The Doha SMA 4350 (2018) ................... 37A.21
Uacc Doha, The, M/T, SMA 4350
(2018) (Shaw) .............................................. 15A.139
Ugland OBO 5, The, SMA 2344 (1987) .............. 38A.57
Ultramar, The, SMA 1081 (1976)........................... 40A.7
Ultramar, The, SMA 1555 (1981)......................... 21A.80
Ultramar, The, SMA 2634 (1990)......... 11A.72, 15A.102
Ultramax, The, SMA 3518 (1999) ...................... 15A.101
Ultrasea, The, SMA 3151 (1995)................ 6A.1, 16A.17
Ulysses, The, SMA 1751 (1982) ............................ 7A.11
Union Industrielle et Maritime v. Nimpex
International Inc., 459 F.2d 926, 1972
AMC 1494 (7th Cir. 1972) ............................ 17A.17
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS

United States Steel International Inc. v. 534, 1995 AMC 1817, 1821, 1823–1824
The Granheim (The Granheim), (1995) ................................................ 66A.1, 66A.12,
540 F.Supp. 1326, 1329, 1982 66A.23
AMC 2770 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) ............ 49A.28, 53A.15 Vincenzo Bonanno v. The Tweedie Trading
United States Titan Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Co., 1952 AMC 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1952) ........... 21A.33
Hua Shipping Co. Ltd., 241 F.3d 135, Vinnlustodin HF v. Sea Tank Shipping AS
2001 AMC 2080 (2d Cir. 2001) ........................ 1A.1 (The Aqasia), [2016] EWHC 2514 59;
United States v. Atlantic Refining Co., 112 F. [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 530, 2016 AMC
Supp. 76, 80–82, 1953 AMC 554, 2415 (Eng. Comm.) ....................................... 66A.36
560 (D.N.J. 1951) ................15A.4, 15A.144, 38A.4 Virginia Lilly, The, SMA 1613 (1981) ................ 38A.49,
United States v. Freights of the Mt. Shasta, 40A.14
274 U.S. 466, 1927 AMC 943 (1927) ......... 17A.18, Virginia Lily, The, SMA 1052 (1976) .................... 34A.9
17A.21 Virginia M., The, SMA 1387 (1978) .................. 15A.136
United States v. Isthmian SS. Co., 359 U.S. Vision Air Flight Service, Inc. v. M/V
314, 1959 AMC 1332 (1959) ........................ 17A.14 National Pride (The Vision Air),
Unity, The, SMA 214, 1967 AMC 798 ............. 15A.160, 155 F.3d 1165, 1173–1175, 1999
16A.8, 16A.13, AMC 1168, 1179, 1181
16A.15 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................. 12A.57, 66A.42,
Universal Frontier, The, SMA 2499 (1988) ........... 34A.8 66A.43
Universal Leaf Tobacco Co. v. Companhia de Vivita, The, SMA 1646 (1982) .............. 38A.56, 38A.65,
Navegacao Maritima Netumar, 39A.8, 39A.15
993 F.2d 414, 417 n. 1, 1993 AMC 2439, Volere, The, SMA 1885 (1983)............................... 53A.1
2445 n. 1 (4th Cir. 1993)................. 12A.57, 66A.54 Vorras, The, SMA 2207 (1986)................ 38A.55, 40A.7,
Uranus, The, 1977 AMC 586, SMA 1117 49A.12
(1977) ............................................................. 53A.12 W.A. Lighter & Co. v. U.S. Shipping
Vallathol, The, SMA 1457 (1980) .......... 38A.34, 39A.22 Board Emergency Fleet Corporation,
Valmar, The, 38 F. Supp. 618, 1941 1928 AMC 1237 (E.D. La.)........................... 21A.63
AMC 872 (E.D. Pa. 1941)............................... 17A.3 W.R. Grace & Co. v. S.C. Loveland Co. 1990
Van Ommeren (P.H.S.) (France) and N.V. AMC 2515, 2519 (4th Cir. 1990).................. 21A.90
Stoomvaart Maatschappij; “De Maas” Wan Ling, The, SMA 2732 (1990) ......... 13A.71, 15A.93
(as Owners) and Universal Shipping Wapello, The, SMA 3615 (2000)............. 53A.1, 53A.22,
Corporation (as Charterers), Arbitration 53A.24
between, 1969 AMC 2199 Warda, The, SMA 3162 (1995)................ 3A.26, 38A.17,
(Arb. at N.Y. 1965) .......................................... 14A.9 65A.12
Vanni D, The, SMA 3903 (2005) ........... 21A.12, 35A.16 Wearfield, The, SMA 238 (1968) ......................... 16A.17
Vantage Horizon, The, SMA 999 (1976)............. 38A.33, Wemhoener Pressen v. Ceres Marine
38A.55, 38A.58, 38A.61, Terminals, Inc., 5 F.3d 734, 742–743,
38A.65, 39A.18 1993 AMC 2842, 2854–2856
Varanger, The, SMA 3542 (1999)............ 36A.7, 38A.39, (4th Cir. 1993) .................................. 66A.11, 66A.12
38A.58, 39A.1 West Africa Navigation Ltd. v. Ore & Ferro
Varian Assocs. v. Compagnie Generale Corp., 192 F.Supp. 651–653, 1961
Transatlantique, 1980 AMC 450, 149 AMC 2366 (S.D.N.Y. 1960); 199
Cal. Rptr. 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) .............. 12A.51 F.Supp. 771, 773 (S.D.N.Y. 1961) ............... 16A.22,
Vayu Doot, The, SMA 3250 (1996) ....................... 37A.5 16A.23
Vayudoot, The, SMA 3078 (1994)........................ 39A.21 West Fortune or Substitute, SMA
Vega, The, SMA 1141 (1974) ............................... 21A.80 3759 (2002) .................................................... 21A.64
Velma, The, SMA 958 (1975) ................................. 53A.1 West India Industries v. Vance & Sons
Velos, The, SMA 128 (1967) ................................ 16A.15 AMC-Jeep, 671 F.2d 1384 (5th Cir. 1982) .......23A.1
Venore Transportation Co. v. Oswego Shipping Westbulk, The, 1976 AMC 940, 943
Corp., 498 F.2d 469, 1974 AMC 827 SMA 994 (1975) .......................................... 15A.101
(2d Cir. 1974), cert. denied 419 U.S. 998 ........ 5A.4 Western Bulk Carriers (Australia) Pty.
Venore Transportation Co. v. President Ltd. v. P.S. International Inc., 1984
of India 1973 AMC 1301, 1303–1304, AMC 1881 (S.D. Ind. 1984) ......................... 17A.20
1308 n. 6 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)............................. 15A.50 Westwood Annette, The, SMA 4189 (2012) .......... 5A.41
Venture, The, SMA 2681 (1990) .............. 53A.2, 53A.13 Willdomino v. Citro Chemical Co.
Venus V., The, SMA 2153 (1985) .............. 37A.5, 37A.6 (The Willdomino) 272 U.S. 718
Viborg, The, SMA 1062 (1976) ............. 38A.36, 38A.58, (1927), 1927 AMC 129 (1927) ....... 12A.42, 12A.47
38A.66, 43A.1, 43A.2 Willdomino, The. See Willdomino v. Citro
Victory, The, SMA 1490 (1980) ........................... 16A.17 Chemical Co—
Vigo Steamship Corp. and Int’l Minerals William H. Beard Dredging Co. v. Hughes,
and Chemical Corp., Arbitration between, 113 F. 680 (S.D.N.Y. 1902), aff’d,
SMA 705 (1972) ................................................ 3A.5 121 F. 808 (2d Cir. 1903) .............................. 21A.56
Vimar Sequros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Wilmington, The, SMA 3489 (1998) ................... 16A.15,
Reefer, (The Sky Reefer) 515 U.S. 528, 16A.17, 53A.15

cxxxviii
 TABLE OF AR BITR ATIONS
Wood Pioneer, The, SMA 3221
(Arb. at N.Y. 1995) ....................2A.6, 2A.22, 2A.23
Woodlands, The, SMA 2886 (1992) ....... 16A.17, 21A.58
World Dawn, The, SMA 2565 (1989) .................... 34A.8
World Dawn, The, SMA 2653 (1990) .................. 39A.23
World Explorer, The., SMA 991 (1975) ................. 20A.1
World Texas, The, SMA 2637 (1990) .................. 39A.20
Wu Chang Hu, The, SMA 2450 (1988) .............. 39A.20,
39A.22
Wuerttembergische v. M/V Stuttgart Express,
711 F.2d 621, 622, 1984 AMC 2738
(5th Cir. 1983) ................................................ 66A.45
Yang Machine Tool Co. v. Sea-Land Service,
Inc., 58 F.3d 1350, 1354–1355, 1995
AMC 2153 (9th Cir. 1995) ............................ 66A.46
Yorkgate, The, SMA 3273 (1996) ............................ 1A.1
cxxxix
Ypapadi, The, SMA 3102 (1994) ........................ 15A.158
Zaca, The (Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v.
United States) 105 F.2d 160, 1939
AMC 912 (2d Cir. 1939) ............................... 12A.45
Zakynthos, The, SMA 2396 (1987) ................... 15A.148,
49A.27,53A.4
Zakynthos, The, SMA 70 (1965) ......... 15A.148, 17A.66,
49A.27, 53A.4
Zamora, The, SMA 2585 (1989) ........................... 36A.4,
38A.20, 48A.1
Zante, The, SMA 2258 (1986) .............................. 39A.20
Zea Silver, The, SMA 1740 (1982) ........................ 23A.6
Zeus, The, SMA 3110 (1994) ................... 13A.22, 34A.8
Zeynep K, The, 29 SMA 3360 (1997) ................... 2A.22
Zinnia, The, SMA 821 (1974) .................................. 3A.8
Zorra, The, ITB, SMA 3586 (1999) ..................... 5A.210
 Table of Legislation
Australia
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (Cth) 1991 ........ 66.4, 66.6,
66.483
Part 2....................................................................... 6.39
Art. 10.7 .............................................................. 66.483
Sched. 1 .................................................................. 6.39
Navigation (Loading and Unloading)
Regulations ...................................................... 14.47
Sea Carriage of Goods Act 1924 ............................. 66.369
Canada
Canadian Hague Rules Legislation .............. 66.85, 66.249
Marine Liabilities Act 2001—
Chapter VI .............................................................. 11A.65
Water Carriage of Goods Act 1936 ........... 11A.65, 66.505
Water Carriage of Goods Act 1993 ............................. 66.6
European Union
Brussels Recast Regulation 1215/1212........ 66.27, 66.190
(EU) Council Regulation 44/2001
(see now Regulation 1215/1212, the
“Brussels Recast” Regulation) ....................... 66.412
Art. 23 ................................................................. 66.190
Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual
Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit)
Regulations 2019 (the “Regulations”) ............... 1.27
Council Directive 86/653 ............................................ 23.7
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 Now the Brussels
Recast Regulation) ................. 66.27, 66.191, 66.412
art. 23 ....................................................... 66.27, 66.190
(1)(c) .............................................................. 66.190
art. 71 .................................................................... 66.27
Council Regulation (EC) 593/2008
(Rome I Regulation) .................... 1.138, 20.2, 20.10
art. 9.3 ..................................................................... 1.56
art. 12. ............................................................................
(1) —
(c) ..................................................................... 1.138
Council Regulation (EC) 864/2007 (Rome
II Regulation .......................... 1.27–1.30, 1.32, 1.39,
1.50, 20.2, 20.4
Preamble—
(1) ....................................................................... 1.28
(e)................................................................... 1.27
(g) .................................................................. 1.39
art. 2 ........................................................................ 1.28
(1) ....................................................................... 20.2
art. 9 ........................................................................ 1.29
cxl
New Zealand
Maritime Transport Act 1994 ...................................... 66.6
South Africa
Sea Transport Documents Act 65 (2000) .................. 18.81
United Kingdom
Administration of Justice Act 1970—
s. 44A.................................................................... 13.53
Arbitration Act 1950 ................................................ 27A.1
s. 27 ...................................................................... 66.24
Arbitration Act 1979 ................................................ 27A.1
Arbitration Act 1996 ............................... 13.64, 62.4, 63.2
Part III..................................................................... 63.7
s. 9 ................................................................. 53.3, 63.2
s. 12 ................................................ 16.21, 53.3, 66.198
s. 38(4) ................................................................ 66.170
s. 40 .................................................................... 66.387
s. 44 ................................................ 2.47, 17.28, 66.170
s. 48 .................................................................... 21.139
s. 48(4) .................................................................. 13.53
s. 49 ...................................................................... 21.36
s. 60 ........................................................................ 62.5
s. 61 ............................................................... 62.3, 62.4
s. 63 ........................................................................ 62.4
s. 66 ........................................................................ 63.7
s. 68 .................................................................... 66.387
s. 69 ........................................................... 18.97, 21.49
Bills of Lading Act 1855 .................... 13.36, 18.79, 18.80,
18.83, 18.84, 18.94, 18.97,
18.100, 18.105, 66.147,
66.352, 66.467
s. 3 ............................................................. 10.15, 18.37
Bribery Act 2010—
s. 1 .......................................................................... 1.91
Carriage by Air Act 1961 ........................................ 66.424
s. 26(2) ................................................................ 66.426
Sched .................................................................. 66.426
art. 25 ..................................................... 66.421, 66.422
Carriage by Air and Road Act 1979 ........................ 66.426
s. 22(A)(2) .......................................................... 66.383
Carriage of Goods by Road Act (C.M.R. Convention)
1965
Sched. ................................................................. 66.385
arts. 23–25 ............... 66.383, 66.395, 66.398, 66.426
art. 23 ................................................ 66.386, 66.398
art. 29 ............................................................. 66.422
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act .................. 20A.22, 66A.46
 TABLE OF LEGISLATION
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924 .......... 66.147, 66.238,
66.284, 66.369, 66.506
s. 3 ............................................................... 53.3, 66.70
s. 4 ........................................................... 66.66, 66.494
s. 5 ...................................................................... 66.141
Sched. ...................................................... 66.55, 66.504
art. IX ............................................................. 66.369
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 ..... 12.32, 66.4, 66.21,
66.32, 66.35, 66.36, 66.47,
66.49, 66.55, 66.142, 66.207,
66.284, 66.382, 66.462, 66.467, 66.494
(2) .......................................................... 66.24, 66.35
(3) ................................... 66.24, 66.33, 66.37, 66.50,
66.70, 66.97, 66.514
(4) .................................. 66.35, 66.37, 66.41, 66.133
(6) ................................... 66.24, 66.38, 66.39, 66.43,
66.45, 66.46, 66.76, 66.467, 66.514
(a)................................................................. 66.41
(b) ................................................................ 66.44
(7) .......................................................... 66.70, 66.76
s.2 ......................................................................... 66.34
s.6—
(4) ................................................................... 66.502
(6) ................................................................... 66.414
Sched .................................................................. 66.382
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 ................ 2.38, 10.15,
13.36, 18.5, 18.32, 18.79–18.84, 18.91–18.94,
18.96, 18.97, 18.98, 18.100, 18.106–18.108,
18.113, 18.133, 18.140, 18.143, 18.145, 66.36,
66.64, 66.154, 66.159, 66.352, 66.465, 66.467
s. 1—
(2) ............................................. 18.81, 18.82, 66.189
(3) ........................................................ 18.81, 18.106
(4) ........................................................ 18.81, 18.106
(5) ..................................................................... 18.81
s. 2 ................................................ 18.85, 18.97, 18.101
(1) ................................ 13.36, 18.83, 18.105, 66.189
(a)................................................................. 18.83
(b) ................................................... 18.83, 18.157
(2) .......................................................... 18.91, 18.97
(a)...................................................... 18.85, 18.97
(4) ..................................... 18.91, 18.96, 18.97, 21.1,
21.46, 21.126, 66.189
(5) .......................................................... 18.88, 18.90
(a)................................................................. 18.83
s. 3 ...................................... 13.37, 18.78, 18.85, 18.99,
18.101, 18.102, 18.104, 18.210
(1) ...................................................... 18.105, 18.105
(a), (b) ........................................................ 18.101
(c).................................................. 18.101, 18.105
(3) ........................................................ 13.36, 18.105
s. 4 ...................................... 10.15, 18.11, 18.25, 18.26,
18.30, 18.38, 18.174
s. 5 ........................................................................ 18.97
(1) ..................................................................... 18.83
(a)................................................................. 18.99
(2) ..................................................................... 18.85
(c)................................................................. 18.85
(3) ................................................................... 18.106
(4) ..................................................................... 18.94
s. 6(2) .................................................................... 18.79
s. 7 ..................................................................... 66A.59
Carriers Act 1830 .................................................... 66.373
cxli
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 ...................... 2.21
Civil Procedure Rules (C.P.R.) 1998 ...................... 18.159
Part 2 rr. 2.8–2.10 ................................................. 6.202
Part 7—
r. 7.04 ............................................................. 66.387
r. 25 .................................................................. 17.28
(1) ................................................................... 66.170
(m) .................................................................... 17.30
Part 24................................................................... 13.64
Part 25.41, ss. 12, 13 ............................................ 10.20
r. 85 ................................................................ 18.159
r. 86 ................................................................ 18.159
Chancery Amendment Act 1858
(Lord Cairns’ Act) .......................................... 21.145
Coinage Act 1971.................................................... 66.370
Commercial Agents (Council Directive)
Regulations 1993 (S.I. 1993/3053) .................... 23.7
Companies Act 1985—
s.36C ......................................................................... 2.1
Consumer Credit Act 1974........................................ 21.46
Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (the
Convention).................... 1.27–1.29, 1.31, 1.48, 20.2
s. 3 .......................................................................... 1.27
Sched. art. 4.1 ......................................................... 20.2
Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Commencement
No. 2) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/3448) ................... 1.27
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999............... 2.5,
2.24, 2.38, 13.46, 18.117, 18.126, 18.138,
18.140, 18.173A, 21.1, 21.46, 23.13,
24.2, 24.3, 24.5, 24.6, 24.10, 24.12–24.14,
24.19, 24.21, 31.4, 64.2, 66.225, 66.465
s. 1 .................................................. 24.6, 66.63, 66.225
(1) ................................................. 2.38, 18.138, 24.4
(b) ..................................................... 18.138, 24.4
(2) ........................................ 2.38, 18.138, 24.4, 24.8
(3) .......................................... 2.1, 2.38, 18.138, 24.4
(5) .......................................................... 2.38, 18.139
(6) .......................................................... 2.38, 18.138
s. 2 .................................................... 24.5, 24.13, 24.21
(1) ........................... 2.38, 18.138, 24.17, 24.18, 31.4
(1)(a)–(c) ............................................................ 24.5
(2) ................................................................... 18.138
(3) ..................................................................... 24.18
s. 3 .......................................................................... 24.7
s. 6—
(5) ................. 18.140, 66.63, 66.225, 66.468, 66.471
(6) ........................................................ 66.63, 66.225
s. 7(1) .................................................................. 66.225
s. 8 .................................................... 2.38, 18.138, 24.6
(1) .............................................................. 2.38, 24.6
s. 10(2), (3) ............................................................. 24.3
Employment Act 1980—
s. 17 .................................................................... 66.328
Employment Act 1990—
s. 4 ...................................................................... 66.328
Factories Act 1961 .................................................... 14.47
Factors Act 1889—
s. 1(4) .................................................................. 18.145
Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1986 (S.I.
1986/1305)—
Sched. 2 ................................................................ 66.77
Insolvency Act 1986—
ss. 212, 213 ............................................................. 2.47
 TABLE OF LEGISLATION
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence)
Act 1945 .................................... 5.100, 14.40, 21.62,
21.64, 21.75, 21.77, 66.462, 66.463
s. 1 .......................................................................... 1.83
(1) ............................................. 21.62–21.64, 66.462
(a)...................................................... 21.70, 21.76
(b) ................................................................ 21.75
(2) .......................................................... 21.74, 21.75
(5) ..................................................................... 21.76
s. 4 ............................................................. 21.62, 21.63
Limitation Act 1980 ..................................... 18.246, 20.53
Lord Cairns’ Act. See Chancery Amendment Act 1858—
Marine Insurance Act 1906 ................. 20.1, 26.13, 66.334
ss. 45–48 ............................................................... 6.207
s. 46(1) .................................................................. 12.39
s. 49(2) .................................................................. 12.15
s. 55(2) ................................................................ 66.333
s. 66 ............................................................. 20.1, 20.16
(1) ............................................................ 20.9, 20.26
(2) ............................................................ 20.9, 20.21
Sched. 1 (Rules of Construction)........................ 66.285
para. 7............................................................. 66.288
para. 8............................................................... 26.13
para. 10........................................................... 66.307
para. 11........................................................... 66.283
Maritime Conventions Act 1911—
s. 1 .......................................................................... 56.2
Merchant Shipping Acts.............................................. 1.56
Merchant Shipping Act 1894 .......... 11.17, 66.349, 66.502
Part VIII .............................................................. 66.501
s. 502 ............................................ 11.55, 11.58, 66.284
s. 503 ......................................................... 11.55, 11.58
Merchant Shipping Act 1979 ....................... 11.55, 66.501
s. 17 ........................................................................ 1.50
Sched. 3 .............................................................. 66.421
Merchant Shipping Act 1981 .................................. 66.414
s. 2(3) .................................................................. 66.382
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 ............. 11.55, 20.51, 21.75,
54.4, 57.1, 66.502, 66.511
Part VII ................................................................. 12.31
s. 185 ........................................................... 1.50, 20.41
s. 186 .................................................. 20.41, 57.1, 57.2
s. 186(1) .............................................................. 66.284
s. 187 ...................................................................... 56.2
Sched. 7 ..................................................... 1.50, 66.367
art. 4 ............................................................... 66.421
art. 12.2 .............................................................. 54.4
art. 17 ................................................................. 54.4
Sched. 11 ................................................................ 54.4
Sched. 12 ............................................................ 66.414
Sched. 13—
para. 45........................................................... 66.414
Merchant Shipping (I.S.M. Code) Regulations
1998 (S.I. 1998/1561) ........................... 11.42, 66.95
Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners
and Others) Act 1958 ....................................... 11.61
Misrepresentation Act 1967 .......1.85, 3.40, 11.79, 18.14, 63.1
s. 2—
(1) ....................................................................... 1.83
(2) .......................................................... 1.84, 21.145
s. 3 ........................................................................ 18.26
Nuclear Installations Act 1965 ................................ 66.508
ss. 7–11 .................................................. 66.510, 66.511
s. 7 ...................................................................... 66.509
cxlii
s. 11..................................................................... 66.509
s. 13(2) ................................................................ 66.510
s. 14 .................................................................... 66.510
s. 21(3) ................................................................ 66.509
Partnership Act 1890—
s. 5 ........................................................................ 11.54
Public Order Act 1986 ............................................ 66.329
Rules of the Supreme Court—
Ord. 3, r. 2(2) ...................................................... 66.202
Ord. 17 ................................................................ 18.139
Sale of Goods Act 1979 ...................... 13.85, 18.95, 21.13
s. 20
s. 20A......................................................... 18.39, 18.95
ss. 44, 45 ............................................................. 18.157
ss. 46, 47, 48(1) .................................................. 18.159
s. 50 .................................................................... 66.393
s. 50(3) ..................................................... 21.12, 66.393
s. 61 ........................................................................ 18.6
(1) ................................................................... 18.145
(4) ................................................................... 18.157
Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1995 ..................... 10.12
Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993 ........................................
Part XV.................................................. 66.284, 66.349
Statute of Frauds 1677—
s. 4 .............................................................. 1.3, 2.2, 2.5
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
s. 15 ...................................................................... 13.17
Senior Courts Act 1981 .................................. 62.4, 66.387
s. 21 ........................................................................ 2.40
s. 35A.................................................................... 21.36
s. 37 ........................................................................ 2.47
s. 51 ........................................................... 21.139, 62.3
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
s. 8 ......................................................... 18.124, 21.128
s. 11....................................................................... 21.62
Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974
ss. 13, 29 ............................................................. 66.328
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
s. 3 ........................................................................ 11.79
s. 2(2) ...................................................................... 1.79
United States
49 U.S.C. §§ 80101–80116 .................................... 66A.18
49 U.S.C. § 80113(a) ............................................. 66A.19
46 U.S.C. §§ 30701–30707 ...................... 66A.63, 66A.64
Act Relating to Bills of Lading in Interstate and
Foreign Commerce 1916: See Pomerene
Bills of Lading Act 1916—
American Arbitration Association (AAA) —
Art. 21 ................................................................ 21A.96
Carriage of Goods By Sea Act 1936 (COGSA) (46 U.S.C.
§§1301–1315) ....................... 1A.1, 6A.21, 6A.28, 8.5,
10A.1, 11A.1, 11A.7, 11A.8, 11A.11, 11A.13,
11A.17–11A.26, 11A.29, 11A.30, 11A.37,
11A.48, 11A.57, 11.58–11A.60, 11A.64, 11A.70,
12A.3, 12A.9, 12A.11, 12A.15, 12A.18–12A.20,
12A.21, 12A.28, 12A.30, 12A.31, 12A.33, 12A.42,
12A.43, 12A.49–12A.5112A.54, 12A.55, 12A.57,
12A.59, 13A.27, 13A.35, 13A.47, 13A.51, 18.102,
18.228, 36A.1, 38A.18, 49A.28, 49A.30, 49A.31,
52.2, 53.1–53.3, 53A.2, 53A.5, 53A.6–53A.9, 53A.11,
53A.13, 53A.14, 53A.17, 53A.28, 53A.41, 66.5, 66.9,
66.10, 66.13, 66.20, 66.50, 66.73, 66.76, 66.114,
66.131, 66.369, 66.505, 66A.1–66A.7, 66A.15,
 TABLE OF LEGISLATION
66A.16, 66A.18, 66A.19, 66A.23, 66A.39, 66A.42,
66A.46–66A.48, 66A.52–66A.56, 66A.59, 66A.64
Title I ................................................................... 66A.1
§1301—
(a) .................................................................... 66A.6
(c) .................................................................. 66A.13
§1303—
(2) .................................................................. 11A.29
(6) .................................................................... 53A.3
(8) .................................................................. 49A.28
§1304—
(2)—
(a)–(q) ....................................................... 53A.20
(a).............................................................. 11A.26
(m) ............................................................ 53A.25
(4) ...........................12A.9, 12A.15, 12A.20, 12A.30
(5) .................................................................. 12A.49
(6) ........................................................ 6A.21, 6A.24
§1305 ..................................................... 49A.30, 53A.2
Title II ................................................................ 66A.61
§ 30504. ............................................................... 57A.5
§ 30701 ................................................................ 57A.2
§ 30701(1)–(2)(a)–(q).......................................... 57A.2
§ 30701(2)(b ........................................................ 57A.4
(5) .................................................................... 57A.2
§§ 3(2) .................................................. 49A.29, 66.114
§§ 3(3) ............................................................... 66A.25
§§ 3(3)(a) ............................................................ 66.118
§§ 3(3)(b) ............................................................ 66.118
§§ 3(3)(c) .............................................. 66.116, 66A.18
§§ 3(4) ................................................. 66A.18, 66A.62
§§ 3(5) ............................................................... 66A.62
§§ 3(6) .............53.2, 53A.10, 66A.20–66A.22, 66A.23
§§ 3(7) ............................................................... 66A.25
§§ 3(8) ..................................... 53A.28, 66A.1, 66A.12
§§ 4 .................................................................... 66A.14
§§ 4(2) .................................................... 66.13, 66A.15
§§ 4(2)(a) ........................................................... 66A.26
§§ 4(2)(b) .................................................... 39.4, 6A.15
§§ 4(2)(c) ........................................................... 66A.28
§§ 4(2)(i)............................................................. 66.114
§§ 4(2)(j)............................................................... 66.30
§§ 4(2)(q) .............................................. 66.115, 66A.31
§§ 4(4) ................................................... 36A.1, 66A.32
§§ 4(5) .........................36A.1, 66A.2, 66A.34, 66A.36,
66A.42, 66A.43–66A.46,
66A.48, 66A.50, 66A.51
§§ 4(6) ................................................. 66A.56–66A.58
§§ 7 .................................................................... 66A.59
§§ 8 .................................................................... 66A.60
§§ 9 .................................................................... 66A.61
§§ 10 .................................................................. 66A.61
§§ 11 .................................................... 53A.15, 66A.62
§§ 12 .................................................................. 66A.63
§§ 13 ......................................................... 53.2, 66A.64
§§ 190 .................................................................. 10A.1
§§ 14 .................................................................. 66A.65
§§ 15 .................................................................. 66A.66
Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act
(Formally the Federal Maritime Lien Act) (46
U.S.C. §§31301 et seq.) ................................ 17A.73
§ 953, as amended by §§ 31301(5) and (6) and
31321–31330 ............................................ 17A.45
§31301 ............................................................... 17A.41
cxliii
§31301(5), (6) .................................................... 17A.45
§§31321–31330 ................................................. 17A.45
§31341, 31342 ................................................... 17A.41
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Act 1980 (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C
§§9601 et seq.) .................................... 2A.25, 65A.6
s. 108(a) ............................................................... 65A.6
Federal Arbitration Act ............................ 53A.46, 53A.47
s. 4 ....................................................................... 27A.1
Federal Maritime Lien Act. See Commercial Instruments
and Maritime Liens Act—
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
r. 13(b) ............................................................... 17A.14
Supplemental rule C. ........................................... 17A.3
Federal Water Pollution Control Act—
33 U.S.C. § 1321 ................................................. 65A.3
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (28 U.S.C. §§1602
1611) ............................................................. 34A.12
Harter Act 1893 (46 U.S.C. §§190–196)........ 10A.1–10A.3,
11A.1, 11A.17, 11A.18, 11A.21, 11A.23,
11A.24, 49A.30, 54.3, 66.223, 66.234,
66.264, 66A.1, 66A.3, 66A.63
s. 7 ........................................................................ 66.70
Limitation of Shipowners’ Liability Act 1851 (46 U.S.C.
§§181 et seq.) .............12A.50, 57A.1, 57A.4, 65A.4
§ 138.230(a)......................................................... 65A.4
(a)(1) ............................................................... 65A.4
§182 (“Fire Statute”) ......................................... 12A.45
§§ 30505 .............................................................. 57A.1
§ 1d. ..................................................................... 57A.1
Maritime Law and Code—
Title 9................................................................... 27A.1
N.Y. General Obligations Law—
S. 5–1103 ............................................................... 1A.3
OFAC ....................................................................... 36A.9
Oil Pollution Act 1990 (OPA) (P.L. 101–380,
18 August 1990), 33 U.S.C. §§ 2701) ............ 65A.1,
65A.5, 65A.6, 65A.12, 65A.13
s. 1016(a) ............................................................... 5A.6
Pomerene Bills of Lading Act 1916: Act Relating
to Bills of Lading in Interstate and Foreign
Commerce 1916 ............................................ 66A.18
Public Law 480 (P.L. 480) ......................................... 6A.1
Title 1................................................................. 16A.17
s. 17.14(K)(7) ........................................................ 6A.1
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) (18 U.S.C. §§1961–1968) .................. 53A.44
Restatement (Second) Agency ................................. 23A.1
Restatement (Second) Contracts—
§§250–257 ............................................... 7A.3, 21A.76
§250, comment b ................................................... 7A.4
§251 ....................................................................... 7A.3
§252 ................................................................... 21A.77
§254 ..................................................... 21A.36, 21A.82
§257 ................................................................... 21A.78
§§351, 352 ........................................................... 21A.5
§356, comment b ............................................... 21A.87
§357 ................................................................... 21A.98
Shipping Act 1916.................................................. 66A.60
ss. 4281–4289 .................................................... 66A.60
United States Coast Guard Regulations
(33 C.F.R.)....................................... 38A.16, 38A.18
Part 138................................................................ 65A.6
Part 138, para. 2(1), (a), (b) ................................. 65A.6
 Table of Conventions and Rules
Athens Convention on the Carriage of
Passengers by Sea.......................................... 66.421
Baltic Code 2007 ...........................................15.19, 15.65
Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and
the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
and Commercial Matters 1968 .............85.27, 66.27
Brussels Protocol 1968 to the Hague Rules
(See also Hague-Visby Rules 1968) ......66.1, 66.23
CMR Convention on the Contract for
the International Carriage of Goods
by Road 1956 ...................................66.131, 66.426
art. 41 ................................................................. 66.236
CRISTAL (Supplement to TOVALOP) ............32.4, 32.6
Establishment of an International Fund
for Compensation for Oil Pollution
Damage Convention 1971. See Fund
Convention 1971—
Hague Rules 1924 ................... 1.37, 1.113, 1.125, 1.127,
1A.1, 6.7, 6.25, 6.31, 6.37, 6.46, 6.62, 8.5,
9.8, 10.14, 11.1, 11.3, 11.4, 11.8, 11.9, 11.14,
11.27, 11.52, 11.76, 12.27, 12.32, 13A.51,
14.26, 14.39, 16.2, 18.36, 18.45, 18.82, 18.104,
18.133, 18.143, 18.180, 18.183, 18.202,
18.205, 18.227, 18.228, 18.233, 18.251,
18.253, 20.42, 20.51, 20.59, 20A.22, 33.6,
49.4, 50.3, 50.4, 52.2, 52.4, 53.1–53.3, 57A.2,
66.1–66.22, 66.24, 66.28, 66.29, 66.31, 66.35,
66.55, 66.56, 66.59, 66.61, 66.63, 66.64, 66.66,
66.67, 66.70, 66.71–66.75, 66.78–66.82,
66.84–66.86, 66.88–66.90, 66.100, 66.102,
66.108, 66.115, 66.116, 66.119, 66.125, 66.131,
66.133, 66.135, 66.140, 66.144, 66.152–66.154,
66.161, 66.171, 66.173–66.176, 66.178–66.181,
66.183, 66.184, 66.186, 66.188, 66.190, 66.191,
66.194, 66.199, 66.203, 66.204, 66.206,
66.223, 66.224, 66.226, 66.227, 66.230,
66.233, 66.234, 66.238, 66.241–66.249, 66.260,
66.261, 66.268, 66.269, 66.283, 66.288,
66.290, 66.307, 66.324, 66.329, 66.347,
66.349, 66.355, 66.356, 66.356, 66.358,
66.362, 66.367, 66.370, 66.371, 66.373–66.375,
66.382, 66.401, 66.402, 66.407, 66.411, 66.414,
66.427, 66.428, 66.431, 66.434, 66.459,
66.465, 66.480–66.484, 66.487, 66.494, 66.498,
66.499, 66.502, 66.505, 66A.1, 66A.2–66A.6,
66A.16, 66A.23, 66A.36, 66A.42, 66A.51
Travaux Preparatoires (Preparatory
Works) ........................... 66.261, 66.306, 66.341,
66.354, 66.358, 66.381, 66.411
cxliv
Clause Paramount ..............................11.76, 66.1–66.5
arts. I–VIII .................................................66.2, 66.371
art. I ....................................... 49.3, 52.4, 66.57, 66.80,
66.115, 66.178, 66.246
(a) .................................................. 1.42, 6.59, 66.61
(b) .................................. 18.82, 66.10, 66.72, 66.75,
66.134, 66.224, 66.482, 66.488
(c) ........................................ 6.34, 6.37, 6.38, 66.73,
66.75, 66.115, 66.232
(d) ..........................................................66.77, 66.78
(e) .................................. 66.22, 66.75, 66.78, 66.79,
66.82, 66.84, 66.89, 66.115,
66.134, 66.169, 66.199, 66.498
art. II ............................................. 66.56, 66.62, 66.79,
66.83–66.85–66.90, 66.92, 66.93,
66.111, 66.115, 66.246, 66.488
art. III ......................11.4, 65.4, 66.56, 66.246, 66.485
r. 1 ............................................................6.62, 11.9,
11.37, 20.42, 33.4, 33.5–33.7, 66.16, 66.56,
66.93–66.95, 66.99–66.101, 66.106, 66.108,
66.113, 66.120, 66.121, 66.178, 66.226,
66.252, 66.253, 66.255, 66.281, 66.282,
66.284, 66.321, 66.322, 66.341, 66.346,
66.347, 66.368, 66.460–66.463
(a)................................................................. 66.56
(b) ..................................... 66.56, 66.224, 66.265
(c)................................................................. 66.56
(ii) ................................................................ 66.56
r. 2 ..............................6.25, 6.62, 11.9, 14.39, 33.8,
33.24, 49.10, 66.56, 66.75, 66.82, 66.85,
66.93, 66.96, 66.106, 66.110, 66.112, 66.113,
66.115–66.117, 66.121–66.123, 66.132, 66.226,
66.253, 66.321, 66.322, 66.336, 66.341,
66.453, 66.459, 66.462, 66.463, 66A.14
r. 3 ........................... 18.22, 18.180, 66.134, 66.135,
66.137, 66.139, 66.147, 66.152,
66.154, 66.163, 66.338, 66.342
(a)....................................................66.56, 66.146
(b) .................................................66.146, 66.372
(c)............................................................... 66.146
r. 4 ............................. 18.11, 18.25, 66.137, 66.146,
66.148, 66.150, 66.152
r. 5 ................18.22, 66.18, 66.138, 66.150, 66.157,
66.352, 66.377, 66.399, 66.401, 66.414
r. 6 ............................... 6.31, 10.25, 18.104, 18.104,
18.166, 57.1, 59.1, 66.5, 66.7, 66.13,
66.16, 66.23, 66.28, 66.71, 66.82, 66.89,
66.90, 66.101, 66.115, 66.119, 66.165,
66.172–66.182, 66.185–66.187, 66.189,
 TABLE OF CONVENTIONS AND RULES
66.190, 66.192, 66.194, 66.196, 66.198,
66.243, 66.244, 66.249, 66.269, 66.399,
66.401, 66.405, 66.460
r. 7 .......................................66.134, 66.135, 66A.25
r. 8 ............................6.34, 11.4, 14.44, 18.26, 33.6,
49.4, 50.3, 50.4, 66.14, 66.61,
66.72, 66.85, 66.89, 66.112, 66.125,
66.175–66.177, 66.179, 66.191,
66.223–66.226, 66.229–66.233,
66.235–66.237, 66.240, 66.241, 66.243,
66.244, 66.235, 66.246–66.251, 66.356,
66.371, 66.375, 66.376, 66.409, 66.480,
66.484, 66.488, 66A.1
art. IV .......................11.69, 57.1, 66.56, 66.66, 66.83,
66.109, 66.110, 66.113–66.115,
66.121, 66.177, 66.181, 66.252,
66.253, 66.257, 66.322, 66.460, 66.484,
66.494, 66.495, 66.512, 66A.14
r. 1 ...................4.16, 33.5–33.7, 50.3, 66.13, 66.56,
66.121, 66.176, 66.177, 66.253,
66.260, 66.346
r. 2 ..........................4.16, 26.26, 50.3, 66.13, 66.56,
66.71, 66.91, 66,93, 66.94, 66.109,
66.113, 66.120, 66.122, 66.176, 66.177,
66.233, 66.243, 66.253, 66.255, 66.259,
66.261, 66.262, 66.287, 66.306,
66.328, 66.349, 66.350
(a).........................8.5, 49.10, 50.4, 66.56, 66.95,
66.106, 66.108, 66.258, 66.269,
66.273, 66.275, 66.278, 66.280,
66.286, 66.291, 66.294, 66.298,
66.325, 66.332, 66.362, 66.401, 66A.26
(b) ............................. 39.4, 66.56, 66.95, 66.255,
66.276, 66.283, 66.433
(c).......................... 66.78, 66.95, 66.288, 66.290,
66.291, 66.306, 66A.28
(d) .............................................................. 66.412
(e)............................................................... 66.303
(f) ..................................................66.269, 66.306
(g) .................................................66.302, 66.306
(h) .....................................................48.1, 66.401
(i) .......................... 11.64, 14.26, 66.119, 66.160,
66.318, 66.322, 66.344
(j) .....................................................25.4, 66A.30
(k) .................................................66.303, 66.304
(l) .................................... 66.294, 66.302, 66.358
(m) ................................................66.302, 66.318
(n) ....................6.7, 66.233, 318, 66.334, 66.341
(o) ...................... 66.160, 66.233, 66.318, 66.337
(p) ....................................... 50.4, 66.336, 66.338
(q) ......................... 38.18, 66.56, 66.120, 66.284,
66.291, 66.297, 66.302, 66.306,
66.337, 66.341, 66.350, 66.390,
66.433, 66A.31
r. 3 ...................... 11.64, 11.66, 16.2, 66.18, 66.139,
66.158, 66.223, 66.243, 66.351,
66.356, 66.484
(c)..........................................................................
r. 4 ........................... 12.26, 66.175, 66.332, 66.352,
66.357, 66.360, 66.364, 66A.32
r. 5 .................. 1.50, 6.31, 53.3, 66.2, 66.23, 66.71,
66.119, 66.139, 66.158, 66.159, 66.174,
66.176, 66.177, 66.236, 66.237, 66.352,
66.364, 66.365, 66.366, 66.368, 66.371,
cxlv
66.375, 66.377, 66.378, 66.385, 66.401,
66.403, 66.405, 66.419, 66.427, 66.481,
66.501, 66.504, 66.505, 66A.1, 66A.34,
66A.35–66A.37
(a)....................... 66.382, 66.390, 66.404, 66.405
r. 6 ..........................6.46, 6.52, 6.62, 18.100, 66.94,
66.100, 66.128, 66.158, 66.223, 66.255,
66.354, 66.434, 66.447, 66.459, 66.461
(b) .............................................................. 66.385
art. V............................... 66.10, 66.67, 66.244, 66.356
r. 3 .................................................................. 66.354
art. VI .........................................66.66, 66.486–66.489
art. VII ......................... 66.81, 66.240, 66.245, 66.497,
66A.59
art. VIII.........................66.26, 66.500–66.502, 66A.60
art. IX ............................ 66.2, 66.371, 66.503–66.505,
66.512, 66A.35
(2)..............................................................................
art. X. See under Hague-Visby Rules 1968
Brussels Protocol 1968 (See also Hague-Visby Rules
1968)—
Hague-Visby Rules 1968........................1.50, 1A.1, 6.25,
6.31, 6.38, 11.31, 11.43, 11A.20, 11A.65,
12.32, 13A.51, 18.5, 18.36, 18.82, 18.117,
18.143, 18.137, 18.176, 18.202, 18.228,
18.251, 18.253, 20.41, 20.51, 20.59, 53.3,
66.1–66.7, 66.9, 66.21, 66.22–66.24, 66.26,
66.28, 66.30–66.32, 66.35, 66.35, 66.37–66.40,
66.42, 66.44, 66.45–66.53, 66.55, 66.58,
66.64, 66.66, 66.69–66.71–66.73, 66.76, 66.81,
66.102, 66.119, 66.123, 66.131, 66.133, 66.135,
66.136, 66.144, 66.145, 66.147, 66.152–66.155,
66.174–66.176, 66.181, 66.185, 66.188, 66.191,
66.203–66.208, 66.210, 66.221, 66.223, 66.224,
66.227, 66.237, 66.241, 66.242, 66.244,
66.246, 66.248, 66.249, 66.251, 66.269, 66.306,
66.356, 66.364, 66.366, 66.369, 66.371–66.373,
66.394, 66.398, 66.402, 66.404–66.407, 66.419,
66.420, 66.426, 66.465, 66.468, 66.469, 66.471,
66.472, 66.475, 66.477–66.484, 66.487–66.499,
66.502, 66.506, 66.514, 66A.2–66A.6, 66A.19,
66A.23, 66A.35, 66A.42, 66A.52
Travaux Preparatoires (Preparatory
Works) ........................... 66.261, 66.306, 66.341,
66.354, 66.358, 66.381, 66.411
art. I ........................................... 66.50, 66.246, 66.468
(a) ..................................................................... 66.59
(b) .....................................66.35–66.37, 66.4266.43,
66.72, 66.482, 66.488
(c) ..........................................................66.73, 66.73
(e) ................................................................... 66.498
art. II ........................................ 66.246, 66.468, 66.488
art. III ............................. 65.4, 66.246, 66.444, 66.468
r. 1 ............................. 11.31, 11.43, 66.200, 66.224,
66.252, 66.253, 66.255, 66.281,
66.282, 66.284, 66.341, 66.368,
66.456, 66.457, 66.459,
66.460–66.462, 66.463
r. 2 ......................... 66.200, 66.205, 66.224, 66.252,
66.253, 66.336, 66.341, 66.456,
66.459–66.462
r. 3 ........................... 18.22, 66.216, 66.217, 66.219,
66.342, 66.426
r. 4 .....................13.10, 18.11, 18.25, 18.37, 66.338
 TABLE OF CONVENTIONS AND RULES
r. 6 ..........................6.31, 12.40, 57.1, 66.23, 66.24,
66.200, 66.202, 66.205–66.207,
66.210, 66.244, 66.249, 66.269,
66.399, 66.401, 66.405, 66.426,
66.457, 66.474
r. 6bis ...................................66.187, 66.208–66.210
r. 7 ....................................... 66.215, 66.217, 66.218
r. 8 ........................12.32, 12.45, 18.77, 20.59, 66.2,
66.25, 66.72, 66.207, 66.223, 66.224,
66.227, 66.228, 66.240, 66.241, 66.244,
66.246–66.251, 66.356, 66.371, 66.375,
66.376, 66.409, 66.420, 66.426, 66.468,
66.471, 66.480, 66.484, 66.485, 66.488
art. IV .............................. 12.32, 57.1, 66.253, 66.257,
66.460, 66.474, 66.484, 66.494,
66.495, 66.512
r. 1 .....................................................66.368, 66.426
r. 2 ............................. 11.31, 12.31, 66.207, 66.243,
66.253, 66.255, 66.259, 66.261, 66.262,
66.286, 66.287, 66.306, 66.332, 66.349,
66.426
(a)...................... 66.207, 66.258, 66.269, 66.273,
66.275, 66.278, 66.280, 66.286,
66.291, 66.298, 66.362
(b) .................................................66.283, 66.445
(c)..................................................66.288, 66.290
(q) .............................................................. 66.349
r. 3 ....................................... 66.426, 66.443, 66.484
r. 4 ...................................... 66.207, 66.270, 66.360,
66.364, 66.426
r. 5 ........................6.31, 12.32, 12.45, 21.124, 66.2,
66.23, 66.26, 66.40, 66.205, 66.227,
66.229, 66.237, 66.248, 66.364, 66.368,
66, 66.371, 66.375, 66.382, 66.405,
66.417, 66.419, 66.423, 66.428, 66.477,
66.501, 66.506
(a)...................... 66.382, 66.390, 66.404, 66.407,
66.415–66.417, 66.420, 66.426,
66A.1
(c)....................... 66.237, 66.402, 66A.2, 66A.54
(e)...................... 66.205, 66.421, 66.422, 66.422,
66.426, 66.428, 66.465, 66.474,
66A.42
(f) .................................... 66.417, 66.419, 66.481
(g) .................................................66.371, 66.419
(h) ................................... 66.426, 66.427, 66.448
r. 6 ...................................... 66.430, 66.431, 66.443,
66.460, 66.461
art. IVbis........................ 12.45, 18.117, 18.137, 66.23,
66.63, 66.69, 66.175, 66.207, 66.210,
66.224, 66.265, 66.426, 66.464,
66.468–66.471, 66.473
r. 1 .....................................................66.208, 66.466
r. 2 ....................................... 66.470, 66.471, 66.478
r. 3 .....................................................66.477, 66.478
r. 4 .......................... 66.421, 66.429, 66.474, 66.477
art. V.............................. 20.59, 66.44, 66.244, 66.356,
66.482, 66.479–66.484
r. 5 .....................................................66.423, 66.438
art. VI .........................................66.66, 66.486–66.489
art. VII ...................................................66.426, 66.497
art. VIII.....................................66.227, 66.500–66.502
art. IX ........................................... 12.32, 57.1, 66.507,
66.508, 66.512, 66A.2
cxlvi
art. X..................... 18.176, 66.32, 66.33, 66.36–66.36,
66.42, 66.46, 66.54, 66.223,
66.467, 66.513, 66.514, 66A.2
(c) .............................................. 66.38, 66.39, 66.43
arts. XI–XVI........................................................ 66A.2
Hamburg Rules ........................................................... 66.6
IMO Resolution A.893(21) of
25th November 1999 ..........................66.95, 66.269
International Convention on Civil Liability
for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 ......... 65A.6
Art. 7 ................................................................... 65A.6
International Convention on Civil Liability
for Oil Pollution Damage,
1969.................................. 32.5, 65.2, 65A.3, 65A.5
International Convention on Civil Liability
for Oil Pollution Damage,
1992....................................... 32.7, 57.1, 65.2, 65.2,
65.4, 65A.3, 65A.5
Art. 7 ................................................................... 65A.6
International Convention on Salvage
1989............................................... 20.14, 54.4, 54.5
International Convention on the Establishment
of an International Fund for Compensation
for Oil Pollution Damage 1971 ........................ 32.5
International Dispute Resolution
Procedures (IDRP)........................................ 21A.96
Art. 21 ............................................................... 21A.96
Art. 21:1 ............................................................ 21A.96
International Fund Convention 1992 ................32.7, 65.2
International Fund Convention 1992,
(Supplementary Fund Protocol
2005) .........................................................32.7, 65.2
International Safety Management (ISM)
Code 2010 .......................11.26, 11.40, 11.42, 11.57
Limitation of Liability for Maritime
Claims Convention 1976 ................1.50, 57.1–57.3,
57A.1, 66.511
Limitation of the Liability of Owners
of Sea-going Ships Convention
1957........................................................1.50, 57A.1
Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters 1988 ............................... 66.27
MARPOL 73/78.................. 11.27, 38A.68, 65.1, 65A.13
New York Convention on the Recognition
and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards 1958 ................................................... 27A.2
arts II, II(3)..................................2.38, 18.141, 53A.10
Rome Convention on the Law Applicable
to Contractual Obligations (Rome I)
1980.............................. 1.27–1.30, 1.32, 1.33, 1.36,
1.38, 1.39, 1.41, 1.42, 1.45,
1.47–1.50, 20.2
Preamble II ............................................................. 1.28
Preamble I3 ............................................................ 1.29
art. 1.2(g) ................................................................ 1.42
art. 1.3 .................................................................... 1.50
art. 3 .................................................... 1.28, 1.29, 1.40
art. 3.1 ........................................ 1.28, 1.29, 1.36, 1.38
art. 3.2 .................................................................... 1.32
art. 3.3(3) ................................................................ 1.28
art. 3.5 .................................................................... 1.30
art. 4 .................................................... 1.28, 1.39, 1.45
art. 4.1 ...........................................................1.32, 1.43
 TABLE OF CONVENTIONS AND RULES
art. 4.2 ........................................ 1.32, 1.33, 1.39, 1.46
art. 4.3 .................................................................... 1.39
art. 4.4 ...............................1.32, 1.33, 1.39, 1.41, 1.43
art. 5 .................................................... 1.32, 1.40, 1.46
art. 5.1 ...........................................................1.41, 1.43
art. 5.3 ........................................ 1.41, 1.43, 1.45, 1.46
art. 8 ....................................................................... 1.47
art. 8.1 .................................................................... 1.36
art. 10 ......................................... 1.30, 1.42, 1.47, 1.49
art. 10.1(c) .............................................................. 1.48
art. 10.2 .................................................................. 1.30
art. 10.13 ................................................................ 1.48
art. 11.............................................................1.30, 1.47
art. 12 ..................................................................... 1.47
art. 13 ..................................................................... 1.30
art. 18 ..................................................................... 1.50
art. 19 ..................................................................... 1.40
art. 19(3) ........................................................1.39, 1.43
art. 21 ..................................................................... 1.48
Rotterdam Rules ..........................66A.1, 66A.35, 66A.53
Salvage Convention 1989: See International
Convention on Salvage—
Ship Inspection Report System (SIRE) ................... 11.27
Small Tanker Oil Pollution Indemnification
Agreement (STOPIA) 2006 .............................. 65.2
Society of Maritime Arbitrators, Inc.,
(SMA Rules) ..........................2A.43, 4A.19, 4A.20,
7A.35, 21A.97, 21A.99
s. 2 ............................................... 2A.29–2A.32, 2A.38
s. 10 ..................................................................... 62A.3
s. 30 ........................................4A.20, 21A.96, 21A.97,
62A.1, 62A.3, 63A.1
SOLAS ...................................................................... 11.27
STOPIA....................................................................... 32.7
Supplementary Fund Protocol 2005..................51.7, 84.2
Tanker Oil Pollution Indemnification
Agreement (TOPIA) 2006 ........................32.7, 65.2
Tanker Owners’ Voluntary Agreement
Concerning Liability for Oil Pollution
(TOVALOP) .............................................. 32.4–32.6
UNIDROIT .................................................. 1.3, 1.5, 1.21
Unification of Certain Rules of Law:
International Convention relating to
Bills of Lading 1924. See Hague Rules,
Hague-Visby Rules—
UCP 500 (Uniform Customs and Practices for
Documentary Credits 1993) ................................. 18.69
Art. 23(a) ................................................................ 6.61
Vienna Convention on Civil Liability
for Nuclear Damage 1963
(Cmnd. 2333) ................................................. 66.508
Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties
arts. 31 and 32 ....................................................... 66.9
cxlvii
Warsaw Convention for the Unification of
Certain Rules Relating to International
Carriage by Air
1929 ......................................... 66.387, 66.404, 66.426
York-Antwerp Rules .................. 20.4–20.9, 20.14, 20.24,
20.34, 20.36, 20.40, 20.46, 20.56,
20.57, 20.59, 20A.9, 20A.10,
20A.13, 32.3, 55.5, 66.173, 66.454
r. C 1924............................................................... 20.27
York-Antwerp Rules 1950................ 5.2, 55.1, 55.3, 55.8
Rule of Interpretation .................20.8, 20A.10, 20A.11
r. A................................... 20.10, 20.14, 20.16, 20A.10
rr. X(b), XI(b) ................................................... 20A.11
r. XXII ...........................................................55.8, 55.8
York-Antwerp Rules 1974...................... 20.1, 20.6, 20.7,
20.14, 20.35, 20.56, 20A.9
rr. A–G .................................................................... 20.8
r. A..........................20.8, 20.10, 20.14, 20.16, 20A.14
r. C ............................20.8, 20.26, 20.27, 20.29, 20.30,
20A.15
r. D .................................. 20.39, 20.41, 66.177, 66.485
r. E ........................................................................ 20.49
r. F ................................................. 20.14, 20.29, 20.31
r. G ................................................. 20.21, 20.31, 20.38
Bigham Clause ..................................................... 20.21
r. I ........................................................................... 6.39
r. VI ...................................................................... 20.14
r. VII ..........................................................20.10, 20.18
r. X ................................................... 20.9, 20.13, 20.14
r. XI .............................................................20.9, 20.14
(d) ..................................................................... 20.30
r. XIV.................................................................... 20.14
r. XVII .......................................................20.38, 20.47
r. XX ..................................................................... 20.35
r. XXII .................................................................... 55.8
r. XXIII ................................................................. 20.53
Rule of Interpretation ............................................. 20.8
York-Antwerp Rules 1994.................... 12.33, 20.1, 20.6,
20.7, 20.14, 20.25, 20.30,
20.31, 20.35, 20.49, 55.8
r. G .............................................................20.21, 20.31
Rule (Clause) Paramount ....................................... 20.6
Rule Paramount .................................................... 20.18
York-Antwerp Rules 2004.................... 20.6, 20.7, 20.14,
20.25, 20.30, 20.31, 20.49,
20.53, 20.55, 20.59
r. G .............................................................20.21, 20.31
r. 23....................................................................... 20.55
Rule of Interpretation ............................................. 20.8
York-Antwerp Rules 2016.................... 20.6, 20.7, 20.14,
20.25, 20.31, 20.31, 20.53
r. G .............................................................20.21, 20.31
York-Antwerp Rules 2018...............................20.59, 55.3
 Table of Charterparties and Standard Clauses

Amoco Cargo Retention Clause.......34.8–34.10, 34A.17, cl. 3 (Deadfreight) ......................... 34.1, 35.2, 35.2,
53A.34, 53A.37, 53A.38 35.10, 35A.1, 35A.6, 35A.12
Amwelsh 1979 ........................15A.7, 15A.133, 15A.163, cl. 4 ..........................26.70, 30.3, 33.1, 33.12, 34.6,
15A.167, 25.5, 25A.10, 25A.11 36A.2, 36A.5, 51.5, 51.6, 65A.20
cl. 4 .........................................................7.14, 15A.152 (a)........................36.2, 36.4, 36.6, 36A.4, 36A.5
Amwelsh 1993 ................ 9.5, 15A.7, 15A.133, 15A.163, (b) ....................................36.3, 36.4–36.6, 36A.5
15A.167, 25A.10, 25A.11 (c)....................... 36.3, 36.6, 36.8, 36A.5–36A.7,
cl. 4 ......................................................................... 7.14 36A.10, 45A.8
cll. 5 and 6 ........................................................... 19.13 cl. 5 ..................... 30.1, 37.2, 37A.1, 37A.2, 37A.6,
cl. 9 (Amwelsh Coal Form)................................... 25.6 37A.10, 37A.13, 38.1, 38.2, 38A.1,
Asba II .............................................18.203, 25A.11, 39.6 38A.13, 38A.21, 38A.24, 38A.25,
Asbatankvoy Charter ................... 5.55, 9.5, 11.27, 13.72, 38A.27
15.24, 15.35, 15.54, 15.66, 15.67, cl. 6 ...............16.3, 31.2, 37.2, 37.5, 37A.1, 37A.2,
18.185, 19.12, 19.14, 19A.1, 21.115, 37A.13, 38.1, 38.2, 38.6, 38.8,
24.15, 28.1, 28.5, 30.1, 30.3, 31.4, 38.10–38.13, 38.24, 38A.13, 38A.21,
34.7, 34A.15, 35A.5, 35A.12, 38.20, 38A.25, 38A.31, 38A.34, 38A.35, 38A.40,
38.23, 38A.1, 38A.2, 38A.19, 38A.20, 38A.41, 38A.44, 38A.49–38A.54, 39.3,
38A.41, 38A.51, 39.8, 40A.1, 41.3, 39.11, 39A.4, 39A.11, 39A.25, 40.2, 40.4,
41A.5, 41A.12, 49A.30, 50.4, 53.3, 40A.2, 40A.9–40A.12, 40A.14, 40A.15,
55.1, 58.2, 60.2, 64.1, 65A.19, 66.1 40A.16, 42A.2, 46.7, 48A.1, 61A.1
Arbitration Clause .................................................. 63.2 cl. 7 ......................16.3, 31.2, 37A.1, 37A.13, 38.5,
Preamble ................................................................. 28.2 38.15, 38.24, 38.25, 38A.34, 38A.61,
Part I ............................5A.17, 28.2, 32.3, 33.1, 33.23, 38A.63–38A.65, 38A.67, 39.4, 39.11,
34.1, 34A.19, 3A.22, 34A.25, 35.1, 39A.25, 40.1, 40A.9, 40A.10,
36.4, 36.5, 36A.2, 36A.5, 36A.6, 40A.16, 46.7
37.4, 38.2, 38A.24, 38A.25, 39.1, cl. 8 ......................26.70, 31.3, 38.10, 38.24, 38.25,
40A.17, 44.1, 45.1, 55.3, 54.3, 59.2, 38A.36, 38A.49–38A.53, 39.2, 39.3,
63.1, 63.3 39.8, 39.9, 39.11, 39A.1, 39A.3,
(A) ................ 4A.3, 33.2, 33.9, 33.22, 35A.5, 35A.6 39A.4, 39A.6, 39A.7, 39A.9,
(B) ................................4A.3, 37A.2, 37A.4, 37A.7, 39A.10–39A.14, 39A.25, 40A.2,
38A.7, 38A.21 40A.9, 40A.10, 40A.13, 41.9, 52.1
(C) ..................................................... 36A.7, 38A.25 cl. 9 ..................38.8, 38.10, 38.22, 38A.1, 38A.15,
(D) ................................................................... 36A.7 38A.30, 38A.40, 38A.54, 40.4, 40.7,
(E) .........................................................33.14, 33.15 40A.2, 40A.5, 40A.9, 40A.11, 40A.12,
(F)...............................34.1, 34A.1, 35.6, 46.1, 46.5 40A.14, 40A.16, 44.3, 45A.7, 46.1,
(H) ......................................................38.14, 38A.34 46.6, 49A.23
(I)........................................................................ 39.1 cl. 10 ................................. 33.16, 38.18, 41.1, 41.7,
(K) ...................................................................... 55.4 41A.1, 41A.3, 42.1, 53A.15
(M) .................................................................. 34A.1 cl. 11 ................... 34.12, 38.14, 39.2, 42A.1–42A.3
Part II........................... 28.2, 34A.19, 34A.22, 40A.18 cl. 12 .........................37A.15, 43A.1, 43A.2, 43A.4
cl. 1 .................... 29.3, 29.5, 30.4, 33.3, 33.4, 33.6, cl. 13 ......................................................30.4, 44A.1
33.8, 33.15, 33.18, 33.23, 35.2, 35.6, cl. 14 (Ice Clause) .................45A.1, 45A.2, 45A.4,
35.7, 35A.6, 36.7, 36A.5, 37A.6, 45A.7–45A.12
37A.14, 38.7, 38A.44, 38A.59, 41.3, (a).............................45.1, 45.2, 45.6, 45.7, 45.9,
47.1, 49.6, 51.5, 59.2 45A.7, 45A.9
(b) .................................................................. 33.5 (b) ................................ 36A.10, 45.1, 45.6, 45.7,
cl. 2 ..................... 31.2, 34.6, 34A.1, 34A.2, 34A.6, 45A.6, 45A.8
34A.8, 34A.10, 34A.11, 34A.16, 52.1 cl. 15 .......................31.1, 34A.7, 40.1, 46.2, 46A.1
(b) .................................................................. 46.6

cxlviii
 TABLE OF CHARTER PARTIES AND STANDAR D CLAUSES
(c).......................................................46.7, 46A.1
(d) ......................................................46.7, 46A.1
cl. 16 ................................................................ 33.15
cl. 17 ............................................................... 48A.1
(a)................................................................... 48.1
(b) .................................................................. 48.3
cl. 18 .......................38A.15, 41.1, 41.3, 41.8, 49.1,
49.2, 49.6, 49A.11–49A.13, 49A.23,
49A.28, 49A.30, 49A.31
(b) ............................................................. 49A.29
cl. 19 .............................. 33.11, 38.27, 39.4, 40A.2,
49.6, 50.2, 50.4, 50A.1
cl. 20 .........................................33.5, 36A.5, 36A.5,
49A.28, 49A.30, 51.1, 52.1
(a)................................................ 52.1, 52.3, 53.1
(b) ...................... 33.6, 34A.21, 34A.23, 49A.28,
52.1, 52.4, 53.1, 53A.2, 54.1,
54.6, 55.1, 56.1, 57.158.1, 58.1,
58.2, 59.1
(i)–(vii) .................................................52.1, 52.3
(i) (Clause Paramount) ..................9.7, 11.3, 11A.1,
11A.2, 11A.19, 11A.21, 11A.57,
18.205, 18.227, 18.253, 20.6, 33.5,
41.1, 49A.28, 49A.31, 50.3, 52.4,
66.1–66.3, 66.5, 66.6, 66.12, 66.17
(ii) (Jason clause) .............. 54.1, 54.3, 54.5, 55.8
(iii) ........................................................32.1, 32.3
(iv) ........................................................54.6, 56.1
(v) .................................................................. 57.2
(vii) (Deviation Clause) ........... 33.19, 59.1, 59.2
cl. 21 .......................................... 52.1, 60A.1–60A.3
cl. 22 ............................................................... 61A.1
cl. 23 .................................................................. 62.4
cl. 24 ................................ 32.2, 62.4, 62A.1, 62A.3
cl. 26 ........................... 38A.67, 41.8, 41A.4, 65A.1
cl. 27 .................................................................. 49.3
cl. 39A............................................... 65A.8, 65A.10
Attransco Cancellation Clause .......................... 37A.11
Lien Clause ............................................................ 17.1
Sun Diversion clause .......................................... 36A.7
Vitol Diversion clause.............................. 37A.11, 39.8
Worldscale Clause ................... 34A.18, 34A.19–3A.22
ISM Code .................................37A.13, 37A.17, 66.95
Baltic Code 2000 Charterparty and
Laytime Terminology and
Abbreviations .............................11.78, 15.19, 15.20
Baltic Code 2020 ................................ 15.2, 15.19, 15.20,
15.58, 15.65, 15.69
Baltime Charter..............................................11.79, 18.64
Baltime ...................................................................... 11.78
cl. 2 ....................................................................... 27.18
cl. 15 (ice) ....................................... 27.5, 27.18, 27.20
cl. 21 (war) ................................. 21.109, 26.32, 26.78,
26.79, 27.19
Baltime Form .....................................................9.5, 11.69
Baltime War Clauses .....................................26.78, 26.79
Baltimore Form 1976 (Berth Form C) ...........9.5, 15A.7,
18.185, 24.15, 48A.1
Baltimore Form C (1913)........................................ 15A.7
Baltimore Form C (1963)........................................ 15A.7
Beepeevoy 2 (BPVoy) ...................................15.16, 15.31
Beepeevoy 3 (BPVoy) ...........30.2, 31.1, 34.1, 40.3, 46.2
cl. 16 ..........................................................41.3, 66.306
Beepeevoy 4 (BPVoy) .......................................41.9, 49.4
cxlix
Berth Standard of Average clause ............................ 14.40
Bill of Lading—
cl. 10.1 ............................................................... 66A.11
Australia Trade form—
BIMCO .................................. 15A.102, 18.50, 26.1, 66.4
Piracy Clauses for Single Voyage Charter
Parties and for Consecutive Voyage
Charter Parties ............................................. 26.14
Bulk Sugar Charter 1962 ..................... 15A.7, 15A.71,
15A.133, 15A.160, 16A.15,
16A.17, 66.308
Centrocon ........................................................... 18.185
Centrocon Arbitration clause ..................66.89, 66.244
Centrocon Strike clause ................15.26, 16.3, 25A.10
Commentary ........................................................ 11A.6
General paramount clause 1994 .........66.1–66.3, 66.5,
66.6, 66.12, 66.17
Graincom form—
cll. 4 and 18 ..................................................... 19.13
Infections Diseases clause ..................................... 48.1
Liberty and clause (As set out in special circular
No.2/2010) ..........................................12.1, 12.23
Slow Steaming clause .............................................. 9.7
Special circular No. 5/2012) .................................... 9.7
Strike clause (see above) —
Cementvoy 2006 form—
cll. 3 and 5 ........................................................... 19.13
Chamber of Shipping Voyage Charter 1958—
Clause Paramount .......................... 66.1–66.3, 66.5, 66.6,
66.12, 66.17
Chamber of Shipping War Risks Clauses—
cll. 1, 2 ................................................................. 26.54
Chamber of Shipping Welsh Coal
Charter 1896 ................................................. 15A.36
Charterparty Laytime Definitions 1980 .........13.40, 15.2,
15.19, 15.20
Centrocon arbitration clause in COA .................... 66.196
Coastvoy ................................................................ 11A.13
Congenbill 1994 ............................. 18.51, 18.59, 18.247,
18.249, 18.253, 66.144, 66A.5
Clause Paramount ............................................... 66A.5
cl. 1 ...................................................................... 27A.4
Conline—
Conline Bill of Lading......................................... 66.50
Conlinebooking ........................................................ 2.7
Conoco Weather Clause .......................................... 39A.5
CONWARTIME 1993 .............................................. 26.84
cl. 2 ....................................................................... 26.85
CONWARTIME 2004 Clause .................................. 26.91
Essovoy 69............................................................. 38A.34
Exxonvoy Charter ...............................9.3, 18.186, 35A.5,
38A.34, 58.5
Exxonvoy 1969 ........................ 13.6, 17.18, 18.186, 28.1,
35A.5, 36A.5, 38A.34, 38A.44,
40A.17, 41.7, 45A.9, 52.1
Exxonvoy 1984—
cl. 18(f) ................................................................ 41A.4
Exxonvoy 1990 ........................................ 37A.15, 38A.11
cl. 14 .................................................................... 39A.2
cl. 18(f) ................................................................ 41A.4
ExxonMobil VOY 2000—
cl. 2—
(a) .................................................................... 11A.3
(c) .................................................................... 11A.3
 TABLE OF CHARTER PARTIES AND STANDAR D CLAUSES
ExxonMobilVOY 2005—
cl. 13(c) ............................................................... 42A.3
cl. 14(b) ............................................................... 39A.5
cl. 14(c)(iv)........................................................ 39A.16
ExxonMobilVOY 2012 ............................ 34A.19, 4A.20,
34A.22, 34A.22
FILO clause ........................................................... 11A.44
Fosfo ..............................................7A.30, 15A.7, 15A.25
cl. 2 ...................................................................... 16A.3
Gencon Freight Clause ............................................. 26.65
Gencon Brokerage Clause ........................................ 24.18
Gencon Charter ....................1.34, 3.22, 4A.16, 6.39, 8.5,
9.8, 11.3, 11.8, 11.44, 11.45, 11.59, 11.73,
11A.16, 11A.36, 11A.57, 12.1, 13.4, 13.54,
13.73, 13.93, 14.63, 15.10. 15.11, 15.19,
15.48, 15.53, 15.57, 15.61, 15A.7, 15A.75,
15A.91, 15A.98, 15A.133, 15A.150,
15A.150, 17.2, 18.180, 18.184, 18.189,
18.193, 18.199, 18.212, 19.15, 19.22,
19.28, 19.30, 19.33, 19A.11, 19A.12,
20.42, 20A.9, 20A.26, 22.9, 23.13,
24.15, 25.1, 28.5, 30.1, 33A.1, 34.6,
37.3, 37A.6, 38A.2, 60.1, 66.1, 66.306
Part. 1(A) ............................................................. 3A.25
cl. 2 ......................20.42, 20.51, 22.5, 66.21, 66.95,
66.240, 66.244, 66.284, 66.349, 66.423
cl. 6 ...................................................... 4A.16,4A.17
cl. 16 .............................................................. 66.301
Gencon 1922 ..................11A.7, 15A.28, 19A.13, 19A.15
cl. 2 ................................... 11.4, 11A.7, 11A.8, 11A.11
cl. 5 .................................................................... 15A.95
(b) .................................................................... 14A.2
cl. 6 .....................................................15A, 85, 15A.95
Gencon 1976 ............................ 4.21, 8A.2, 10A.1, 11.81,
11.83, 11A.4–11A.6, 11A.32, 13.119,
13.126, 13A.16, 14.62–14.64, 15.75,
15A.7, 15A.17, 15A.28, 15A.64, 15A.70,
15A.98, 16.11, 16.12, 16A.22, 17.48,
17A.65, 17A.69, 18.221, 18.247, 19.45,
19A.12, 19A.13, 20.1, 20.3, 20.6,
20.52, 20.56, 20.59, 24.25, 25.23, 25.25,
26.80, 26.81, 27A.1
Artificer’s Lien clause.......................................... 17.38
Part I .................................................................... 27A.1
box 3 .................................................................. 4.21
boxes 5, 6, 7 ...................................................... 4.31
box 8 ....................................................4.31, 19A.12
box 9 .........................................4.31, 19A.12, 66.50
box 10 .............4.31, 15.34, 15A.29, 15A.30, 19.21
box 11 .........................4.21, 15.34, 15A.29–15A.31
box 12 ............................................4.21, 6A.2, 6A.1
box 13 ................................. 13.3, 13.7, 13.9, 13.48,
113.119, 13.120
box 14 ...................................... 13.48 –13.50, 13.54
box 15 .............................. 14.8, 14.35, 14.46, 14.62
box 16 ................................ 15.1, 15.3, 15.10, 15.75
box 17 .............15.1, 15.75, 15.76, 15A.29, 15A.64
box 18 .............................................................. 15.75
box 19 ................ 15.75, 19.1, 19.11, 19.21, 19A.12
box 20 .....................................................16.21, 24.1
box 21 .............................................................. 19.43
box 24 .............................................................. 24.25
box 25 ............................................................. 27A.1
cl
Part II..................................................... 15A.29, 27A.1
cl. 1 ...................... 4.23, 6A.2, 10.8, 11.83, 13A.24,
14.61, 14.64, 15A.29–15A.31
cl. 2 ........................1.127, 4.17, 4.23, 10.21, 10.26,
11.8–11.10, 11.14, 11.16–11.18, 11.22,
11.52, 11.55, 11.57, 11.63, 11.64, 11.69,
11.73, 11.75, 11.76, 11.79, 11.80, 11.82,
11.83, 11A.1, 11A.2, 11A.4, 11.23,
11A.24, 11A.33, 11A.37, 11A.40,
11A.41, 11A.46, 12.43, 14.41, 14.42,
14.45, 14.65, 18.227, 18.251, 18.253,
20.1, 20.57, 20.59, 20A.20, 20A.22, 26.46
para. 1 .......................................................... 11.69
para. 2 ............................................... 11.64, 11.69
cl. 3 .......................................10.26, 15A.167, 26.53
cl. 4 ....................13.3, 13.51, 13.62, 13.73, 13.102,
13.120, 13A.24, 15.39, 15A.163,
15A.167, 17A.29, 26.46
(a)........................................13.126, 15.3, 15A.37
(b) ........................................13.120–13.123, 15.3
cl. 5 .......................... 10.7, 11.8, 11.13, 11.82, 14.2,
14.3, 14.8, 14.20, 14.21,
14.36–14.38, 14.46, 14.49,
14A.1, 16A.15, 18.251
(a).............................. 10A.1, 11.82, 14.15, 14.16
(b) .................... 10A.1, 11.8, 11.11, 14.65, 14.67
(c)................................................................. 14.67
cl. 6 ......................... 15.15, 15.52, 15A.17, 15A.28,
15A.29, 15A.31, 15A.75, 15A.85,
15A.95, 15A.127
(a), (b)..............................15.75, 15A.7, 15A.127
(c)........................ 10.10, 15.76, 15A.20, 15A.23,
15A.26, 15A.33–15A.35, 15A.55,
15A.70, 16.25
cl. 7 .......................15A.79–15A.81, 15A.95, 16.12,
16.19, 16A5–16A.8, 17A.69,
17A.71, 17A.72, 18.228,
19.11, 19.12
cl. 8, Lien Clause ........ 17.2, 17.16, 17.48, 17A.46,
17A.65, 17A.69–17A.72,
18.55, 18.57, 18.210
cl. 9 ................ 10.8, 10.26, 13.22, 15A.79–15A.81,
17.20, 18.2, 18.175, 18.190, 18.214,
18.227, 18.247, 18.248, 19.43,
25.73, 51.1, 66.21, 66.133
(b) .....................................................19.43, 19.45
cl. 10 .......................... 19.11, 19.13, 19.21, 19A.12,
24.21, 26.34, 27A.4
(a).............................................................. 11A.45
cl. 11 ............................... 20.6, 20.20, 20.53, 20.58,
20.59, 20A.20–20A.22
cl. 12 ................................................. 20.60, 21A.87
cl. 13 .................................................................. 30.4
cl. 14 .............................. 19.12, 24.15, 24.21, 24.26
cl. 15 .................................................................. 10.7
(a).............................................................. 11A.45
F.C. & S. Clause and its successor
the Institute War Clauses
(VOYWAR) ................. 26.2, 26.35, 26.78, 26.79
cl. 16 (“Voywar 1950”) ...........................10.7, 26.1,
26.26, 26.39, 66.269
(1) .........................................................26.1, 26.2
(a) ............................................................ 26.82
 TABLE OF CHARTER PARTIES AND STANDAR D CLAUSES
(b) .................................................26.82, 26.85
(2)–(6) .......................................................... 26.85
(2)–(5) .......................................................... 26.93
(2)–(4) .......................................................... 26.85
(2) .......................................... 26.1, 26.27, 26.39,
26.86, 26.87
(3) .................... 26.1, 26.27, 26.39, 26.47–26.51,
26.53, 26.60, 26.64, 26.64, 26.71,
26.77, 26.87, 26.88
(4) .................... 26.1, 26.27, 26.39, 26.47–26.49,
26.53, 26.60, 26.64, 26.67, 26.68,
26.77, 26.87, 26.89
(5) ............................. 26.27, 26.41, 26.42, 26.56,
26.63, 26.79, 26.90
(a) ...................26.1, 26.2, 26.63, 26.90, 26.91
(b) ....................................... 26.1, 26.63, 26.68
(c) ............................................................ 26.92
(d) ............................................................ 26.92
(e) ............................................................ 26.92
(6) ............................... 26.1, 26.68, 26.71–26.73,
26.78, 26.93
cl. 17 ............................... 10.9, 19.13, 19.23, 26.80,
27.1–27.21, 27A.1–27A.5
first part (“port of loading”)—
(1) ................................................................ 26.80
(a) ..................... 26.80, 27.2–27.8, 27.9, 27.10
(b) ............26.80, 27.2, 27.7, 27.8, 27.9, 27.11
(c) .............................. 27.2, 27.8, 27.10–27.12
(d) ................................................. 27.13–27.14
second part (“port of discharge”)—
(a) .................................................27.15, 27.17
(b) .................................................27.16, 27.17
(c) .................................................27.15, 27.17
(2) ................................................................ 26.80
(3) ................................................................ 26.80
(4) ................................................................ 26.80
(5) ................................................................ 26.80
(a)–(f) ...................................................... 26.80
(6) ................................................................ 26.80
cl. 18 ................................15A.67, 17A.65, 17A.67,
17A.71, 17A.72
cl. 19 .........................11A.41, 27A.1, 27A.2, 27A.1
(a)........................................ 27A.1–27A.4, 27A.1
(b) ....................................... 27A.1–27A.3, 27A.1
(c)........................................27A.1, 27A.2, 27A.1
(d) ............................................................... 27A.2
cl. 20 ............................................................. 15A.77
cl. 21, Cesser Clause ..................... 15A.77, 15A.91,
17.2, 17.48, 17A.46,
17A.64, 18.55
cl. 26 .....................................................19.23, 19.43
cl. 27 ............................................................. 11A.42
cl. 30 ................................................................ 15.52
cl. 32 ............................................. 7.10, 18.51, 21.6
Gencon 1994 ...........................4.21, 10A.1, 11.81, 11A.6,
11A.32, 12.1, 13.119, 13A.17, 13A.24,
13A.26, 14.62, 14.63, 14.67, 14A.1,
15.66, 15A.17, 15A.28, 15A.34, 15A.35,
15A.50, 15A.55, 15A.64, 15A.75, 15A.95,
15A.98, 16.12, 16A.7, 16A.8, 17.10,
17.48, 17A.10, 18.221, 19.45, 20.1, 20.6,
20.52, 20.59, 21A.87, 23.1, 25.23,
26.15, 26.81
cli
Gencon Agency Clause .....................................23.1, 23.5
Cancelling Clause .................................................. 19.9
Clause Paramount (See also Asbatankvoy
Charter), Pt. II, cl. 20(b) ...........9.7, 11.3, 11A.1,
11A.2, 11A.19, 11A.21, 11A.57,
18.205, 18.227, 18.253, 20.6, 33.5,
41.1, 49A.28, 49A.28, 39A.31, 52.4,
66.1–66.3, 66.5, 66.6, 66.12, 66.17
General Ice Clause ........... 5.92, 15A.152, 22.9, 25.13,
25.21, 36A.10, 45.1, 45A.6
General Strike clause ....... 15A.152, 25.1, 25.2, 25.23,
25A.1, 25A.6, 25A.7,
25A.14, 39.7
Part 1 .............................. 25.2, 25.4–25.7, 25.9–25.12,
25.14–25.16, 25.19, 25A.1–25A.3
Part 2 ......................................25.2, 25.6–25.11, 25.15,
25.22, 25A.1, 25A.3, 25A.4
Part 3 ............................25.2, 25.6, 25.7, 25.15, 25.16,
25.21, 25.22, 25A.1, 25A.3, 25A.4
(1)—
para. (a) .................................................25.23, 25.24
para. (b)................................................. 25.23–25.25
para. (c) .................................................25.23, 25.24
cl. 39 ............................................................. 25A.14
cl. 40 ................................................................ 26.34
(2) ......................................................................... 26.34
cl. 50 ................................................................ 26.34
Lien Clause (cl. 8?) ........ 17.2, 17.13, 17.14, 17.17,
17.18, 17.30, 17.45, 17.46,
17.48, 17.50
Part I ...................................................................... 3A.4
box 5 ................................................................. 3A.4
box 6 ....................................................... 3A.4, 3A.7
box 7 ................................................................. 3A.4
box 8 ................................................................. 3A.4
box 9 ......................................................3A.4, 66.50
box 13 ......13.3, 13.7, 13.9, 13.119, 13.120, 13.122
box 17 ........................................................... 15A.64
box 18 ............................................... 16A.8, 15A.64
box 19 ........................... 15A.64, 19.1, 19.11, 19.21
box 21 .............................................................. 19.43
box 22 ..................................................20.59, 27A.1
box 24 .............................................................. 24.25
box 25 ..................................... 27A.1–27A.3, 27A.1
(a)................................................................ 27A.3
Part II—
cl. 1 ...............................................3A.4, 3A.7, 6A.1
cl. 2 ................................................................ 18.227
cl. 3 (Deviation Clause) ............................... 12A.35
cl. 4 .........................................................13.3, 19.13
(a)............................................................... 13.126
(b) ................................................. 13.120–13.123
(c)....................................................13.120, 17.50
cl. 5 ..................................................... 10A.1, 11A.6
(a).................................................... 8A.2, 11A.32
cl. 6 .................................................................. 15.39
(c).............................................................. 15A.64
cl. 7 ............................... 16A.5, 17.50, 19.11, 19.12
cl. 8 ......................................16A.5, 16A.8, 17A.46,
17A.65, 17A.69–16A.72
cl. 9 ............................ 13.22, 18.175, 18.227, 19.43
(b) .....................................................19.43, 19.45
cl. 10 .................. 19.11, 19.13, 19.21, 24.21, 27A.4
 TABLE OF CHARTER PARTIES AND STANDAR D CLAUSES
cl. 11 ........................................... 19.23, 20.53, 56.2
cl. 12 ..................................................... 20.59–20.61
cl. 14 .............................. 19.12, 24.15, 24.21, 24.26
cl. 16—
(b) .........................................................43.1, 43.2
cl. 17 (“Voywar 1993”) ........................19.13, 19.23
cl. 19 .........................................20.60, 20.61, 27A.1
(a)................................................................ 27A.1
(b) ............................................................... 27A.1
Gencon form of voyage charter ...........1.34, 3.22, 4A.16,
6.39, 8.5, 9.8, 11.3, 11.8, 11.44,
11.45, 11.59, 11.73, 11A.16, 11A.36,
11A.57, 12.1, 13.4, 13.54, 13.73, 13.93,
14.63, 15.10, 15.11, 15.19, 15.48, 15.53,
15.57, 15.61, 15A.7, 15A.75, 15A.91,
15A.98, 15A.133, 15A.150, 15A.150,
17.2, 17.20, 17.32, 17.34
Himalaya clause................. 18.68, 18.77, 18.134, 18.137,
18.140, 66.62, 66.63, 66.174, 66.224,
66.225, 66.229, 66.468, 66.471,
66.473, 66A.9–66A.12
Incoterms 2000 ......................................................... 66.72
Institute Mortgagees Interest Hulls
Clauses (1986) ............................................... 66.307
Intertankvoy 76 form (Formerly
London Form) ................................................ 66.378
Jason/New Jason clause ......................... 20A.22, 20A.25,
54.1, 56.1
Laytime Definitions for Charter
Parties 2013 ..................... 15.2, 15.58, 15.65, 15.69
Maritime Lien .............................................. 17A.1–17A.5
Mediterranean C.(Ore)............................................. 15A.7
Mobilvoy 1980 ......................................... 39A.16, 40A.6,
40A.9, 40A.18
New York Produce Exchange
(NYPE) .......................................... 9.5, 18.67, 24.6,
27A.1, 66.100
cl. 8 ....................................................................... 14.42
Norgrain Form of Charter ..............15A.151, 19A.6, 33.7
NAEGA Addendum ........................................ 15A.151
Norgrain 1973 Charter ...................14.51, 15A.7, 18.185,
19A.7, 33.4
Norgrain 1989 ......................................9.5, 15A.7, 18.185
Nubaltwood ............................................................. 18.185
Owners’ Responsibility Clause .............11.2, 11.5, 33A.1
cl. 5(a) .................................................................... 11.1
‘Retla’ clause ...............................................6.142, 66.219
Richards Bay Coal Charter Standard
Form—
cl. 4 .............................................................................. 9
Riverports Clause .................................................... 39A.3
Sea Waybill ............................................................. 18.162
Shelltime 4 ....................................................24.6, 65A.20
Shelltime —
cl. 27(c)(ii) ......................................................... 66.180
Shellvoy Charter ..................................................... 66.180
Shellvoy 3 ..........................................23.1, 38.11, 53A.16
cl. 14 ..............................................................5.6, 38.16
Shellvoy 5 ............................................ 15.45, 16.21, 66.7
cl. 11 ..........................................................19.23, 19.42
Early loading clause ............................................... 37.2
Stemmor 1976........................................................ 15A.57
STB Time............................................................. 21A.100
clii
STB Voy (See also Asba II)..........18.203, 35A.4, 35A.4,
35A.5, 37.6, 40A.17, 41.2,
41A.4, 46.4
Part I—
cl. 1(b)........................................................... 40A.17
cl. 6 ............................................................... 40A.17
cl. 9 ...................................40A.17, 40A.18, 40A.21
STB Voy 1974 ......................................... 38A.34, 39A.44
Sugar Charterparty 1999 Form .......................5.17, 15.28
cl. 18 ..................................................................... 18.39
cl. 28 ..................................................................... 15.24
Suez Canal clause ..................................................... 13.16
Synacomex—
cl. 30 ..................................................................... 15.52
Synacomex 90 Charter ............................................. 19.13
cl. 5 ......................................................................... 14.3
Synacomex 2000 Forms—
cll. 6 and 8 ........................................................... 19.13
Texacovoy 1971 ..................................................... 38A.34
TOWCON ..........................................................9.5, 11.72
U.S. Clause Paramount............................66.1–66.3, 66.5,
66.6, 66.12, 66.17
Vegoilvoy ........................................................27A.5, 42.1
Velavoy 1988—
cl. 18(f) ................................................................ 41A.4
Vitol Standard Chartering Terms ....................15.56, 49.2
Vorras guidelines ................................................... 49A.15
Voyage Charters 3rd edn, para. A4.3,
Appendix ............................................................ 25.4
Voyage Charter Clause Paramount
1958....................................... 66.1–66.3, 66.5, 66.6,
66.12, 66.17, 66.17, 66.371
Voylay Rules (Voyage Charterparty
Laytime Interpretation Rules)
1993............................................ 15.2, 15.19, 15.20,
15.58, 15.69, 25.4
Voywar 1950 .............................. 22.9, 26.1, 26.76, 26.77,
26.81, 26.84, 26.85,
26.88–36.91, 48.1, 58.1
cl. 2 ......................................................................... 58.2
cl. 3 ......................................................................... 58.2
cl. 4 ......................................................................... 58.2
cl. 5 ......................................................................... 58.2
cl. 6 ......................................................................... 58.2
Voywar 1993 (See also Gencon
1976, cl. 16)............................... 22.9, 26.30, 26.80,
26.81, 26.85–26.88, 58.1
cl. 2 ......................................................................... 58.2
cl. 3 ......................................................................... 58.2
cl. 4 ......................................................................... 58.3
See also Gencon 1994, cl. 17—
WCCON....................................15A.27, 15A.34, 15A.50,
15A.173
WIBON Provision ............................ 15.24, 15.26, 15.65,
15A.27, 15A.34–15A.37, 15A.80,
15A.89, 15A.92, 15A.168–15A.174,
25.6, 37A.12
WIFPON ....................15A.27, 15A.34, 15A.50, 15A.173
WIPON ................................................................ 15A.173
Westport—
cl. 6 .................................................................... 36A.11
Worldscale....................................... 46.2–46.4, 46.6, 46.7
Preamble, Part. B ................................................... 46.2
 SECTION I

General Principles
and
GENCON Charter
 CHAPTER 1

Formation and Terms of the Charter

1. It is agreed . . . 1

FORMATION OF THE CHARTER

Types of charter
1.1 Charterparties are customarily divided into three general categories: demise (or bareboat)
charters, time charters and voyage charters, but a more recent development is now increasingly
common, the slot charter.1 Demise charters are those by which, in return for payment of hire,
possession of the chartered ship is given to the charterers, who provide crew and all supplies,
pay all running costs and undertake the responsibility of shipowner to those whose goods are
carried on the vessel. Time charters, whether for a period or for a trip, are those under which,
in return for the payment of hire, the vessel’s employment is put under the orders of the char-
terers, while possession remains with the owners who provide the crew and pay the ordinary
running costs, characteristically excluding specific voyage costs such as fuel and cargo handling
and port charges, which are paid for by the charterers. Voyage charters are those by which the
owner agrees to perform one or more designated voyages in return for the payment of freight
and (when appropriate) demurrage; the costs of, and responsibility for, cargo handling are left
to the terms of the specific agreement.2 Slot charters involve the chartering of a guaranteed
number of container spaces either on a period or a voyage basis. Depending on the terms, and
the governing law, of the bills of lading issued under a time or a voyage or a slot charter,
either the shipowner or the charterer, or both, may be the “carrier” of the goods shipped there-
under, and liable as such to the owner of the goods shipped during the period of the charter.
However, whilst it is not uncommon for a time charterer to assume the role of carrier under
the bills of lading, it is rare for a voyage charterer to do so, at any rate where English law
applies. It is usual for a slot charterer to issue his own bills of lading under which he is the
“carrier”.
1.2 Voyage charters for more than one voyage may fall into a number of different catego-
ries. They may be “consecutive voyage charters” where each voyage follows on directly from

1 See The Tychy [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 11 and The Tychy (No. 2) [2001] Lloyd’s Rep. 10, reversed [2001] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 403.
2 See the general introduction by Andrew Baker J. in KLine v. Priminds Shipping [2020] EWHC 2373 (Comm)
at para. 60 applying the dictum of Donaldson J. in Navico v. Vrontados Naftiki Etairia [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 379.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003046912-2 3
1.3 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

the previous one,3 they may be “intermittent voyage charters”,4 or they may be “contracts of
affreightment” or “tonnage contracts” for a series of periodic voyages in a vessel or vessels to
be nominated thereafter.5 All are often referred to merely as “COAs”6 in order to highlight their
particular characteristics. It is common for single voyage charter forms to be adapted to cover
multiple voyage contracts, and this can lead to particular difficulties concerning, for example,
cancellation, liens and the effect of the Hague Rules when incorporated, not to mention the
identification of the relevant parties.
BRM (as owners’ managers, but signing as “owners”) concluded various COAs on the Gencon form
with F, whereby BRM would nominate carrying vessels from the fleet which they managed on behalf
of one ship companies. The period of the COAs expired, but the parties continued on an understand-
ing that they would continue until new terms were finalised, although in fact the precise format of
their arrangements altered, with bills of lading referring to incorrect specific charterparty dates rather
than COA dates. Nominations were made of vessels in the management of BRM and also of vessels
chartered from the spot market. BRM argued that they were not liable as principals under the COA,
which was to be implied by conduct, and that the registered owners of the vessels were principals.
Eder J. held that BRM were liable as principals to charters for a series of individual voyages
performed on terms binding on BRM as owners under the previous COAs. He said it would be
difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of a COA giving rise to contractual obligations on behalf of
one or more members of a group of shipowners or by the members jointly particularly where that
group was not identified with any precision.
(Finmoon Ltd v. Baltic Reefers Management Ltd [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 388.)

CONCLUDING A BINDING AGREEMENT

1.3 A contract for the chartering of a ship is normally embodied in, or based on, a printed
form of charterparty, agreed by the parties or their agents. Under English law, however, there
is no requirement that a contract for the services of a ship on a voyage should be made or
recorded in any particular manner.7 As long as the parties have reached complete agreement,8
a charterparty signed by or on behalf of the parties is unnecessary.9 The parties’ agreement
may be made in the course of written exchanges (these days usually by email),10 or during

3 E.g., Ambatielos v. Grace Bros. (1922) 13 Ll. L. Rep. 227; Suisse Atlantique v. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale
[1967] 1 A.C. 361.
4 E.g., The Oakworth [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 581.
5 E.g., The Kriti Rex [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 and Flame S.A. v. Glory Wealth Shipping Pte. Ltd [2013] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 653, at paras 87–98.
6 Ibid., p. 174.
7 MWB Business Exchange Centres v. Rock Advertising [2018] A.C. 119 para. 7.
8 See China Coal Solution (Singapore) v. Avra Commodities [2020] SGCA 81 where the Court of Appeal of
Singapore held there was no contract concluded by email since the commercial parties had no intention to create legal
relations by the exchange. It might be thought that this was an extreme case but it was significantly dependent on an
“entire contract clause” in the draft contract provided.
9 Lidgett v. Williams (1845) 4 Hare 456, 462; The Epsilon Rosa [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 81, 86 and Arcadis Con-
sulting (UK) Ltd v. AMEC (BCS) Ltd [2019] B.L.R. 27 (conduct following a letter of intent). Parties may, in their
negotiations, stipulate that there shall be no binding agreement until a particular formality has been completed and,
in such a case, that formality must first be satisfied: see Goodwood Investments v. Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions
(my Palladium) [2018] EWHC 1056 (Comm). For the requirements necessary for a “charterparty” to be incorporated
into a bill of lading, see Chapter 18 below. Since the execution of a charterparty is not necessary to give legal effect
to the contract embodied in it, the rule of law avoiding contracts in writing which are materially altered (see Habibsons
Bank v. Standard Chartered Bank [2011] Q.B. 943) will not apply to avoid the contract.
10 See, e.g., TTMI Sarl v. Statoil ASA (The Sibohelle) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 220, contrast BP Oil v. Target Ship-
ping [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 245, reversed on appeal on other grounds [2013] EWCA Civ 196. Contracts of guarantee
embodied in emails may have sufficient writing to be enforceable under s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds 1677: Golden
Ocean Group v. Salgaocar Mining Industries [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 542.

4
 CONCLUDING A BINDING AGREEMENT 1.4

conversations or meetings,11 and may even be inferred from conduct,12 as long as the inference
to be drawn is clear.13 All that is required is that the parties should have reached a firm agree-
ment upon all essential terms.14 It is now most often the case that the parties conclude a
recapitulation (“recap”) of what has been agreed either orally or in writing, and the importance
of the terms of the written recap should not be underplayed.15 In Papas Olio JSC v. Grains &
Fourrages,16 Toulson L.J. said that, in most cases, the recap fulfils a dual function of confirm-
ing evidentially the making of the oral agreement and also superseding the oral agreement by
providing a document to which the parties can then look as the expression of their bargain.
As Lord Blackburn said in Rossiter v. Miller:17
It is a necessary part of the plaintiff’s case to show that the two parties had come to a final and
complete agreement, for, if not, there was no contract. So long as they are only in negotiation either
party may retract; and though the parties may have agreed on all the cardinal points of the intended
contract, yet, if some particulars essential to the agreement still remain to be settled afterwards, there
is no contract. The parties, in such a case, are still only in negotiation. But the mere fact that the
parties have expressly stipulated that there shall afterwards be a formal agreement prepared, embody-
ing the terms, which shall be signed by the parties does not, by itself, show that they continue merely
in negotiation. It is a matter to be taken into account in construing the evidence and determining
whether the parties have really come to a final agreement or not. But as soon as the fact is established
of the final mutual assent of the parties so that those who draw up the formal agreement have not
the power to vary the terms already settled, I think the contract is completed.

1.4 Those particulars that are “essential to the agreement” and that must therefore be settled
before a binding contract exists, may fall into two categories, namely:
(i) terms that, if not settled, render the entire agreement unworkable, or void for uncer-
tainty, with the result that the court is unable to enforce it, whatever the parties may
have intended;

11 See, e.g., Arbitration 12/94 [1994] L.M.L.N. 387 and Arbitration 7/13 [2013] L.M.L.N. (April) 872.
12 See The Sibohelle (above). In Finmoon Ltd v. Baltic Reefers Management Ltd [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 388, Eder
J. held that a COA was created by conduct referable to the particular contract by both parties (not just one), but gener-
ally applying the dictum of Andrew Smith J. (in Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund v. Rouvray [2009] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 47.5, at para. 242) that precise analysis of offer and acceptance may not always be appropriate where the facts
are otherwise compelling. A “no oral modification” clause, stipulating that any variation must be made in writing,
validly precludes oral variation even though such a clause can be contractually changed like any other term and,
although English law does not usually prescribe a form for the making of contracts, there is no reason in law why
parties cannot contractually agree to such a form: MWB Business Exchange Centres v. Rock Advertising [2018] A.C.
119. See also Globe Motors v. TRW Lucas Varity Electric Steering [2016] EWCA Civ 396 [2017] 1 All E.R. (Comm)
and Kabah-Ji Sal (Lebanon) v. Kout Food Group (Kuwait) [2020] EWCA Civ 6. In Reveille Independent LLC v.
Anotech International (UK) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 443, the Court of Appeal held that a provision requiring both
parties to sign a document for it to be legally binding could be waived by conduct and nothing said in MWB precluded
the operation of a relevant doctrine of estoppel or waiver but see A v. B [2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 281 (paras 87 and
88). The UNIDROIT concept of “good faith” does not override a “no oral modifications” term: Kahan-Ji SAL v. Kout
Food Group [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 269 (para. 66).
13 Hamblen J. (as he then was) summarised the law in Brown v. Innovators One [2012] EWHC 1321 (Comm)
at paras 1014 et seq.
14 Where each side proposes a different form of contract, see the so-called battle of the forms: e.g., Tekdata v.
Amphenol [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357 and GHSP v. AB Electronic [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 432.
15 See the particular manifestation of this in relation to the identification of the contracting parties in Americas
Bulk Transport v. Cosco Bulk Carriers Ltd (The Grand Fortune) [2020] EWHC 147 (Comm). The subsequent “draft”
charterparty was rejected by HHJ Pelling Q.C. who preferred the recap on the basis that there was no reason to sup-
pose that it was anything other than an accurate summary of what had been agreed, not least because no objection
was taken to its terms by the recipient when it was received.
16 [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 152, at para. 28 and see also TTMI Sarl v. Statoil ASA (The Sibohelle) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 220, at para. 31.
17 (1878) 3 App. Cas. 1124, 1151.

5
1.5 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

(ii) terms, the agreement upon which is regarded by the parties themselves as an essential
prerequisite of the making of a binding contract.18

Matters which must be agreed if the contract is not to be unworkable or void

for uncertainty
1.5 As Bingham J. said in Pagnan v. Feed Products,19 “the parties are to be regarded as
masters of their contractual fate”, and it is primarily up to them whether agreement upon any
particular matter is to be a prerequisite of a binding contract. However, the issue is not
subjective,20 as noted by Lord Clarke:21
The general principles are not in doubt. Whether there is a binding contract between the parties and
if so, upon what terms depends on what they have agreed. It depends not upon their subjective state
of mind, but upon a consideration of what was communicated between them by words or conduct
and whether that leads objectively to a conclusion that they intended to create legal relations and
had agreed upon all the terms which they regard or the law requires as essential for the formation
of legally binding relations. Even if certain terms of economic or other significance to the parties
have not been finalised, an objective appraisal of their words and conduct may lead to the conclu-
sion that they did not intend agreement of such terms to be a pre-condition to a concluded and
legally binding agreement.

As Andrew Smith J. expressed it in Bear Stearns Bank plc v. Forum Global Equity Ltd:22
The proper approach is, I think, to ask how a reasonable man, versed in the business, would have
understood the exchanges between the parties. Nor is there any legal reason that the parties should
not conclude a contract while intending later to reduce their contract to writing and expecting that
the written document should contain more detailed definition of the parties’ commitment than had
previously been agreed.

The parties can thus agree to be bound contractually, even if there are further terms to
be agreed between them.23 This may often be achieved by agreeing an objective criterion or

18 See Pagnan v. Feed Products [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601, 619; Spectra International v. Tiscali [2002] All
E.R.(D) 209.
19 Ibid. at p. 611. This is a description which the courts have repeatedly adopted: see, e.g., RTS Flexible Systems
Ltd v. Molenski Alois Muller GmbH & Co. [2010] 1 W.L.R. 753, and Air Studios (Lyndhurst) Ltd v. Lombard North
Central (T/A Air Entertainment Group [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 63, where Males J. (as he then was) set out the principles
concerning the present issue with great clarity at paras 5–12 and see also Teekay Tankers v. STX Offshore and Ship-
building [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 387 (paras 129–133, Goodwood Investments v. Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (my
Palladium) [2018] EWHC 1056 (Comm) and Nautica v. Trafigura (The Leonidas) [2020] EWHC 1986 (Comm). But
cf. China Coal Solution (Singapore) v. Avra Commodities [2020] SGCA 81 where the Court of Appeal of Singapore
held that the parties did not conclude a contract with the intention of superseding it when all terms were agreed.
20 Contrast the case of rectification (considered below paras 1.73ff): FSHC v. GLAS [2019] EWCA Civ 1361 and
the important Beale note (2020) L.M.C.L.Q. 1.
21 RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v. Molenski Alois Muller GmbH & Co. [2010] 1 W.L.R. 753; and Devani v. Wells
[2020] A.C. 129 in which the Supreme Court manifested a plain desire to enforce agreements which were understood
to be binding and which were performed in part; the area of alleged uncertainty was completed by a process of
interpretation of the agreement, but the Court was willing to regard the contract as concluded and then the uncertainty
disposed of by way of necessary implication of a term. Parties may, however, in their negotiations, stipulate that there
shall be no binding agreement until a particular formality has been completed: see Goodwood Investments v. Thys-
senkrupp Industrial Solutions (my Palladium) [2018] EWHC 1056 (Comm). See the review by Prof McLaughlan in
(2020) L.M.C.L.Q. 30 who applauds the result if not all of the reasoning in Devani.
22 [2007] EWHC 1576 (Comm), at para. 171; and the same judge in Macro Volatility Master Fund v. Rouvray
[2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 475, at para. 223.
23 Immingham Storage Co. Ltd v. Clear plc [2011] EWCA Civ 89; Air Studios (Lyndhurst) Ltd v. Lombard North
Central (T/A Air Entertainment Group) (above) and Devani v. Wells (above) commented on by Prof McLaughlan in
(2020) L.M.C.L.Q. 30 on the explanation of Scancarriers A/S v. Aotearoa International (The Barandunna) [1985] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 419. The converse is also true, in that parties may, in their negotiations, stipulate that there shall be no

6
 CONCLUDING A BINDING AGREEMENT 1.6

mechanism for filling in the apparent gaps; likewise they may agree expressly on a term which
may be most unclear, but the courts will strive to give relevant effect to their intentions and
meaning.24 The question is whether the agreement is reasonably capable of being workable or
whether it fails for uncertainty.25 Where commercial men intend to enter into a binding and
enforceable commitment, the courts are reluctant to conclude that such an agreement fails
for uncertainty and will use the tools of interpretation and even implication to avoid such a
conclusion,26 but there is a limit to the extent to which the parties’ intentions can prevail. The
court cannot make a contract for the parties, and if the parties have failed to agree upon a
matter that is, objectively, essential to the existence of a workable contract and irremediable
by lawful mechanisms, the court must decline to enforce the agreement.27 The circumstances
in which this is likely to occur are as follows:
1.6 (a) Where the parties have failed to make any provision on a matter of fundamental28
importance and it is impossible to fill the gap by the implication of a term, there is no contract.
For example, if the owner and the charterer have made no provision upon such fundamental
matters as loading and discharging ports, quantity of cargo and size of the ship (if unidentified),
it will normally be impossible to imply any term covering such matters, and there will be no
contract. This is to be contrasted with the situation in Pagnan v. Feed Products, where although
the matters not covered by the agreement were of considerable economic importance, namely,
loading rate and rates of demurrage, despatch and carrying charges, the loading rate could be
dealt with by implying an obligation to load at a reasonable rate and in the customary manner,
and in the absence of agreement on demurrage and carrying charges the damages would be
at large. When the parties have failed to provide for a rate of freight, it is uncertain whether
the court would be prepared to imply a term that a reasonable freight should be paid. At least
where the parties have commenced performance29 on the basis that there is a contract in being
(e.g., by loading and carrying cargo tendered) the courts would be likely to imply an agreement
to pay the current market rate of freight for the voyage in question.30 Where performance is
still wholly executory such implication would be less likely. Even where the court would not

binding agreement until a particular formality has been completed and, in such a case, that formality must first be
satisfied: Goodwood Investments v. Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (my Palladium) [2018] EWHC 1056 (Comm);
this is consistent with MWB Business Exchange Centres v. Rock Advertising [2018] A.C. 119.
24 In Emirates Trading Agency LLC v. Prime Mineral Exports [2015] 1 W.L.R. 1145 it was held that a “good
faith negotiation” clause was enforceable, and an obligation to use “all reasonable endeavours” and “best endeavours”
was likewise held to be enforceable in Jet2.com Ltd v. Blackpool Airport Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 417 and similarly
in Astor Management AG v. Atalaya Mining [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 476 upheld [2018] EWCA Civ 2407, in which
the so-called futility principle (express conditions not being applied where to do so would be futile) was rejected. The
UNIDROIT concept of “good faith” cannot justify interpreting a contract beyond what had been agreed nor for re-
writing it: Kahan-Ji SAL v. Kout Food Group [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 269 (para. 66). See also China Coal Solution
(Singapore) v. Avra Commodities [2020] SGCA 81 where it was held obiter that, although on the facts there was no
concluded contract, the absence of a surveyor determination term would not have invalidated any contract since there
was a mechanism for the appointment of a surveyor.
25 As in Morris v. Swanton Care & Community Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2763.
26 Devani v. Wells [2020] A.C. 129 and Barbudev v. Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria EOOD (above), para.
32, per Aikens L.J. And see also Hughes v. Pendragon Sabre [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 311 esp. paras 28–30.
27 See Welsh Water v. Corus UK Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 285; Dhanani v. Crasnianski [2011] EWHC 926, esp.
para. 96 and on “heads of agreement”, CRS GT Ltd. v. MacLaren Automotive Ltd [2018] EWHC 3209 (Comm).
28 Note the distinction drawn by Lloyd L.J. in Pagnan, at p. 619: “If by ‘essential’ one means a term without
which the contract cannot be enforced then the statement is true: the law cannot enforce an incomplete contract. If
by ‘essential’ one means a term which the parties have agreed to be essential for the formation of a binding contract,
then the statement is tautologous. If by ‘essential’ one means only a term which the Court regards as important as
opposed to a term which the Court regards as less important or a matter of detail, the statement is untrue. It is for
the parties to decide whether they wish to be bound and if so, by what terms, whether important or unimportant.”
29 As in Devani v. Wells (above) albeit in the context of a commission agreement.
30 See Steven v. Bromley [1919] 2 K.B. 722. See also Mamidoil v. Okta [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 76 (C.A.) (10-year
contract for handling of crude oil, with no handling fee specified after end of second year). Cf. BP Oil v. Target Ship-
ping [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 245, reversed on appeal however, [2013] EWCA Civ 196.

7
1.7 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

otherwise be able to imply a term necessary to save the contract, it may be possible to do so
on the basis of a course of dealing between the parties, as in Hillas v. Arcos.31
1.7 (b) When the parties have agreed a term covering an aspect of the transaction, but
the term is irremediably too vague or uncertain to be enforceable, there is no contract, unless
the matter is not vital. Thus, in Love & Stewart v. Instone,32 where the parties entered into an
agreement for the sale of coal “subject to strike and lockout clauses”, it was held that there was
no contract, since although it was clear that the parties intended that, in certain circumstances,
obligations otherwise imposed by the contract should be modified, it was impossible to tell
with any reasonable precision what those circumstances were, or how their obligations were
intended to be affected. A similar result was reached in Svenska Lloyd v. Niagassas,33 when a
sale of a ship was agreed “subject to usual dry-docking clause”, there being no such “usual”
clause; in Scammell v. Ouston,34 where a van was to be purchased with part of the purchase
price being “had on hire-purchase terms over a period of two years”; in Bishop & Baxter v.
Anglo-Eastern35 (“subject to war clause”); and in British Electrical v. Patley Pressings36 (“sub-
ject to force majeure conditions”). In such cases it is irrelevant that if the contract had made
no provision at all on the matter at issue, it would have been perfectly workable.
1.8 When it is possible for the court to identify with sufficient precision the terms which
the parties intended to incorporate, either by a course of dealing or by a practice of the trade,
the difficulty will be avoided. In Shamrock SS. Co. v. Storey,37 a contract to load coal “on the terms
of the usual colliery guarantee” was held enforceable, it being possible to identify with suf-
ficient certainty the terms usually contained in colliery guarantees at the loading port; and in
Nea Agrex v. Baltic Shipping38 a provision “. . . and also Paramount clause” was held effec-
tive to incorporate the unamended Hague Rules into a charter, although there were several
forms of such clause. One may be able to imply a critical term if it can enable a contract to
be sufficiently certain to be enforceable, for example as to the time of accrual of a broker’s
commission, even if not expressly stipulated.39
1.9 Where the provision agreed by the parties is not so much uncertain, but merely non-
sensical, and where the remainder of the agreement can function without it, it will be ignored.40
1.10 (c) Where a vital term is expressly left open for future negotiation and agreement, the
normal41 result is that there can be no concluded contract, as in May & Butcher v. R.,42 where
the court declined to give effect to an agreement to sell goods on terms as to price, payment
and delivery to be agreed from time to time, and in such a case the court will not enforce any

31 (1932) 43 Ll. L. Rep. 359.

32 (1917) 33 T.L.R. 475.
33 (1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 500.
34 [1941] A.C. 251.
35 [1944] K.B. 12.
36 [1953] 1 W.L.R. 280.
37 (1899) 81 L.T. 413.
38 [1976] Q.B. 933. See post, para. 85.3.
39 Devani v. Wells [2020] A.C. 129 reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeal and restricting the application
of the dictum of Lord Roskill in Scancarriers A/S v. Aotearoa International Ltd [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 419 (PC). Cf.
Strauss in (2018) L.M.C.L.Q. 473.
40 See Nicolene v. Simmonds [1953] 1 Q.B. 543; Lovelock v. Exportles [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 163.
41 But not the inevitable result: see Devani v. Wells [2020] A.C. 129 where there was no express term as to the
time of commission being earned, but one was implied.
42 [1934] 2 K.B. 17. See also Courtney v. Tolaini [1975] 1 W.L.R. 297 and MRI Trading AG v. Erdenet Mining
Corp. LLC [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 638. But cf. Hughes v. Pendragon Sabre (t/a Porsche Centre Bolton) [2016] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 311 See generally on the need for certainty MRJ Trading v. Erdenet Mining Corp [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
638 and the summary by Walker J. in Teekay Tankers v. STX Offshore & Shipbuilding [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 387
(paras 129–133).

8
 CONCLUDING A BINDING AGREEMENT 1.11

express or implied obligation to negotiate with a view to reaching agreement.43 However, when
the contract itself contains machinery for ascertaining the obligation in default of the parties’
agreement, or when it is possible to infer from the words of the contract an intention that an
objective criterion is to be applied in ascertaining the obligation, the agreement may be upheld.44
This approach is particularly appropriate in commercial dealings between parties who are familiar
with the trade in question, especially in the case where the parties have acted in the belief that
they have a binding contract.45 Thus, in Foley v. Classique Coaches,46 the Court of Appeal held
that an agreement to buy petrol at prices to be agreed from time to time was enforceable, and
meant that in default of agreement the price was to be a fair and reasonable price to be settled
in accordance with the arbitration clause in the contract. In Didymi v. Atlantic Lines,47 a time
charter provided that in the event of underperformance hire should be “equitably decreased by
an amount to be mutually agreed between owners and charterers”, and in the event of over-
performance there should be an increase of hire calculated in the same manner. The court held
the provision enforceable, since the substance of the provision was the requirement that hire
should be adjusted equitably, and the reference to the parties’ agreement was merely machinery.
1.11 There is no authority on the enforceability of those clauses sometimes found in con-
secutive voyage charters which provide for an adjustment of freight to be negotiated or agreed
by the parties in the event that changed circumstances in the future result in the infliction
of hardship on either party, but the result must depend, as in Didymi v. Atlantic Lines, upon
whether the clause imposes a sufficiently clear objective standard that is to be adopted in fix-
ing the new rate, and to which the parties’ negotiations and agreement are merely subsidiary.
Equally, there is no clear authority on the question whether, if such a clause is ineffectual,
the entire agreement is rendered unenforceable. In theory this should be the result, unless the
provision in question can be treated as collateral or severable, as in Malozzi v. Carapelli.48

43 The Scaptrade [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 425 and Walford v. Miles [1992] A.C. 128, but contrast Petromec v.
Petrolco [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 121, at paras 115–121 considering the question of an express obligation to negotiate
with associated machinery, and BBC Worldwide v. Bee Load [2007] EWHC 134 (Comm), at paras 53–54, where there
was no machinery in place to determine good faith. See the discussion of Teare J. in Shaker v. Vistajet Group Holding
S.A. [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 93, where there was an express “non-binding” clause in an agreement to negotiate in good
faith and to use reasonable endeavours, referring to Barbudev v. Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria EOOD [2012]
EWCA Civ 1341 at paras 43–46; Multiplex Constructions UK v. Cleveland Bridge UK [2006] EWHC 1341 (TCC),
at paras 633–639, and see also, in the context of agreements to negotiate in good faith, Compass Group UK and
Ireland v. Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 300. Also in Emirates Trading Agency
LLC v. Prime Mineral Exports [2015] 1 W.L.R. 1145 it was held that a good faith negotiation clause was enforceable,
and an obligation to use “all reasonable endeavours” and “best endeavours” was likewise held to be enforceable in
Jet2.com Ltd v. Blackpool Airport Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 417. In Yam Seng Pte. Ltd v. International Trade Corpora-
tion [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 526, Leggatt J. (as Lord Leggatt then was) noted that the historical hostility of English
law to a doctrine of good faith may be misplaced: but see Granger [2013] L.M.C.L.Q. 418 and Bernard Schulte v.
Nile [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 352. In Astor Management AG v. Atalaya Mining [2017] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 476 the same
judge said of the obligation of good faith, where it existed (implied in fact rather than in law), was a “modest require-
ment” and was little more than a duty to act honestly and not to act in a way calculated to frustrate the purpose of
the contract or regarded as unacceptable by reasonable and honest people: see also MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co
v. Cottonex Anstalt [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 494 esp. para. 45 and Foxton (2017) L.M.C.L.Q. 360. In so-called relational
contracts such a term may be easier to imply: see Sheikh Tahnoon Bin Saeed v. Kent [2018] EWHC 333 (Comm) esp.
at para. 173 (a joint venture type contract). A voyage charter is unlikely to be so categorised, although it does contain
elements of collaboration and cooperation.
44 See Hughes v. Pendragon Sabre (t/a Porsche Centre Bolton) [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 311 where the court was
untroubled by the fact that the machinery was not express. See also amendments supplementing incomplete terms:
AstraZeneca v. Albemale [2011] EWHC 1574 (Comm).
45 See Mamidoil v. Okta [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 76, 89 (C.A.), where the relevant principles are set out and
Barbudev v. Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm).
46 [1934] 2 K.B. 1. This approach is likely only to be extended in the light of Devani v. Wells [2020] A.C. 129.
47 [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 108. For the distinction between substance and machinery, see also Sudbrook Trading
Estate v. Eggleton [1983] 1 A.C. 444 (H.L.).
48 [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 407.

9
1.12 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

The parties’ intention to contract

1.12 Since it is primarily for the parties to determine whether, and at what stage, they wish
their agreement to have legal effect, it follows that if the parties themselves do not intend to
become legally bound until a particular term has been agreed, or a formal contract has been
signed, the court will give effect to that intention.49 Since a mutual intention to contract is
required, it is necessary that both parties should intend to be contractually bound.50 However,
the private intentions of either party are irrelevant, except insofar as they were, or should have
been, known to the other. In Storer v. Manchester C.C,51 a case about whether a contract was
concluded by an exchange of letters, Lord Denning M.R. said,
In contracts you do not look into the actual intent in a man’s mind. You look at what he said and
did. A contract is formed when there is, to all outward appearances, a contract. A man cannot get
out of a contract by saying “I did not intend to contract” if by his words he has done so. His inten-
tion is to be found only in the outward expression which his letters convey. If they show a concluded
contract, that is enough.

Thus, parties can so conduct themselves as to be precluded from denying the existence of
a binding contract.52
1.13 In ascertaining what in fact the parties’ intentions were as to the existence of a
contract (but not for the purpose of construing the terms agreed), the whole of their negotia-
tions must be looked at,53 because although the parties’ communications at one stage of the
negotiations may create the impression that complete agreement had been reached, it may be
clear from other communications that there were other conditions of the intended contract,
going beyond those expressed in their letters, which were still in a state of negotiation only,
and without agreement upon which the parties had no intention of concluding any legally
binding agreement.54 However, once it is clear that agreement has been reached on all mat-
ters regarded by the parties as essential at the time, the fact that further negotiations ensue
is irrelevant.55
1.14 In a commercial context, the onus of demonstrating that there was a lack of intention
to create legal relations lies on the party asserting it, and it is a heavy one.56 Where the par-
ties have indicated no contrary intention, it will normally be inferred that they intended their
agreement to become legally binding once they had reached final agreement on all “essential”

49 Goodwood Investments v. Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (my Palladium) [2018] EWHC 1056 (Comm). Cf.
a clause providing for a review of a draft charter and logical amendments: Toptip v. Mercuria [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
316 (Singapore C.A.).
50 Ignazio Messina & Co v. Polskie Linie Oceoniczne [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 566. Cf. Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar
Istihsal v. VSC Steel Co. Ltd [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 479 esp. para. 90. There is a marked difference between express
contracts and implied contracts; the burden of proving the intention to create legal relations in the case of implied
contracts is the reverse of that in express contracts: see Brown v. Innovators One [2012] EWHC 1321 (Comm), at
paras 1014 et seq. and Baird Textiles v. Marks & Spencer [2001] EWCA Civ 274, at paras 61 and 62.
51 [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1403, 1408. Lord Clarke expressed a similar principle in RTS Flexible v. Molkerei Alois
Muller [2010] 1 W.L.R. 753 at para. 45 and quoted above at paragraph 1.5.
52 See Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. v. Texas Commerce International Bank [1982] Q.B. 84; The
Vistafjord [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243; ING Bank v. Ros Roca [2012] 1 W.L.R. 472; and see below under “Subject to
Contract”. This may be a particular explanation of Toptip v. Mercuria [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 316.
53 Goodwood Investments v. Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (my Palladium) [2018] EWHC 1056 (Comm).
54 See Hussey v. Horne-Payne (1879) 4 App. Cas. 311; Hofflinghouse v. C-Trade (The Intra Transporter) [1985]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 158, [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132; and C.P.C. v. C.T.M. (The CPC Gallia) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68.
55 Perry v. Suffields [1916] 2 Ch. 187; Grace Shipping v. Sharp [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 207, 210.
56 Barbudev v. Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria EOOD [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 963, at para. 30, per
Aikens L.J.

10
 CONCLUDING A BINDING AGREEMENT 1.16

matters, without the need for execution of a formal document: and this is so even though the
parties contemplated, or expressly agreed, that a formal document would later be executed.57
1.15 Thus, in the typical charterparty case the parties contemplate that a formal charter-
party will be drawn up and signed, but intend that the fixture will become binding as soon as
complete agreement in the sense already described has been reached. In the absence of any
contrary indication, such as the use of the expression “subject to details” (as to which see the
following) the mere fact that, in drawing up the formal document, certain matters of detail
may have to be ironed out does not prevent a binding contract from coming into existence,
where the parties do not themselves intend that agreement upon these details would be a
prerequisite of a binding contract.58 In some cases, however, it may be clear from the parties’
correspondence,59 or from the terms of the contemplated agreement,60 that the parties did not
intend their agreement to become legally binding until formally executed. Certain expressions
in common use, which have been held to prevent or postpone the formation of a binding
contract, are considered below.

“Subject to contract”61
1.16 These words, although not in common use in charterparty negotiations, are frequently
used in other contexts, and their effect is to negative any immediate contractual intention.62 In
Generator Developments Ltd v. Lidl UK GmbH 63 Lewison L.J. said this (at para. 79):
. . . The meaning of that phrase is well-known. What it means is that (a) neither party intends to be
bound either in law or in equity unless and until a formal contract is made; and (b) each party
reserves the right to withdraw until such time as a binding contract is made. It follows, therefore,
that in negotiating on that basis [both parties] took the commercial risk that one or other of them
might back out of the proposed transaction . . . In short a “subject to contract” agreement is no
agreement at all. . . .

However, the correct inference from the parties’ subsequent dealings may be that they
intended to dispense with the “subject” and to bind themselves without the necessity for a formal
contract. Thus, in Howard Marine v. Ogden,64 a reservation in an offer for hire of barges,

57 See Rossiter v. Miller (1878) 3 App. Cas. 1124; The Blankenstein [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 522, [1985] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 93; Wilson Smithett v. Bangladesh Sugar [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 378 (offer accepted by letter of intent).
58 See Granit v. Benship [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 526.
59 See Soc. Portuguesa de Navios Tanques v. Polaris [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 71, 407; Zarati SS. Co. v. Frames
Tours [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 278.
60 See Okura v. Navara [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 561, [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 537.
61 See the useful summary by Foxton J. in Nautica v. Trafigura (The Leonidas) [2020] EWHC 1986 (Comm) at
paras 43–54 discussed in DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v. Gemini Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. [2022] EWHC 181
(Comm).
62 See Soc. Portuguesa de Navios Tanques v. Polaris in the Court of Appeal, at p. 417; and Zarati SS. Co. v.
Frames Tours, at p. 291; Ignazio Messina v. Polskie Linie Oceaniczne [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 566 (subject to appropri-
ate amendments to the NSF form), but cf. RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v. Molenski Alois Muller GmbH & Co. [2010] 1
W.L.R. See the particularly difficult facts in Arbitration 7/13 [2013] L.M.L.N. (April) 872.
63 [2018] EWCA Civ 396. The same applies to an agreement which is stated to be “subject to the board approval”
of one or both parties: Goodwood Investments v. Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (my Palladium) [2018] EWHC
1056 (Comm). In Chudley v. Clydesdale Bank [2019] 3 W.L.R. 661 the Court of Appeal held that the burden of
showing that what was an apparently binding and unconditional contract was in fact subject to a condition precedent,
which had to be fulfilled before it had contractual effect, is on the party alleging that there was such a condition
precedent.
64 [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 334. See also Oceanografia S.A. v. D.S.N.D. Subsea A.S. (The Botnica) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 37, where the expression “subject to signing of mutually agreeable contract terms and conditions” was held, as
a matter of construction, to prevent the formation of a binding contract until signature of such terms, but was held to
have been waived.

11
1.17 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

that it was “subject to . . . charterparty” was held to have been implicitly withdrawn when the
barges were delivered without a formal charter having been signed, but contrast A-G of Hong
Kong v. Humphreys Estate (Queen’s Gardens) Ltd,65 where one party made it plain that he
intended to retain the right to resile after preparation for performance had begun. In Investec
Bank (UK) Ltd v. Zulman,66 the Court of Appeal made the point that the presence or absence
of the phrase “subject to contract” is not necessarily determinative and the “surest guides to the
parties’ intentions are usually the terms of the draft documents passing between them”.67

“Subject to details” and similar expressions

1.17 These words have been held to negative any intention to be legally bound unless and
until full details are agreed.
Negotiations to charter The Junior K were summarised in a telex sent by the owners’ brokers which
was headed: “Confirm telcons here recap fixture sub details.” The telex then set out the terms agreed,
which covered the name and description of the ship, quantity of cargo, loading and discharging
ports, laydays, demurrage, freight and other matters, and concluded “Sub Dets Gencon Cp”. The
charterers then withdrew and there were no further negotiations. The owners said there was a con-
cluded contract and claimed damages.
Steyn J. held that no contract had been concluded. Although all objectively essential terms had
been agreed, the expression “subject to details” meant that the parties did not intend to be legally
bound until the details had been agreed. The parties cannot have envisaged that the Gencon form
would automatically supply all the necessary details, first because the form was often amended by
the parties, and secondly because the form itself provided for various options (e.g., Clause 6) as to
which the parties had as yet reached no agreement.
(Star Steamship Society v. Beogradska Plovidba (The Junior K) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 583; see
also The Solholt [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 574, 576, where Staughton J. expressed a similar view
(obiter) on the meaning of the expression “fixed subject to details”.)

1.18 In The CPC Gallia,68 Potter J. considered the effect of the words “Conline booking
note – subject details/logical amendments”. He held, following the cases mentioned above, that
a formal contract was to be drawn up on the Conline booking note form, but that there was
to be no binding contract until agreement had been reached on the detailed provisions; these
might include not only amendments to the form which followed logically from the matters
which had already been specifically agreed, but any other amendments which resulted from
the parties’ continuing negotiations. The addition of the words “logical amendments” did not
therefore limit the general and well-known effect of the words “subject to details”. Similar
expressions were held to preclude the existence of a binding contract in Ignatio Messina v.
Polish Ocean Lines69 and Thoresen & Co. v. Fathom Marine70 but “Subject review and logical
alterations” did not in Toptip v. Mercuria.71
1.19 The effect of the words may be displaced by subsequent conduct which shows a clear
intention to dispense with them, and it will be displaced by actual agreement on the details,

65 [1987] A.C. 114.

66 [2010] EWCA Civ 536.
67 The principle, and many of the relevant authorities, are further discussed in the judgment of Beatson J. in
Tahar Benourad v. Compass Group plc [2010] EWHC 1882, at para. 107.
68 CPC v. CTM [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68. See also Lond. Arb. 18/06 (2006) 702 L.M.L.N. 3.
69 [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 566 “otherwise terms of [Saleform] subject to appropriate amendments to be mutually
agreed . . . [and] sub further minor details”.
70 [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 622 “otherwise basis [Saleform] sub details suitably amended to reflect also the above
terms”.
71 [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 316 (Singapore Court of Appeal).

12
 CONCLUDING A BINDING AGREEMENT 1.21

even in the absence of a formal contract. In The Nissos Samos,72 Leggatt J. expressed the view
that “‘subject details’ is a well-known expression in broking practice which is intended to
entitle either party to resile from the contract if in good faith either party is not satisfied with
the details as discussed between them”. However, in The Junior K, Steyn J. rejected an argu-
ment, based upon this passage, that there was a legally enforceable obligation to negotiate in
good faith on the details and the same lack of success was repeated in Rosalina Investments v.
New Balance Athletic Shoes.73

“Subject to logical amendments/alterations”

1.20 Fixture negotiations often provide for the use of a standard form of charter,74 or a
form drawn up for use on a previous fixture, “subject to logical amendments” or “alterations”.75
Whilst there is no decisive English authority on the meaning of such expressions standing
alone, there is no reason to hold that they prevent the existence of a binding contract. Their
effect, unlike “subject to details”, is not to permit either party to raise for negotiation any
matters of detail which he wishes, and the only amendments permissible are those which fol-
low logically and inevitably from the terms agreed, and thus can be determined objectively.
In The CPC Gallia,76 it seems to have been assumed that if the words “subject to logical
amendments” had stood alone they would not have negatived an intention to contract, and in
The Mercedes Envoy,77 where the fixture telex referred to a particular charterparty “with logical
alterations”, it was not suggested that this prevented a binding contract from being concluded.
In Toptip v. Mercuria78 the Court of Appeal of Singapore held that a fixture which was subject
to review of a pro forma charterparty with logical amendments amounted to a binding contract
with a condition subsequent which was to be objectively applied; the party later denying the
existence of a binding fixture had, however, done nothing in the substantial period of time
between receiving the pro forma and repudiating the charter and had indeed at one point tried
to perform it.

“Subject to survey”
1.21 In Astra Trust v. Adams,79 Megaw J. held that an agreement to purchase a yacht
“subject to a satisfactory survey” was not intended to be legally binding, since those words
indicated that the purchaser was not prepared to commit himself to a deal until he had seen a
survey report. If the agreement had been legally enforceable, he would have held that there
was no obligation upon the purchaser to act reasonably in determining whether to proceed with
the purchase in the light of the report; “satisfactory” meant “satisfactory to the purchaser”
whose only obligation was to act in good faith.80

72 Samos v. Eckhardt [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 378, 385.

73 [2018] EWHC 1014 (Q.B.).
74 There is usually no difficulty in identifying the intended form, but see Lond. Arb. 3/96 (L.M.L.N. 426), where
it was held that “LONDON FOR[M] CP” was a reference to the Tanker Voyage Charterparty.
75 Ignazio Messina v. Polskie Linie Oceaniczne [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 566.
76 [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68. See also Lond. Arb. 12/96 (L.M.L.N. 445), where the tribunal took a strict view of
the scope of the amendments authorised by these words.
77 Hanjin Shipping v. Zenith Chartering [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 559.
78 [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 316; see also Nautica v. Trafigura (The Leonidas) [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 165 at paras
47–53 and 69–73 and DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v. Gemini Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. [2022].
79 [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81. For the same principles applied to horse sales, see Habton Farms v. Nimmo [2004]
Q.B. 1, at pp. 10 et seq. and see also Schweppe v. Harper [2008] EWCA Civ 442, esp. para. 70.
80 For a helpful review of what is embraced within a contractual term of “good faith”, see per Nicklin J. in
Health & Care Management v. Physiotherapy Network [2018] EWHC 869 (Q.B.) at paras 108 and 109. The UNIDROIT

13
1.22 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

1.22 That case was distinguished in The Merak.81 By an agreement contained in an exchange
of telexes a ship was sold “subject to superficial inspection” and on the terms of the Norwe-
gian Saleform. The Saleform terms require the buyer to pay a deposit and to inspect the ship,
although the buyer thereafter has an unfettered right not to proceed with the purchase if he
does not wish to do so. It was held that there was a binding contract, the intention being to
incorporate the Saleform terms relating to inspection.

“Subject to stem”
1.23 This term means that the contract is conditional upon the charterer obtaining cargo
for the agreed loading period, such that failure to obtain it relieves both parties of their obliga-
tions conditionally agreed. It is not the availability of cargo in general but the obtaining of it
that is important and, in the absence of words or circumstances indicating otherwise, there is
no obligation on the charterer to use reasonable efforts to obtain a cargo.
Two charterparties were concluded on 2 June “subject to stem,82 same to be confirmed in London
not later than [under one charter] . . . the 4th inst. [under the other] . . . the 7th inst.”. The charterers
did not obtain cargoes or give confirmation, and the question arose whether they could rely on the
“subjects” if their failure to obtain a stem was attributable to a failure to use reasonable efforts.
Rowlatt J. held that the term meant that the parties agreed that the entire matter was in abeyance
unless and until the stem was duly confirmed within the designated time. He thought it would be
improper, having regard to the shortness of the designated time and the situation of the parties, to
read in the qualification that the contract should be binding unless the charterers proved that they
had taken all due measures to obtain a stem.
(Kokusai Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha v. Johnson (1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 434. See also The John S.
Darbyshire (below) and Nautica v. Trafigura (The Leonidas) [2020] EWHC 1986 (Comm), later at
para. 56 and DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v. Gemini Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. [2022] EWHC 181
(Comm).)

There is a difference between a “subject” which is a precondition of the contract becoming

binding and what has been called a “performance condition” which does not prevent the con-
tract from coming into existence but is a condition of the obligation of a party to perform it,
such as “subject to export licence”. The distinction is often regarded as dependent on whether
a party or a third party has to do what is required.83 Where a “subject” is only resolved by
one or both of the parties removing or “lifting” the subject, rather than occurring automatically
on the occurrence of some external event such as the granting of a permission or licence, the
“subject” is likely to be a precondition rather than a performance condition.
Negotiations for a voyage charter of the Leonidas reached an advanced stage but there were “sub-
jects”, namely stem, suppliers and receivers’ approval and management approval. The critical one
was the timed “subject suppliers’ approval” at Statia/Aruba; the charterers had not then obtained the
approval of the supplying terminals at either of those two ports. The shipowners argued that it was
a performance condition such that the charterers were obliged to exercise reasonable endeavours to
obtain the suppliers’ approval and failed so to do with the result that they were in breach of charter
and liable for damages.
Foxton J. held there was no concluded binding contract. He said (paras 61 and 62): “I prefer
Trafigura’s contention that the phrase encompasses all those approvals which the charterer

concept of “good faith” cannot justify interpreting a contract beyond what had been agreed nor for re-writing it:
Kahan-Ji SAL v. Kout Food Group [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 269 (para. 66) and per HHJ Pelling in Taqa Bratani Limited
v. Rockrose [2020] EWHC 58 (Comm).
81 Varverakis v. Cia Nav. Artico [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 250.
82 In Nautica v. Trafigura (The Leonidas) [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 165 at para. 12 of his judgment, Foxton J. said
it was common ground that the word “stem” was an acronym for “subject to enough material”.
83 See Nautica v. Trafigura (The Leonidas) [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 165 at paras 47–54.

14
 CONCLUDING A BINDING AGREEMENT 1.25

commercially wishes to obtain on the supply side (with the Receivers’ Approval Subject having an
equivalent meaning so far as the delivery side is concerned), and it can only be said to have been
satisfied when the charterer lifts or waives the term. – . . . The conclusion I have reached as to the
true scope of the Suppliers’ Approval Subject provides further strong support for the classification
of this phrase as a pre-condition and not a performance condition. It is for the charterer to determine
who its contractual supplier will be. It may be in discussions with more than one potential supplier
at the same time or in quick succession, or have a choice between loading a cargo it already owns
or buying cargo in from a third party. In these decisions, a wide range of commercial considerations
will be in play. It would be wholly unreal against that background to suggest that the charterer was
under an obligation to the owner to obtain the suppliers’ approval from ‘whoever the defendant
intended to be the suppliers’ or ‘the approval of the supplier who they said they were waiting for
the approval of’ when the subject was imposed (which was [the shipowners’] submission if I rejected
his construction of the Suppliers’ Approval Subject). This would constrain the charterers’ choice of
supplier, hinder its ability to ‘change horses’ during a negotiation and commit it to obtaining the
approval of a particular supplier even after negotiations with that supplier had broken down and the
‘supplier’ had no reason to engage with requests that it approve a vessel to lift a cargo which it was
not going to supply.”
(Nautica v. Trafigura (The Leonidas) [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 165. He did consider, however, that
if the “subject” had been a performance condition, then the charterer would have had an implied
obligation to exercise reasonable efforts to secure a stem to prove he did.84 As to the damages
recoverable in such a case, see para. 21.43 below. See also DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v. Gemini
Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. [2022] EWHC 181 (Comm) on “subject shippers/receivers” approval on
an arbitration agreement in a charter fixture.)

The “subject” in that case had a time limit for its lifting. Without such a limit it is submitted
that it is available to the charterer to lift within a reasonable time, such that the owner cannot
treat the charter as ineffective through its non-fulfilment until either the charterer says the stem
is not available or he leaves an unreasonable time to elapse.

“Subject to satisfactory completion of two trial voyages”

1.24 These words have also been held to negative contractual intent:
An agreement was made for the time charter of a ship “subject to satisfactory completion of two
trial voyages”. A separate voyage charter was entered into for those two voyages and the charterers,
who were starch manufacturers, paid for a compressed air system to be installed on board the ship
in order to activate the starch. On the first voyage the system failed to activate the starch, and on
the second voyage the ship scraped her keel on a lock at the loading port, and the compressed air
activation failed to reach the corners of the holds.
Mocatta J. held that the words indicated that the charterers wished to consider the results of the
two voyages before committing themselves further in any way, and that there was no concluded
contract. He also held, following Astra Trust v. Adams (above), that even if there was a binding
contract, the charterers were obliged to accept the vessel only if, in their honest opinion based on
the technical and navigational aspects of the two voyages, the results were satisfactory.
(Albion Sugar v. William Tankers (The John S. Darbyshire) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 457; see also
Howard v. Knight [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 364 (“subject to satisfactory running trials”).)

“Fixed in good faith”

1.25 In The Mercedes Envoy,85 the owners, in view of the possibility that the vessel might
not be able to perform the projected charter because of heavy weather damage, introduced into

84 Obiter in The Leonidas (above) at paras 80, 82 and 86.

85 Hanjin Shipping v. Zenith Chartering [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 559. See also para. 1.10 above but cf. Winter in
LMAA Law Review July 2007 p18.

15
1.26 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

the final charter negotiations the term “We are fixed in good faith”. It was not suggested that
these words in themselves prevented the conclusion of a binding contract. The court declined
to decide what effect, if any, they had upon owners’ liability for failure to perform the charter.
The cases referred to in paragraph 1.10 above probably do not have an impact on this term.

Other “subjects”
1.26 In all the cases discussed above, other than The Merak, the words “subject to . . .”
have been held to have negative and contractual intent, either because they did so directly
(“subject to contract”) or because they indicated that one or both parties wished to form their
own opinion, in the light of the future event, as to whether to proceed. Another “subject”
occasionally encountered in charter negotiations is “subject to board approval” or “subject to
review”,86 but the effect of this expression must also in each base be properly construed so as
to negative contractual intent until approval has been obtained. Where, however, the “subject”
is some event outside either party’s control or opinion (e.g., “subject to removal of embargo
on shipment of wheat within 14 days” or “subject to supplier’s approval”),87 the conclusion is
more likely to be that each party is bound, and must perform if the condition is fulfilled, fail-
ing which the contract lapses. There may also be cases where one or other party is obliged to
use reasonable endeavours to fulfil the condition (e.g., “subject to export licence”88 or “subject
to P. & I. Club permission”). A submission on these lines was rejected in Kokusai KKK v.
Johnson.89 However, whether or not a charterer has obtained (or could have obtained) a stem
of a type and on terms which could be regarded as satisfactory is very much a question of his
own personal view, whereas such considerations hardly operate with more simple and clear-cut
“subjects”.

LAW GOVERNING THE CHARTER

1.27 The question of whether a valid charter has been concluded, and the further ques-
tions described in paragraphs 1.47–1.50, are determined in accordance with the system of law
which governs the charter. This has in the past been called the “proper law” of the charter,90
and is now often called the “applicable law”, but in the discussion which follows the term
“governing law” will be used. The governing law of a charterparty concluded before 17
December 2009 was determined in accordance with the Rome Convention (“Rome I”)91 as
incorporated into U.K. law by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (“the Convention”)
and, after that date, it must be ascertained in accordance with Regulation (EC) 593/2008 (“the

86 Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd v. Americas Bulk Transport Ltd (The Pacific Champ) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 320. See also Toptip Holding Mercuria Energy Trading (The Pan Gold) [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 316 (C.A.
Singapore).
87 The Leonidas [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 105, DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v. Gemini Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd.
[2022] EWHC.
88 See Brauer v. James Clark [1952] 2 All E.R. 497, 501.
89 (1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 434. See para. 1.23 above.
90 The common law for the determination of the proper law of a contract is of less significance now for the reasons
stated below, but it may not be wholly irrelevant: see, e.g., The Dolphina [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 304 and Sulamerica
S.A. v. Enesaa Engelharia S.A. [2013] 1 W.L.R. 102, in relation to the determination of the proper law of an arbitration
agreement, which agreements are excluded from the Regulation by Art. 1.2(e). The common law is set out in Chitty
on Contracts, 33rd edn paras 30.005 et seq. The judgment of Tomlinson L.J. in Lupofresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries
[2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444 is an excellent example of the analytical process now to be followed.
91 Contrast the Rome Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, “Rome II”, which has
applied since 11 January 2009 and is concerned with non-contractual relations.

16
 LAW GOVERNING THE CHARTER 1.28

Regulation”), which was a revision of the Convention and was, until Brexit, directly applicable
without legislation and, even after Brexit, the same principles will apply.92 There is in any
event much common ground between the Regulation and the previous English common law.93
The Regulation applies in any situation involving a choice between the laws of different
states.94 Section 3 of the 1990 Act provided that the Giuliano–Lagarde Report95 may be con-
sidered in ascertaining the meaning or effect of any provision of the Convention and it will
still provide valuable guidance.

Governing law chosen by the parties

1.28 The basic rule is that where the parties have chosen the governing law,96 their choice
will prevail.97 Preamble (11) of Rome I is that the freedom to choose the applicable law should
be one of the cornerstones of conflict of law rules in matters of contractual obligations and,
in the section entitled “Uniform Rules”, Article 3.1 of Rome I provides (in terms materially
similar to its equivalent in the Convention):
1. A contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties. The choice shall be made expressly
or clearly demonstrated by the terms of the contract or the circumstances of the case. By their choice
the parties can select the law applicable to the whole or a part only of the contract.

The Article, therefore, permits either an express choice or a choice which can be inferred from
the terms of the contract and the circumstances of the case, provided that it is demonstrated
“clearly”.98 This is limited by certain mandatory rules as provided by Article 3 3(3), that is the
fact that the parties have chosen a foreign law shall not, where all the other elements relevant

92 The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit)
Regulations 2019 (the “Regulations”) were approved by Parliament in February 2019. Under the Regulation, the U.K.
continues to apply the rules set out in Rome I and Rome II to determine the proper law of the contract and the law
governing non-contractual obligations.
93 For the rules applicable to charterparties made before the Act came into force (i.e., those made on or before
1 April 1991), see the 2nd edition. For rules applicable before 17 December 2009, see the provisions of the Rome
Convention 1980, which was given the force of law by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, see the 3rd edition.
As Andrew Smith J. noted in Star Reefers Pool Inc v. JFC Group Ltd [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 215, one must be wary
of adopting constructions of the Regulations deriving from previous English law concepts, but there may be a similar-
ity of outcome on the facts of many cases. In Singapore, where the common law prevails, the Court of Appeal in
BNA v. BNB [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 55, at paras 44 to 48 endorsed the appropriate framework for determining the law
applicable to an arbitration agreement as the three-step test: had the parties expressly chosen the law of the arbitration
agreement; in the absence of an express choice, had the parties made an implied choice; and in the absence of any
express or implied choice, with what system of law did the arbitration agreement have its closest and most real con-
nection? It is hard to see how this is materially at odds with Rome I.
94 See Art. 1.1. For the common law approach to the discernment of the governing law, see most recently The
Dolphina [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 304.
95 Report on the Rome Convention by Professor Mario Giuliano and Professor Paul Lagarde, reproduced in
Official Journal of the Communities (O.J. 1980 No. C282/1). The Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Commence-
ment No. 2) Order 2004, S.I. 2004/3448 enables references to be made to the E.C.J. for interpretations and rulings.
96 Article 2 provides that any law specified by the Regulation shall be applied whether or not it is the law of a
Member State of the EU, but it must be the law of a country and not some non-national system. Contrast the ability
of parties to an arbitration agreement to stipulate otherwise: Halpern v. Halpern [2008] Q.B. 195. The Supreme Court
has considered the question of the governing law of an arbitration agreement, which is not within Rome I: see Enka
Insaat ve Sanayi v. OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449.
97 Where English law permits a claim to be based in contract or in tort, it would seem that the contractual claim
should be governed by the applicable law as determined by the Regulation but the tortious claim should be governed
by the so-called Rome II Regulation (EC) 864/2007.
98 See for an example of the analysis the judgment of Julia Dias Q.C. in GDE LLC v. Anglia Autoflow Ltd [2020]
1 W.L.R. 2381, a case about the express and implied choice of law governing an agency agreement in which she
considered Arts 3 and 4 of Rome I and the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990.

17
1.29 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

to the situation at the time of the choice are connected with one country only, prejudice the
application of rules of the law of that country which cannot be derogated from the contract.99
1.29 The principles embodied in Article 3 are very similar, if not identical, to those which
applied under English law for the determination of the proper law of the contract before the
Convention was adopted,100 and references will therefore be made to some of the pre-Convention
English decisions in discussing its effect. It is not necessary that the chosen law should have
any connection with the contract, subject only to the qualifications described below relating
to the application of overriding mandatory rules.101 Whilst preamble (13) to Rome I provides
that the Regulation does not preclude parties from incorporating a non-state body of law, a
choice of “general principles of maritime law” would not, it is submitted, amount to a choice
within the meaning of Article 3.1. Before the coming into force of Rome I it was possible that
such a choice might receive effect provided that the parties intended to create legal relations
and that the selected body of rules or principles was not so uncertain as to render the agree-
ment unenforceable.102 It is submitted that the Regulation has not affected the validity of this
approach under a contract governed by English law.103

1. Express choice of governing law

1.30 The great majority of charterparties contain a provision that specifies the governing
law, either in a printed clause in the standard form on which the charter is based, or in an
additional clause. Where the charter purports to contain an express choice, difficulties are likely
to arise only where the effect of the provision is unclear. Even in such a case it is usually
possible to ascertain the parties’ intention with sufficient certainty from the words of the
clause,104 or the clause may rebut an inference which might otherwise be drawn as to the law
which the parties intended.

A tonnage contract for vessels to be nominated, and involving several voyages between Tunisian
ports, was entered into between French owners and Tunisian charterers. The contract was based on
a printed form of charter, which provided (Clause 13) that the contract was to be governed by “the
laws of the flag of the vessel carrying the goods”. Typed additions to the form included a clause
referring disputes to arbitration in London, and a provision (Clause 28) stating that shipments were
to be effected in tonnage owned, controlled or chartered by the French owners. At the time when
the contract was concluded it was contemplated that the owners would perform the voyages primarily
in ships which they owned, but in the event, of the six cargoes carried under the contract only one
was carried in a French ship. A dispute arose over whether the contract had been frustrated, and the
owners contended that the proper law was French law; the charterers, relying on the London arbitra-
tion clause, contended that it was English.

99 The issue of whether “all the other elements relevant to the situation at the time of the choice are connected
with one country only” is not limited to a consideration of circumstances of the contract itself but extends more widely
to a consideration of all the circumstances of the case: Banco Santander Totta S.A. v. Compania Carris [2017] 1
W.L.R. 1323 applied in Dexia Crediop v. Communie di Prato [2017] EWCA Civ 428.
100 See Egon Oldendorff v. Libera Corporation [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 380 and Enka Insaat ve Sanayi v. OOO
“Insurance Company Chubb” [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449. Cf. Ulusoy Denizcilik AS v. Cofco Global Harvest (Zhangji-
ang) Trading Co Ltd (The Ulusoy-11) [2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 177 where Bryan J. followed The Joker [2021] Lloyd’s
Rep. Plus 4 in applying the apparently chosen law to the determination of its effect.
101 In Art. 9 of the Regulation, broadly encompassing public interests (political, social or economic), illegality
and mandatory forum rules.
102 See Deutsche Schachtbau v. S.I.T. [1990] 1 A.C. 295, 312–316 (C.A.), reversed on another ground, ibid. 323.
Cf. Orion v. Belfort [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 257.
103 But see Shamil v. Beximco [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1784, 1798 (Sharia law).
104 See, e.g., Star Reefers Pool Inc. v. JFC Group Ltd [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 215.

18
 LAW GOVERNING THE CHARTER 1.31

The majority of the House of Lords held that Clause 13, read with Clause 28, indicated with
sufficient clarity that the parties intended French law to govern. The minority, who did not consider
that any effective express choice of law had been made, nevertheless held that French law was the
proper law because (per Lord Reid) the contract had its closest and most real connection with French
law or (per Lord Wilberforce) it was to be inferred from the terms of the contract and the circum-
stances of the case that the parties intended French law to govern. The arbitration clause was an
indication that the parties intended English law to govern, but it was not conclusive and was over-
ridden by the other factors.
(Cie. Tunisienne v. Cie. d’Armement [1971] A.C. 572, as to the relevance of which now see Lupo-
fresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444 and in relation to arbitration agreements
see Enka Insaat ve Sanayi v. OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449 (SC).)

By a similar process of construction it has been held that a provision that a bill of lading
should be “construed in accordance with English law”105 or that a charter should be “subject
to British law”106 meant that the governing law should be English law. In the cases referred to
above, decided before the Rome Convention came into force, the courts applied ordinary
English law principles of construction in determining whether there was an effective express
choice of law.107 Under Rome I the existence and reality of the parties’ consent to the choice
of the applicable law is normally determined by what was once called the putative proper law.
Article 3.5 provides that the existence and validity of the consent of the parties as to the choice
of the applicable law shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Articles 10, 11
and 13, and Article 10 provides that the existence and validity of any term of a contract shall
be determined “by the law which would govern it under this Regulation if the contract term
were valid”, but if it would be unreasonable to determine the question by reference to that
law, a party may rely on the law of the country where he habitually resides to show that he
did not consent to the choice of law.108 Subject to these specific provisions, it was held that,
in applying the Convention, the court should adopt “a broad convention based approach not
constrained by national rules of construction”109 and the same will be overwhelmingly true of
the Regulation.

“Floating” governing law clauses

1.31 Since a contract cannot come into existence in a legal vacuum, in a number of cases
decided before the Convention came into force the English courts have expressed the view that
a clause which permits the proper law to “float” until it is fixed by a future event or at the option
of one of the parties cannot receive effect. In The Iran Vojdan,110 Bingham J. refused to give

105 Vita Food Products v. Unus Shipping [1939] A.C. 277, 298.
106 The Laertis [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 613, where the provision in question was contained in a London arbitration
clause.
107 See Compagnie Tunisienne de Navigation v. Cie. d’Armement [1971] A.C. 572, 603.
108 See Art. 10.2, which applies whether the alleged choice is express or “demonstrated with reasonable certainty
from the terms of the contract and the circumstances of the case”. In Egon Oldendorff v. Libera Corporation [1995]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 64 and Horn Line v. Panamericana Formas e Impresos [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 44 it was held that the
court should adopt a dispassionate internationally minded approach, rather than the approach of either of the rival
legal systems, in deciding whether it would be unreasonable to apply the putative proper law to determine the existence
and reality of the parties’ choice of law: see Enka Insaat ve Sanayi v. OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” [2020] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 449 (esp. para. 31) and Ulusoy Denizcilik AS v. Cofco Global Harvest (Zhangjiang) Trading Co Ltd
(The Ulusoy-11) [2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 177 where Bryan J. followed The Joker [2021] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 4 in applying
the apparently chosen law to the determination of its effect.
109 Egon Oldendorff v. Libera Corporation [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 380, 387; Samcrete v. Land Rover Exports
[2002] EWCA Civ 2019. See below.
110 [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 380, 385.

19
1.32 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

effect to a clause in a bill of lading which conferred upon the carrier the option to select Iranian,
German or English law as the law governing the contract. The judge held that the validity of the
clause was to be determined by German law as the law with which the contract had its closest
and most real connection111 and, therefore, the law which would govern in the absence of an
effective choice, but he also expressed the view, following The Armar,112 that the clause was
invalid under English law. However, there is no objection to an agreement for the variation of
the chosen governing law,113 or a “fall-back” choice of law which is to take effect if the primary
choice is unenforceable.114 It would follow that a provision that any suit against the carrier shall
be brought in the country where he has his principal place of business, and that the law of that
country shall apply,115 would have to be construed as referring to the place of business at the
date of concluding the contract; if it referred to the place of business at the date of bringing the
suit it could be objectionable as a provision for a floating proper law.116
1.32 However, Rome I contains no provisions which invalidate such clauses, and Article
3.2 expressly permits the parties to agree to vary the governing law. The view has therefore
been expressed that the pre-Convention English law decisions are no longer applicable, and
that a “floating proper law” clause is effective; unless and until the governing law is identified
in accordance with the provisions of the clause, the governing law is that prescribed by Article
4.1, namely, the law of the country with which the contract is most closely connected or perhaps
Article 5. There are undoubtedly attractions in such a view. However, it might be said with
equal force that Article 3.2 permits parties to agree that an applicable law shall be “other than
that which previously governed it”, and that presumes both a fixed initial applicable law and
a positive agreement to vary it. Most of the clauses of the type considered earlier purport to
operate retrospectively, as if the law identified under the clause had been the chosen law from
the beginning, and there are difficulties in allowing a post-contractual governing law to validate
a contract, or a contractual term, which was invalid under its governing law at the time when it
was made. Article 3.2 provides no solution to these difficulties, and the language of Article 4.2
and 4.4117 demonstrates that the Regulation recognises the importance of identifying the proper
law at the time when the contract is made. The prevailing view is that a floating proper law
clause is effective under the Regulation,118 but the question is not free from doubt and would
benefit from clarification at appellate level.

2. Choice of law “clearly demonstrated by the terms of the contract or

the circumstances of the case”
1.33 This is the second ground upon which the parties may be held to have made an effec-
tive choice of the governing law.119 If it is to apply, it must be possible to infer from the relevant

111 See Enka Insaat ve Sanayi v. OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449 (esp. paras and
156–169).
112 [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 450. Similar views were expressed in E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Agnew [1987] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 585, 592; and in Star Shipping v. CNFTC (The Star Texas) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445 (all C.A.).
113 Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd v. Hestia Holdings Ltd [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 121 (under the Contracts
(Applicable Law) Act 1990). This happened in Yemgas FZCO v. Superior Pescadoores S.A. [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
561 see esp. para. 40.
114 The Mariannina [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 12, 15 (C.A.).
115 See, e.g., The Blue Wave [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 151.
116 BP plc v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. [2004] EWHC (1132) Comm, paras 30–38.
117 Where the choice of law is not made under Art. 4(4) of the Rome Convention, then the general provisions
of Article 4(1) will apply: see Haeger v. Mutuelles [2015] Q.B. 319.
118 (2015) L.M.C.L.Q. 194, specifically in relation to guarantees, but the survey is generally valuable.
119 See, e.g., F.R. Lurssen Werft v. Halle [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 20 and Lupofresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444.

20
 LAW GOVERNING THE CHARTER 1.36

material that the parties have made a real or actual choice of the governing law, although they
have not expressly provided for it in the contract. It is not sufficient that it is possible to identify
the law which the parties, as reasonable people, would or should have chosen.120 The Giuliano–
Lagarde Report identified four situations in which the requirements of the Convention might
have been found to have been satisfied and there is no reason to think that the same does not
apply to Rome I.

(a) Use of a standard form known to be governed by a particular system of law

1.34 Use of a form that is clearly designed to be interpreted by reference to a particular
legal regime is an indication of intention to contract by reference to that legal regime.121 Certain
forms of charter may give rise to the inference that their terms are designed to be interpreted
against a particular legal regime. Thus, in The Njegos122 the view was expressed that a charter
on the Centrocon form, even if the London arbitration clause was disregarded, was designed
to be governed by English law. However, the terms of the Gencon charter do not readily lend
themselves to this inference, and in Coast Lines v. Hudig Chartering123 it was regarded as
being of little or no weight.

(b) Course of dealing between the same parties

1.35 If the parties have previously contracted on terms which include an express choice
of law, it may be sufficiently clear that they intend a subsequent contract to be governed by
the same law, unless there is reason to believe that the parties did not wish the contract to
be subject to the previously chosen law. Similarly, a choice of law clause in one contract may
be an indication of an intention to choose the same law to govern another related contract
entered into between them.124

(c) Express choice of forum

1.36 English courts have traditionally regarded a provision whereby disputes are to be
determined by court proceedings or arbitration in a specified country as giving rise to a very
strong inference that the parties intend the law of that country to govern the contract. Cie.

120 See the Giuliano–Lagarde Report. The position with regard to implied choice was in principle the same under
the English pre-Convention rules. However, the English decisions occasionally conflated implied choice with the
fallback rule based on imputed choice (the system of law with which the contract had its closest and most real con-
nection). Under the Convention, because of the presumptions under Arts 4.2 and 4.4, the importance of keeping the
two situations distinct is greater.
121 See Amin Rasheed Shipping v. Kuwait Ins. [1984] A.C. 50, in which the use of Lloyd’s S.G. form was held
to indicate an intention that English law should govern.
122 [1936] P. 90.
123 [1972] 2 Q.B. 34. In The Assunzione [1954] P. 150 it was not suggested that the use of the Gencon form was
any pointer to a choice of English law.
124 See Egon Oldendorff v. Libera Corporation [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 380, para. 1.36, below, where an English
arbitration clause coupled with an express choice of English law in a related contract indicated a clear intention to
choose English law. See also Ulusoy Denizcilik AS v. Cofco Global Harvest (Zhangjiang) Trading Co Ltd (The Ulu-
soy-11) [2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 177 where Bryan J. followed The Joker [2021] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 4 in apply. But
contrast ISS v. Aeolian Shipping [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 641, where the choice of English jurisdiction (and therefore
English law) for a claim under a contract for the supply of spare parts did not involve a choice of English law to
govern the original supply contract, and likewise Lupofresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444,
where various past and present “English” characteristics did not prevent a series of contracts from being governed by
the law of Japan.

21
1.37 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

Tunisienne v. Cie. d’Armement125 shows that the presumption is rebuttable, but it remains strong,126
and since the English courts did not seem to regard the situation as having been affected to any
significant extent by the Convention, it is unlikely that there will be any change under the
Regulation.
A dispute arose between a German partnership and Japanese shipowner as to whether a valid char-
terparty for two ships had been concluded. The form of charterparty in question contained a London
arbitration clause, but no express choice of law. However, as part of the same transaction the char-
terers were to have an option to purchase the ships, and the MOA which set out the terms of purchase
was by its terms governed by English law. Under Article 8.1 of the Convention the existence of a
contract is to be determined in accordance with the law which would govern it if the contract were
valid, and the question arose whether the charterparty, if valid and binding, would be governed by
English law.
Clarke J. held that the charterparty, if valid, would be governed by English law. A purposive
approach to the Rome Convention, rather than a narrow literal approach was required. After citing
from the judgments in Compagnie Tunisienne (decided in 1970, before the Convention came into
force; see para. 1.30 above) he said that the test under the Convention, though not identical, was
“very similar”; if there was a difference it was one of “emphasis”, and it was a small one. Applying
the test prescribed by Article 3.1, he held that the express choice of English law for the purchase
contract coupled with the choice of London arbitration in the charterparty amounted to a clear tacit
choice of English law as the law governing the charterparty, which was “demonstrated with reason-
able certainty by the terms of the contract or the circumstances of the case”. It was relevant that
the parties had negotiated using terms well known in English law and had chosen a neutral forum
for their disputes, and it was unlikely that they would intend the application of a law other than that
normally applied in that forum.
(Egon Oldendorff v. Libera Corporation [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 380: see also Star Reefers Pool
Inc. v. JFC Group Ltd [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 215, where there was a choice of applicable law but
no specific choice of forum, and Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal v. VSC Steel Co. [2014] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 479 para. 102. In Enka Insaat ve Sanayi v. OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” [2020]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449 (paras 113–117), the Supreme Court distinguished that case and declined to
follow Tzortsis v. Monark Line [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 337.)

Whilst in the aforementioned case the judge found that a choice of governing law was demon-
strated by factors other than the arbitration clause alone, he appears to have accepted that there
are cases where the choice of forum will be sufficient in itself, particularly where the chosen
forum is a local association, such as the London Maritime Arbitrators Association, or a local
exchange; by contrast, where the arbitrators are to be selected by an international body the
indication of an implied choice is much weaker.127 Where the chosen forum is the courts of a
particular country rather than arbitration, it seems likely that English courts will, other matters
being equal, regard this as a sufficient indication that the parties have chosen the law of that
country.128

(d) Reference to certain provisions of a system of law, without an express

general choice of that law
1.37 A typical example of a choice of certain specific provisions of a country’s law is a
reference to the Hague Rules legislation of a particular country. In Kadel Chajkin v. Mitchell

125 [1971] A.C. 572, above, para. 1.30. For other cases where the presumption was rebutted, see The Castle Alpha
[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 383 and Star Shipping v. CNFTC (The Star Texas) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445. See also Lupo-
fresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444.
126 See esp. Hellenic Steel v. Svolamar (The Komninos S) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 370, 376, per Bingham J.
127 [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. at pp. 389, 390.
128 See Marubeni v. Mongolian Govt. [2002] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 873, 885.

22
 LAW GOVERNING THE CHARTER 1.38

Cotts,129 Sellers J. regarded the incorporation of foreign Hague Rules legislation as an indica-
tion that the contract was governed by foreign law. However, there are a large number of cases
where the indication has been regarded as of little weight, and a contract incorporating Hague
Rules legislation of one country has frequently been held to be governed by the law of another
country.130 In the latter case the English courts have usually held that the entire contract is to
be interpreted by reference to the governing law, and have declined to interpret the foreign
legislation in accordance with the law of the country whose legislation is incorporated.131

Other indications of a choice of law

1.38 (1) The use of the English language has occasionally been regarded as some indica-
tion that English law was intended,132 but it is more usually regarded as being of little or no
significance.133
(2) When a bill of lading incorporates the terms of a charter, that is an indication that the
parties to the bill of lading contract intended that it should be governed by the same law as
the charter.134 However, in the absence of an express choice of law in the charter or an implied
choice arising, for example, from a choice of forum, the inference may be a fairly weak one.135
(3) Use of certain phrases or clauses may be an indication of intention, and in The Indust-
rie136 the use of the phrases “Act of God” and “Act of Queen’s enemies” was held to indicate
an intention to contract by reference to English law. However, now that the expression “Act
of God” is incorporated in the Hague Rules, it can hardly be regarded as indicating an inten-
tion to choose English law.137
(4) In certain cases the place where the contract was negotiated and the contract documents
issued may point to a choice of the law of that place.138 However, charterparty negotiations of
the ordinary kind will rarely give rise to this inference. Alternatively the fact that the parties
are both very familiar with the legal system of a particular country may indicate an intention
to choose the law of that country.139
(5) In English cases before the Rome Convention, it had been held that the parties should
be regarded as intending to choose a law which would give effect to their contract on the
terms agreed, as opposed to a law which would render all or part of the bargain invalid.140
However, in the light of the terms of Article 3.1 it might be difficult to justify this approach
except where the parties were actually aware that their contract would be valid under the one
legal system and invalid under the other.
(6) It may be legitimate to consider the subsequent conduct of the parties in ascertaining
what (if any) applicable law they have chosen.141

129 (1947) 81 Ll. L. Rep. 124, 129.

130 See, e.g., The Freights Queen [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 140 and the cases there cited.
131 See Dobell v. Rossmore [1895] 2 Q.B. 408; The Ot Sonja [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 435.
132 The Njegos [1936] P. 90, 101. Not in Lupofresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444.
133 The Metamorphosis [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 196, 201; Samcrete v. Land Rover Exports [2002] C.L.C. 533, 545.
134 See The Njegos [1936] P. 90; The San Nicholas [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 8; The Castle Alpha [1989] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 383; The Delfini [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 252.
135 The Metamorphosis [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 196.
136 [1894] P. 58. See also The Njegos [1936] P. 90.
137 See Hellenic Steel v. Svolamar [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 370, 373.
138 American Motorists Ins. v. Cellstar [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 216.
139 Zebrarise v. de Nieffe [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 154.
140 Coast Lines v. Hudig Chartering [1972] 2 Q.B. 34, 44. See also: Re Missouri SS. Co. (1889) 42 Ch.D. 321;
but cf. Royal Exchange v. Vega [1902] 2 K.B. 384, where the contract was void by its proper law.
141 F.R. Lurssen Werft v. Halle [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 20.

23
1.39 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

Where the parties have made no choice of governing law

1.39 Where the parties have made no express or implied choice of law, Article 4.2 of the
Convention established a general presumption, which is maintained in Rome I, that the contract
shall be deemed to be most closely connected with the country in which “the party who is
to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract” has, at the time of conclusion
of the contract, his principal place of business or his place of business through which the
contract is to be effected, determined as at the time the contract was concluded.142 “Charac-
teristic” performance is the supply of the goods,143 services144 or property rights for which the
payment contracted for becomes due, and it is therefore the shipowner who effects the char-
acteristic performance under a charter. In Golden Ocean Group v. Salgaocar Mining
Industries,145 the application of Article 4 was raised in relation to the governing law of a
warranty of authority given by an Indian resident in relation to a guarantee of timecharter
liabilities. The Court of Appeal considered the impact of Article 4.2 in the context of an
argument by the would-be guarantor that the characteristic performance of his warranty was
performed by him. The court also considered Articles 4.3 and 4.4 providing exceptions to
that principle, and held that it was clear that the contract was manifestly more connected with
a different country, namely, the law of the charterparty, thus directing the focus to the country
with which the contract is most closely connected. Since the guarantee was governed by
English law, it was held that the warranty of authority was governed by English law by opera-
tion of Articles 3 or 4.
1.40 Article 5 of Rome I, which deals specifically with Contracts of Carriage, provides:
1. To the extent that the law applicable to a contract for the carriage of goods has not
been chosen in accordance with Article 3, the law applicable shall be the law of the
country of habitual residence146 of the carrier, provided that the place of receipt or the
place of delivery or the habitual residence of the consignor is also situated in that
country. If those requirements are not met, the law of the country where the place of
delivery as agreed by the parties is situated shall apply. . . .
3. Where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the contract, in the absence
of a choice of law, is manifestly more closely connected with a country other than
that indicated in paragraph . . . 1147 . . . the law of that other country shall apply.
1.41 “Contract for the carriage of goods.”148 Contracts of carriage under bills of lading
would plainly fall within the Article as would single voyage charters subject to the qualifica-
tion that their main purpose is the carriage of goods, a qualification which will rarely if ever
be unfulfilled. There seems no reason to doubt that the normal consecutive voyage charter or

142 Article 19.3.

143 See Lupofresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444.
144 GDE LLC v. Anglia Autoflow Ltd [2020] EWHC 105 (Comm).
145 [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 542; the reasoning applies to both the Convention and the Regulation. Article 1.2(g)
excludes from the operation of the Regulation the question of whether an agent is able to bind a principal in relation
to a third party, but the issue in this case was not within that exclusion. See also Mitsui OKS Lines v. Salgaocar
Mining Industries Pvt Ltd. (The Unta) [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 518.
146 “Habitual residence” is defined in Art. 19: broadly it is the place of the central administration of a company
or the principal place of business.
147 Paragraph 2 deals with the carriage of passengers.
148 See Intercontainer Interfrigo SC v. Balkende Oosthuizen [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 400: where the ECJ held that
Art. 4.4 of the Rome Convention applied where the main purpose of the contract was the carriage of goods as opposed
to the mere provision of the means of transporting goods. The identification of multiple applicable laws governing a
contract would run counter to the objects of the Convention, but it may be possible if there were truly independent
parts of the contract.

24
 LAW GOVERNING THE CHARTER 1.45

tonnage contract also falls within the scope of this Article, but a contract for the carriage of
goods does not include a contract of forwarding.149 Most such contracts will involve the car-
rier, the consignor and the place of receipt of the goods and the place of delivery in different
countries. Therefore, absent an express or clear choice of law, the law of the place of delivery
is the most probable choice. Article 5.3 may displace that choice by the identification of a
country “manifestly more closely connected” with a country other than that in Article 5.1, if
there is one. Very often there is not.
1.42 “Carrier” probably refers to the person who enters into the contract of carriage of
goods with the consignor, whether or not he is the owner or operator of the ship, and would
thus include a charterer who sub-charters or enters into a bill of lading contract.150 Where the
charter contains a demise clause, the question whether that clause offends against public policy
must be answered by reference to the law of the forum. In English law there is no objection
to such a clause. Whether the clause has been inserted with the authority of the person who is
designated as principal thereunder must also be answered without reference to the Regulation,
which excludes from its ambit the question whether an agent is able to bind a principal (Article
1.2(g)). In English common law, this question would fall to be decided by the putative proper
law151 and under Rome I this would be Article 10.
1.43 “Place of loading/discharge.” The requirement of English conflicts rules that the
proper law must be identifiable as soon as the contract is concluded152 was reflected in Article
4.4 of the Rome Convention,153 with its reference to the carrier’s place of business “at the
time the contract is concluded”, and now in Article 19.3 of Rome I. It would seem to follow
that the place of loading or discharge must refer to the place designated in the contract rather
than that at which loading or discharge actually occurs and this view was supported by the
Giuliano–Lagarde Report. If the charter provides for a range of loading and discharging ports
in different countries, it is therefore not possible to give effect to the presumption in Article
5.1, even if the carrier’s place of business were in the country where loading or discharging
actually occurred. Any subsequent agreement between the parties to change the place of load-
ing or discharge will, therefore, not affect the operation of the presumption in itself, but may
be relevant in determining whether the presumption should be disregarded pursuant to Article
5.3, since events occurring after the conclusion of the contract may be relevant in determining
the country with which the contract is most closely connected.
1.44 “Consignor.” For reasons similar to those given above, it is submitted that the con-
signor means the person designated in the contract as consignor, rather than the person who
(or whose agent) actually delivers the goods to the carrier. Unless the charter specifically
designates a third party as the shipper or consignor, it is probable that the charterer himself is
to be regarded as the “consignor”, since he binds himself by the charter to ship the goods,154
even though he may delegate performance of his obligation to a third party.
1.45 The main thrust of Articles 4 and 5.3 is to like effect, namely, in the absence of an
express or clear choice of law, the identification of the governing law should be by reference to

149 Victoria Feuer Versicherung v. Expeditiebedrijf Frans Maas (27 November 1986) [1988] Schip en Schade,
No. 97, at p. 278.
150 See the Giuliano–Lagarde Report, and the definition of “carrier” in Art. I(a) of the Hague Rules, Chapter 66,
below.
151 See Chatenay v. Brazilian Submarine Telegraph [1891] 1 Q.B. 79 see Enka Insaat ve Sanayi v. OOO “Insur-
ance Company Chubb” [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449 (esp. para. 31).
152 Paragraph 1.31, above. See also Intercontainer Interfrigo SC v. Balkende Oosthuizen [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
400.
153 Where the choice of law is not made under Art. 4(4) of the Rome Convention, then the general provisions
of Article 4(1) will apply: in relation to carriage by road see Haeger v. Mutuelles [2015] Q.B. 319.
154 See Chapter 7.

25
1.46 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

the country with which the contract is most closely connected. Despite the apparent similarity
between this wording and the English common law rules, there is a difference of emphasis,
since under the English rules it is the system of law with which the contract is most closely
connected which governs, whereas, under Rome I, the enquiry is as to the country with which
the closest connection exists. The latter test suggests that matters such as the place of perfor-
mance or the economic centre of the contract will carry greater weight than the legal concepts
of a legal system by reference to which the contract is expressed.
1.46 Even where the presumptions in Article 5 are prima facie applicable, Article 5.3 con-
templates that the contract and thus its governing law is more closely connected with another
country. The cases concerned with the question whether the presumption under Article 4.2 of
the Rome Convention should be disregarded demonstrate that the courts will be willing to
do so if a substantial preponderance of the performance of the contract is to take place in a
country other than that identified under Article 4.2,155 and a similar approach may be taken to
the application of Article 5.3.

The role of the governing law

1.47 Under Rome I, matters which are determined in accordance with the governing law are:
(1) The existence and material validity of the charter, including the question whether the
parties have reached agreement (Article 10).156
(2) The formal validity of the charter. It suffices if the charter is formally valid either by
the governing law or by the law of the place where it was concluded (Article 11).
(3) The interpretation, performance, consequences of breach and mode of discharge of
the charter (Article 12, the purpose of which is to maintain a distinction between the
substance of an obligation, governed by the proper law, and the mode of performance,
which is governed by the law of the place of performance).157
1.48 The Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 did not give effect to the provisions of
the Rome Convention which applied the governing law to the effects of nullity of the contract
(Article 10.1(c)) nor to those which entitle the court to give effect to mandatory rules other
than those of the forum, but the provisions of Article 10.13 of Rome I are of compulsory effect.
The effect of mandatory rules of the forum158 is preserved by Article 21.
1.49 The English conflicts rules defining the role of the proper law, which apply to charters
entered into before 1 April 1991, were broadly similar to those of the Rome Convention and
now of Rome I. In determining whether a valid charter is in existence the law to be applied
is that which would be the governing law of the charter on the assumption that it had been
validly concluded.159

155 See Samcrete v. Land Rover Exports [2002] C.L.C. 533, Marconi v. P.T. Pan Indonesia Bank [2004] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 594 and Deutsche Bank (Suisse) v. Khan [2013] EWHC 482 (Comm).
156 See Egon Oldendorff v. Libera Corporation [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 380, 385 et seq., The Epsilon Rosa (No.
2) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 701 and [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509, concerning the effect of Art. 8 on the incorporation of
a charterparty arbitration clause into a bill of lading. See the valuable analyses of Leggatt J. (as he then was) in Dana
Gas v. Dana Gas Sukuk [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 177 and of Bryan J. in Ulusoy Denizcilik AS v. Cofco Global Harvest
(Zhangjiang) Trading Co Ltd (The Ulusoy-11) [2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 177.
157 See East West Corp. v. DKBS 1912 [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 182, at pp. 194 et seq., per Thomas J. This did not
feature in the Court of Appeal [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 239. It has been held by the Court of Justice of the European
Union in Hoszig KFT v. Alstom Power Thermal Services Case C-222/15, - 7 July 2016 that Rome I means that per-
formance and methods of termination are governed by the applicable law to the contract, and that includes whether a
party is entitled to terminate a contract on the basis of repudiatory breach and/or the consequences of such termination
(see Article 12(1)(c)). Even after Brexit it is overwhelmingly likely that an English court would take the same view.
158 As to which see paras 1.51 et seq.
159 See Art. 10 of the Convention, and The Parouth [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 351.

26
 ILLEGALITY OF THE CONTR ACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT 1.51

Procedural law – limitation of shipowners’ liability

1.50 Article 1.3 of Rome I provides that the Regulation shall not apply to evidence and
procedure except for presumptions of law and the burden of proof, which are covered by Article
18. Although statutes of limitation are in general substantive, and therefore relevant if part of
the governing law, statutes which limit a shipowner’s liability by reference to the tonnage of
his vessel may well be procedural and thus relevant only to the extent that they are part of the
law of the country where the issue is decided. In Caltex Singapore v. BP Shipping,160 damage
was done by a ship to a berth in Singapore; the shipowners commenced a limitation action in
Singapore under the relevant local statute, but were sued for damages in England, where Clarke
J. held that the English, not the Singaporean, limitation statute would be applicable.161 He
distinguished this right to limit from the package limitation found in Article IV Rule 5 of the
Hague Rules:
The effect of the Convention . . . is not to qualify the substantive right of the claimant against the
shipowner but to limit the extent to which that right can be enforced against the limitation fund. It
is in this respect unlike the package limitation in the Hague-Visby Rules . . . which qualifies the
plaintiff’s right to recover from the defendant. A right to limit of that kind would in my judgment
be substantive for that reason. (p. 294)

ILLEGALITY OF THE CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT

1.51 A contract of affreightment may be162 unenforceable on the grounds of illegality in
English courts or tribunals. The law on illegality had developed in a rather irregular and often
almost quixotic way163 since the early statement of principle of Lord Mansfield that “No court
will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act”.164
This was in part because there were different types of illegality and the principles were devel-
oped sometimes without due regard to those differences. Thus,165 some statutes (or applicable
foreign laws) expressly render particular types of contract void or unenforceable, but others
may render particular types of conduct criminal but without purporting to avoid related contracts
and the levels of criminality can vary widely from the plainly serious to the frankly technical.
Also, some contracting parties agree to do something which they appreciate and intend is
illegal, but others may agree to do something which they do not appreciate is illegal, or they
may agree to do something which is not itself illegal but which may be intended (by one or

160 [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 286. In this and other cases the fact that the foreign court will apply a different limita-
tion regime from that in force in England (e.g., a regime based on the 1957 Limitation Convention rather than the
1976 Convention) was treated as a reason for refusing a stay of English proceedings. This approach has subsequently
been disapproved: see The Herceg Novi [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 454 (C.A.).
161 Namely, s. 17 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, now embodied in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, s. 185
and Sch. 7.
162 The impact and repercussions of the decisions of the Court of Appeal in ParkingEye Ltd v. Somerfield Stores
Ltd [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 679 and the Supreme Court in Les Laboratoires Servier v. Apotex Inc. [2015] A.C. 430
and Patel v. Mirza [2017] A.C. 467 remain to be fully explored, but it may said with confidence that unenforceability
on the ground of illegality is not inevitable merely because there is some illegality involved in the making or the
performance of a contract (cf. Colen v. Cebrian [2003] EWCA Civ 1676, at para. 23).
163 See the description given in the seminal judgment of Lord Toulson JSC in Patel v. Mirza (above).
164 Holman v. Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp. 341, 343; the principle sometimes expressed as “ex turpi non oritur
actio” is no different in its essence and tends to be a defence encountered in tortious claims rather than contractual
claims: see e.g. Flint v. Tittensor [2015] 1 W.L.R. 4370. The ability of a defendant to rely on the ex turpi principle
as a defence to defeat a claim is tightly confined. Thus, directors of a company cannot rely on the ex turpi principle
if sued by their company for misdeeds performed by them in the name of the company: Jetivia v. Bilta [2016] A.C.
1 where the Supreme Court recommended a statutory overhaul of the principle.
165 This summary is heavily dependent on the judgment of Lord Toulson JSC in Patel v. Mirza and the reader
will be spared footnotes accordingly.

27
1.52 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

both parties) to be done in an illegal way or in a way which involves some level of illegality.
In some cases, the effect of illegality was held to be procedural not substantive, such that if a
party had to plead an illegal act as part of its cause of action, the stark consequence of unen-
forceability applied, whereas, if it did not (or did not need to) plead an illegal act, then that
consequence did not apply even though the illegality was plain. Superimposed upon these cases
were various exceptions, such as locus poenitentiae such that a person who repented of his
illegality (or perhaps did not engage in an illegal act) was held entitled to enforce his rights.
1.52 However, following the important decision of the Supreme Court in Patel v. Mirza,166
the course now set for the law167 seems to require a consideration of the policy of the rel-
evant law generating the illegality in question and whether the refusal to enforce a contract or
contractual rights is proportionate with the policy of the relevant law and whether the public
interest would be harmed by the enforcement of the illegal agreement.
P claimed restitution of a sum of money he had given to M in order to make an otherwise legal bet
on the basis of illegal “insider information” M said he had about the share value of a certain publicly
traded bank. This was an unlawful conspiracy to commit the offence of insider dealing. The proposed
bet never took place but M retained the money. When P sued for its return, it was necessary to
explain that the consideration for the payment (namely the illegal conspiracy) had totally failed. M
argued that that fact rendered P’s claim to recovery unenforceable.
The Courts granted P the restitution he sought although for a spread of different reasons. In the
Supreme Court, the Justices were agreed as to the result not least since it did not involve the
enforcement of an illegal act and did not give P the benefit of his illegal act. The majority seemed168
to adopt the approach of Lord Toulson JSC who thought that issues of illegality involved a con-
sideration of a ‘range of factors’ including the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has
been transgressed and whether that purpose would be enhanced by the denial of the claim, whether
there is any relevant public policy and whether the denial of the claim would be a disproportionate
response to the illegality in question. A powerful minority (Lords Mance, Clarke and Sumption
JJSC) rejected the ‘range of factors’ approach and broadly adopted the stance that contractual
obligations should be enforced with only limited exceptions which were centred on the principle
of refusing to give a wrongdoer the benefit of his wrong if that would be the effect of enforcement.
Allowing restitution of the money paid would not be giving P the benefit of any wrong. There was
a general disapproval of the reasoning of the House of Lords, but not the result of, Tinsley v. Mil-
ligan [1994] 1 A.C. 340 in which considerable weight was placed on the purely procedural question
of whether the claimant was compelled to rely on her own illegal conspiracy in order to sustain
her cause of action.
(Patel v. Mirza [2017] A.C. 467 and see the commentary at (2016) L.M.C.L.Q. 483. One critical
feature of Patel was that the claimant was trying to unwind the illegal agreement that had been
concluded, not to profit from it. It would, it seems, have been different if the bet had been placed
and been profitable such that P was seeking to recover his share of the profit rather than the recovery
of his payment even though it would have left M profiting accordingly. It might also have been
the same if he had tried to recover losses: see e.g. Nayyar v. Denton Wilde Sapte [2009] EWHC
3218. The criterion of withholding relief only if the integrity of the law and the purpose of the
relevant illegality would be materially and proportionately enhanced by so doing was applied by
the Supreme Court in Singularis Holdings v. Daiwa Capital Markets Europe [202] A.C. 1189,
[2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 47 (paras 16 and 18). This is all in line with the modern trend of the law
to restrict the ability of a party to rely on the defence of illegality: see e.g. Jetivia v. Bilta [2016]
A.C. 1.)

166 [2017] A.C. 467.

167 In XX v. Whittington Hospital NHS Trust [2019] 3 W.L.R. 107 (paras 57, 60 and 65) McCombe L.J. said that
Patel gave the courts “differently shaded spectacles” and a “fresh opportunity to examine the public policy” behind
previous decisions, in that case a decision on the recoverability of damages in a personal injury action for the costs
of obtaining surrogacy abroad in the light of the illegality of commercial surrogacy in the United Kingdom.
168 Lord Toulson JSC gave the leading judgment, with which Baroness Hale, and Lords Kerr, Wilson and Hodge
JJSC expressly agreed. Lord Neuberger gave his own judgment; it was not entirely clear how much he agreed or
disagreed with the approach of Lord Toulson since he described it (at para. 186) as “slightly different”.

28
 ILLEGALITY OF THE CONTR ACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT 1.56

1.53 In earlier editions of this book, it was submitted that there could be unenforceability
by reason of illegality in the following circumstances and it is believed that there is nothing
in Patel v. Mirza which serves materially to undermine these submissions:
(1) if the contract is expressly or impliedly prohibited by English statute law or public
policy;169
(2) if the contract is illegal and unenforceable under its proper law;
(3) if the contract was entered into with the object of committing an act which is
(significantly)170 illegal or contrary to public policy under English law, but it may be
enforceable at the suit of a party who did not intend at the time of making the contract
to commit the illegal act;
(4) if the contract requires or necessarily involves the performance of an act which is
illegal in the country where the act is to be performed or if its real object and inten-
tion was that it should be performed in a way which was unlawful under the law of
the place of performance;
(5) if the contract requires or contemplates the performance of an act which is contrary
to the public policy of a friendly foreign state, which also reflects a principle of English
public policy founded upon principles of internationally applicable morality.
1.54 The first rule is that the court will not enforce a contract the making or performance
of which is prohibited by statute, even at the suit of a party for whose protection the statute is
intended,171 and who is ignorant of the law or of the facts which give rise to the prohibition.
A statute may prohibit by implication as well as by express provision.172 A statute may, on its
true construction, also prohibit a contract which is in the event carried out in contravention of
its terms, even though the contract might have been carried out lawfully.173 Where the contract
is prohibited by statute a party ignorant of the facts which give rise to the prohibition may
be entitled to recover damages for breach of a collateral warranty that the contract is legal.
1.55 The second rule is merely an aspect of the general principle that the essential valid-
ity of a contract is governed by its proper law.174 Examples of illegality of the third kind are
cases where a contract has as its object, or where its performance necessarily involves, the
commission of a tort175 or a crime or a breach of statutory duty under English law, or where
to enforce the contract would be contrary to public policy.176
1.56 Where a contract which is apparently legal and is capable of being performed legally
is, or is to be, performed in an illegal manner, the contract remains enforceable. However, it
may not be enforceable at the suit of the party who, at the time when the contract was made,

169 Stone & Rolls (in liquidation) v. Moore Stephens [2009] A.C. 1391 and Gray v. Thames Trains Ltd [2009]
A.C. 1339.
170 The word “significantly” is not found in the cases, but it is intended to reflect the decision in ParkingEye
(above) where it was found that the claimants intended to perform the contract in a way which included the commis-
sion of the tort of deceit, but the Court of Appeal regarded it as disproportionate to treat the contract as unenforceable
since the relevant deceit was a minor aspect of the performance and could have been changed at any time, even though
at the time of making the contract it was intended. Patel v. Mirza would support it.
171 See per Devlin J. in St. John Shipping v. Joseph Rank [1957] 1 Q.B. 267 at p. 285 and Bedford Insurance
v. Instituto de Reassuguros de Brazil [1985] Q.B. 966.
172 See Phoenix v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 552.
173 See St. John Shipping v. Joseph Rank [1957] 1 Q.B. 267, where such a possibility was recognised but the
court declined to place that construction on the statute.
174 Vita Food Products v. Unus Shipping [1939] A.C. 277 (P.C.).
175 See Brown, Jenkinson v. Percy Dalton [1957] 2 Q.B. 621; note that commission of the tort of deceit was the
main purpose of the contract of indemnity in that case. Contrast peripheral deceit as in ParkingEye (above, considered
below).
176 If a contract which involves no illegality in its actual performance is to be held unenforceable merely on the
ground that it was entered into to further an illegal object, the illegal object must be reasonably closely connected
with the contract itself or its terms: see 21st Century Logistic Solutions v. Madison [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 92.

29
1.56 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

intended that it would be performed in an illegal (or relevantly illegal) manner and, if both
parties had that intention, it is not enforceable at all.177
As a result of a bunkering operation undertaken after loading, the St John was overloaded his ship
on a voyage from the US to the UK in contravention of the Merchant Shipping Acts. The master
was fined in accordance with that statute on arrival in the UK where the cargo was safely discharged.
The consignees refused to pay any freight for the carriage on the basis of the illegal way the carriage
was effected.
Devlin J. held the shipowners were entitled to recover freight, it not being proved that at the time
of contracting he intended to overload his ship.178 Devlin J. identified the principle as being that “a
contract which is entered into with the object of committing an illegal act is unenforceable. The
application of this principle depends upon proof of the intent, at the time the contract is made, to
break the law. If the intent is mutual the contract is unenforceable at all; and if unilateral it is unen-
forceable at the suit of the party who is proved to have it” (p. 283). He said that an intention to
break the law only at the time performance came to be given, on loading, would not have engaged
that principle.
(St. John Shipping v. Joseph Rank [1957] 1 Q.B. 267 and see the discussion of this decision in
the judgment of Toulson L.J. in ParkingEye [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 679, at paras 58–64. The decision
was apparently approved by the full Supreme Court in Patel v. Mirza.)

By contrast, a charterer who was aware that his cargo was to be carried on deck in contra-
vention of statute was held not to be entitled to enforce the insurance on the cargo179 although
that case would probably now be dealt with in accordance with the principles of non-disclosure
rather than illegality. In general, the principle should not be understood or applied in absolute
terms or in “dogmatic and inflexible terms”, and the court is able to take into account a wide
range of considerations in order to ensure that the defence applies only where it is a “just and
proportionate response to the illegality”.180
S were the owners of a chain of supermarkets and they contracted with P for the supply of services
whereby penalty charges could be imposed on drivers who exceeded an allowed parking period.
The parties contemplated that P would identify overstaying vehicles and would then send a series
of letters to the registered keepers of those vehicles demanding payment of the penalty, the wording
of these letters becoming increasingly threatening if payment was not made. The intended third letter
in this series would contain what were found to be untrue statements amounting to the tort of deceit.
P’s remuneration under the contract was in the form of receipt of the penalty payments. S terminated
the contract and P sued for damages for loss of earnings and S denied liability on the basis that P
intended to perform their obligations in an illegal manner.
The Court of Appeal held that the intended tort of deceit was not such as to render the contract
unenforceable by P. The intended deceit was limited to only a partial (and minor on the facts) mode
of performance and was capable of being changed at any time and would have been changed if the
illegality had been pointed out. The intention to commit deceit was peripheral. It was something
apart from the main contract and was not an object of the contract. Nor was it necessary for P to
plead or rely upon any illegality. However, the court expressed itself in more general terms suggest-
ing that the courts should not be “unduly sanctimonious” so as to produce disproportionate results
so as to deprive a claimant of a remedy for lost income which would itself have been wholly lawful.
“Proportionality” in this context involves the assessment of how far refusal of the remedy furthers
one or more of the specific policies underlying the defence of illegality, namely the purpose of the
rule which the illegal conduct infringed, the principle that the claimant should not profit from his
or her own wrong, consistency, deterrence and maintaining the integrity of the legal system. “This

177 Archbolds (Freightage) v. Spanglett [1961] 1 Q.B. 374, 388, per Devlin L.J. This is probably the best expla-
nation of Pearce v. Books (1855) L.R. 1 Ex. 213.
178 St. John Shipping v. Joseph Rank [1957] 1 Q.B. 267; but see the discussion of this decision in the judgment
of Toulson L.J. in ParkingEye (above), at paras 58–64.
179 Cunard v. Hyde (1859) 29 L.J.Q.B. 6.
180 Per Etherton L.J. in Les Laboratoires Servier v. Apotex Inc. (above), at para. 63 and per Laws L.J. at para. 94.

30
 ILLEGALITY OF THE CONTR ACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT 1.62

does not mean that the illegality defence will always apply where one or more of those policy
rationales is relevant. It means that, if the illegality defence applies at all, it must find its justification
firmly in one or more of them.”
(ParkingEye Ltd v. Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 679; note that Article 9.3 of the
Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008), discussed generally above at paras 1.27–1.50,
provides that in considering whether to give effect to the provisions of a law which render perfor-
mance of a contract illegal, regard shall be had to the nature and purpose of the provisions and to
the consequences of their application or non-application. This decision has been reinforced by Patel
v. Mirza although that was a case of restitution rather than contractual enforcement.)

1.57 Even if a party did not, at the time of making the contract, have the intention of
committing an illegal act in its performance, and even if he did not know that his performance
was, or would be, illegal, he may still not be able to enforce the contract if, in order to prove
his rights, he must assert the doing of a material illegal act either by himself or (possibly) by
a third party.181 This rule is relaxed in the case where that party was ignorant of the relevant
law, had no intention to violate it and in the event did not do so, thus avoiding the need to
rely upon an illegal act.182
1.58 The fourth rule has two distinct modes of application. One is where the contract
requires or necessarily involves an act which is illegal by the law of the place of performance;183
and the other is where performance is apparently legal, but the real object and intention of
the contract is that it should be performed in a way which is unlawful under the law of the
place of performance.184
1.59 This rule applies even if there is no illegality under English law or under the domestic
proper law of the contract. Where the proper law of the contract is not English law, it may be
said that the effect of illegality by the law of the place of performance should be governed by
that proper law, but where an English court or tribunal is charged with the issue of enforcement
of such a contract, the preferable view is that the rule derives from English public policy and
it will therefore be applied irrespective of the proper law of the contract.185
1.60 The fifth rule is an amalgam of the third and fourth rules, but it is a distinct head on
which enforcement will be refused of an English law contract.186
1.61 An arbitration agreement or jurisdiction clause forming part of a contract affected by
illegality may nonetheless be valid and binding, unless the contract is void ab initio through
illegality; the defence of illegality will or may arise in proceedings brought pursuant to that
clause and its effect may be finally determined in those proceedings so that illegality cannot
therefore be raised as defence to enforcement of the resulting judgment or award.187
1.62 It may be that the above is simply an example of severance of agreements. Sever-
ance is not necessarily restricted to such cases. It may be that an illegal contract will not be
rendered entirely unenforceable or void if the illegal parts can be severed from the rest. Thus,
an arbitration agreement may be valid, but it must accord with the relevant public policy that

181 Edler v. Auerbach [1950] 1 K.B. 359 and see the comments in Royal Boskalis v. Mountain [1997] L.R.L.R.
523 at pp. 619, 625–626.
182 See Waugh v. Morris (1873) L.R. 8 Q.B. 202, where the parties agreed to change the method of performance
upon discovering that the method originally contemplated was illegal, discussed in Anglo Petroleum v. TFB (Mort-
gagees) [2007] EWCA Civ 456, at paras 60–62. See also Cargo ex Argos (1873) L.R. 5 P.C. 134; Furness Withy v.
Rederi A/B Banco [1917] 2 K.B. 873, 876.
183 See Ralli Brothers v. Cia. Nav. Sota y Aznar [1920] 2 K.B. 287 and the discussion by Cooke J. in Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board v. ST-CMS Electric Co. [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 93, at paras 35–51.
184 Foster v. Driscoll [1929] 1 K.B. 47 and applied in Royal Boskalis v. Mountain.
185 Zivnostenska Banka v. Frankman [1950] A.C. 57, 79, per Lord Reid; Regazzoni v. Sethia [1958] A.C. 301.
186 Lemenda Trading v. African Middle East Petroleum [1988] Q.B. 448.
187 Mackender v. Feldia [1967] 2 Q.B. 590 and see also Westacre Investments v. Jugoimport-SDPR Holdings
[1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 65.

31
1.63 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

it should be so. In Royal Boskalis v. Mountain,188 where part of a contract was intended to be
performed in breach of United Nations sanctions and the laws of the friendly foreign states
where performance was required, the arbitration agreement was held incapable of severance.
Similarly, severance will not be allowed where the illegal covenant forms a main part of the
consideration or where the provisions of the contract are so closely related that to sever one
part will involve rewriting the whole.
1.63 A court may decline to enforce an illegal contract and yet still recognise its effects if
performed, for example, the transfer of property effected pursuant to such a contract.189 How-
ever, a person may be precluded from claiming an indemnity for a loss suffered as a result of
his making an illegal contract.190

MISTAKE
1.64 The apparent agreement reached by the parties may have been based upon a funda-
mental misapprehension of the circumstances in which the agreement was made and which
form the basis of the agreement, or a misunderstanding as to the terms agreed. In either case
the agreement is void unless the contract clearly provides as to how the results of such a
mistake are to be borne.191 The tests to be satisfied have been helpfully summarised as follows:192
. . . a contract will be void for common mistake at common law if the following elements are
present:
(1) There must be a common assumption as to the existence of a state of affairs.
(2) There must be no warranty by either party that that state of affair exists.
(3) The non-existence of the state of affairs must not be attributable to the fault of either
party.193
(4) The non-existence of the assumed state of affairs must render the performance of the contract
impossible (or according to para. 82 of the judgment must render performance of the essence
of the obligation impossible).
(5) The state of affairs may be the existence or a vital attribute of the consideration to be
provided or circumstances which must subsist if performance of the contractual adventure
is to be possible.

1. Mistake as to underlying circumstances

1.65 A mistake as to the factual circumstances in which a contract is entered into, if suffi-
ciently fundamental, is regarded as nullifying the parties’ consent and therefore renders the
agreement void. A mistake as to the existence of the subject matter of the contract falls into this
category, and thus, in Couturier v. Hastie,194 a contract for the sale of a specific cargo of corn

188 [1997] L.R.L.R. 523, at pp. 619–620.

189 Tinsley v. Milligan [1994] 1 A.C. 340; see also Alexander v. Rayson [1936] 1 K.B. 169, esp. at pp. 185–187;
Bowmakers v. Barnet Instruments [1945] K.B. 65; and see the discussion in ParkingEye (above). The Supreme Court
in Patel v. Mirza [2017] A.C. 467 declined to follow the former case, although not to overrule it.
190 See Royal Boskalis v. Mountain, above.
191 Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v. Credit du Nord [1989] 1 W.L.R. 255, at p. 268, and see the
discussion by Capper in [2008] L.M.C.L.Q. 264.
192 Triple Seven MSM 27251 Ltd v. Azman Air Services Ltd [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 424 (esp. paras 60 to 76) and
see also Natixis v. Marex [2019] EWHC 3549 (Comm) and Cooperative Bank v. Freehold [2017] EWHC 1820 (Ch).
193 In Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v. Credit du Nord SA [1989] 1 W.L.R. 255 Steyn J. said
(pp. 266 to 270) if the contract itself provides for the allocation of risk or the consequences of such a mistake, the
contract should be applied to the exclusion of any applicable doctrine.
194 (1856) 5 H.L.C. 673. For cases where the mistake was held to be insufficiently fundamental, see Great Peace
Shipping v. Tsavliris (International) [2003] Q.B. 679 and The Martin P [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 389, at para. 250, and
see the comments of Waller L.J. in Halpern v. Halpern [2008] Q.B. 195.

32
 MISTAKE 1.68

c.i.f. U.K. port was held to be void for mistake since the cargo had, unknown to either party,
decayed so badly as to be incapable of completing the voyage to the United Kingdom and had
been sold at an intermediate port. Upon similar grounds a charter of a specific ship or for a
specific cargo which had already ceased to exist might be held void for mistake, although in
view of improvements in communications, and the ability to obtain frequent and instantaneous
information as to the existence of the subject matter, it might well be held that the shipowner
warranted the existence of the ship at the date of the contract and the charterer of the cargo.195
1.66 A mistake as to facts which, although they are fundamental to the commercial purpose
of the contract, are not essential to the ability of either side to perform, is less likely to render
the contract void,196 but may nevertheless do so if it can be said to render performance radi-
cally different from that which the parties contemplated. In Griffith v. Brymer,197 a contract for
the hire of a room for a day for the purpose of watching the Coronation procession of Edward
VII was held void for mistake because, unknown to either party, the procession had already
been cancelled. There may be cases where one party has a sufficiently fundamental commer-
cial purpose in entering into the charter, of which the other party is aware, for a mistake as
to the possibility of achieving that purpose to render the contract void, but such cases will be
rare. Legal impossibility of performance is equated with physical impossibility, and therefore
if performance of the charter is, unknown to the parties, unlawful by its proper law or by the
law of the place of performance, the contract is avoided on the grounds of mistake.

2. Mistake as to the parties, subject matter or other terms

1.67 In certain cases the parties have apparently reached agreement, but have in reality
not done so, because they are at cross purposes as to the parties to that agreement, the subject
matter or the terms. It must be remembered, however, that in ascertaining what the parties have
agreed the court applies an objective rule; that is to say, it does not examine the actual or
subjective intentions of either party,198 but is concerned solely with what his words or conduct
reasonably indicate to the other party as to his intentions. It follows, therefore, that mistake of
this nature is only material if it is impossible, applying the objective rule, to impute a common
intention to the parties. To this there is one exception, namely that where A is actually aware,
or where it is patently obvious, that B is entering into the contract under a fundamental misap-
prehension as to its subject matter, or its terms, or A’s identity, A will not be entitled to insist
upon the application of the objective rule and to enforce the contract accordingly.199

Parties
1.68 A fundamental mistake as to the identity of the other party to the contract may nega-
tive consent and avoid the contract.
After The Unique Mariner had run aground on a reef, her owners and hull insurers arranged for a
salvage tug, Asiatic Gala, to put out from Singapore to tow her off, and instructed the master to
await the arrival of a salvage tug. Shortly afterwards another salvage tug, Salvaliant, which had

195 Cf. McRae v. Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 C.L.R. 377; and Manbre Saccharine v. Corn
Products [1919] 1 K.B. 198.
196 See Dana Gas v. Dana Gas Sujkuk [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 177.
197 (1903) 19 T.L.R. 434. As to a mistake of law, see Brennan v. Bolt Burdon [2005] Q.B. 303.
198 See the perceptive judgment of Doherty JA in Dumbrell v. The Regional Group of Companies Inc (2007)
D.L.R. (4th) 201.
199 See Hartog v. Colin & Shields [1939] 3 A.E.R. 566; Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com [2005] 1 S.L.R.
502 and Statoil v. Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP (The Harriette N) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 685, esp. paras 84–106.

33
1.69 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

been working nearby, reached The Unique Mariner and offered salvage services on the terms of
Lloyd’s Open Form. The master of The Unique Mariner, believing The Salvaliant to be the tug
arranged by his owners at Singapore, signed the Form. The owners of The Unique Mariner sought
a declaration to the effect that the salvage contract with The Salvaliant was not binding, having been
entered into under a fundamental mistake as to the identity of the other party.
It was held by Brandon J. that the captain of The Salvaliant was not aware of the mistake on the
part of The Unique Mariner. It followed that, since the captain of The Unique Mariner, upon an
objective analysis of his words and conduct, intended to contract with The Salvaliant, the agreement
was binding.
(The Unique Mariner [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 438.)

In The Unique Mariner, Brandon J. left open the question whether the mistake was suffi-
ciently fundamental to render the contract void. A mistake on the part of a charterer as to
whether he was contracting with a registered owner on the one hand, or a broker, manager or
charterer on the other, might be sufficiently fundamental.200

Subject matter
1.69 Where one party intends the contract to refer to a particular ship or voyage, and the
other to a different ship or voyage, and where the objective rule cannot resolve the question
which ship or voyage was intended, there is no contract.
Owners and charterers were engaged in negotiations for two charters, one to load shale at Sydney,
the other to load copra in Fiji. The owners’ agent habitually corresponded with the charterer by
telegraphic code, and an offer sent by him in code, intended to refer to the Fiji cargo, was accepted
by the charterer on the understanding that it referred to the Sydney cargo.
The message was held ambiguous; it was impossible to tell objectively whether the parties intended
to agree upon the Sydney cargo or the Fiji cargo. The contract was therefore void.
(Falck v. Williams [1900] A.C. 176 (P.C.).)
However, the difference must be such as to create an essential failure to agree and a relatively
minor mistake, such as the position of a ship, is most unlikely to produce that effect.201

Terms of the contract

1.70 The position is the same where the parties each intend to contract upon different terms.
Owners chartered their ship to L at 7s. 3d. per ton, freight to be paid in London on signing bills of
lading, and carrier to have lien on cargo for freight. L chartered to the defendant at 8s. per ton.
Cargo was loaded by the defendant and the captain signed a bill of lading under which freight was
payable “as per charterparty”. The defendant paid freight at 8s. to L, but L failed to pay anything
to the owner. The owners claimed 7s. 3d. per ton, or a reasonable freight, from the defendant.
The court held there was no binding contract under the bill of lading, since the owners believed
that it referred to their charter with L, while the defendant believed that it referred to his charter
with L, each party being ignorant of the other’s belief. Since the parties were never ad idem, no
contract to pay a reasonable freight could be implied.
(Smidt v. Tiden (1874) L.R. 9 Q.B. 446.)

1.71 Cases such as Peek v. Larsen,202 in which it was held that a shipper who was ignorant
of the charter was not obliged to accept a bill of lading incorporating its terms and, upon the
captain’s refusal to issue a bill of lading omitting reference to the charter terms, was entitled to

200 But contrast Harper v. Vigers [1909] 2 K.B. 549.

201 Great Peace Shipping v. Tsavliris (International) [2003] Q.B. 679 and see Dany Lions v. Bristol Cars [2014]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 281 and Dana Gas v. Dana Gas Sukuk [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 177.
202 (1871) L.R. 12 Eq. 378.

34
 MISTAKE 1.73

have his goods unloaded, may also be explained on the grounds of mistake. However, the objec-
tive rule will usually resolve such issues in favour of one or other party. The shipowner’s tariffs
and sailing notices may make it clear upon what terms he is prepared to contract, and where they
do not, the shipper will normally be regarded as having implicitly assented to a contract upon
the terms of the bill of lading normally issued by the shipowner for that voyage, except insofar
as the bill of lading contains unusual terms of which he had no actual notice. Whether or not a
shipper must accept a bill of lading incorporating the terms of a particular charter has been held
to depend upon whether he was or should have been aware of the charter.203 However, it must,
it is submitted, also depend upon the trade in question. A person who ships a crate of machinery
on a liner service would hardly expect to receive a charterparty bill of lading, even if he knew
the ship was operating under charter, whereas a person who ships a full cargo of crude oil on
board a tramp would not expect to receive anything else. The older decisions seem to proceed
upon the assumption that no owner who had chartered his ship would be willing to issue a bill of
lading upon terms which differed from the charter, an assumption which no longer holds good.204
1.72 In the cases considered above the contract is void. It was once thought that there was
a distinct equitable jurisdiction to give relief from the consequences of mistake in circumstances
rather wider than those in which the contract is rendered void.205 However, it has now been
held that there is no such jurisdiction and equity can give no relief where none is available by
the application of the above common law principles.206

Rectification
1.73 Common mistake. Where the formal charterparty has been drawn up207 and signed208
in terms which, as a result of a mistake, fail to reflect the prior agreement or common intention
of the parties,209 the charterparty may be rectified so as to correct the mistake. The rectification
is of the document, not of the agreement itself, which nearly always precedes the execution
of the document. Rectification is an equitable remedy210 and is not to be confused with (inac-
curately) so-called common law rectification, which involves the use of the principles of
construction211 to treat obvious errors as being corrected, nor estoppel by convention212 by
which the parties to a contract may be precluded from asserting a contractual meaning or effect
different from what they both mutually assumed and on which they both relied.

203 See The Emilien Marie (1875) 44 L.J. Adm. 9; Ralli v. Paddington SS. Co. (1900) 5 Com. Cas. 124.
204 See, e.g., The C. Joyce [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285 and the discussion in The Nogar Marin [1988] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 412.
205 See Solle v. Butcher [1950] 1 K.B. 671.
206 Great Peace Shipping v. Tsavliris (International) [2003] Q.B. 679 (C.A.). The case casts doubt on whether
equity law has any role in the context of mistake, e.g., by imposing terms on a party who wishes to rescind a contract
on the grounds of mistake. In Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com [2005] 1 S.L.R. 502, the Court of Appeal of
Singapore expressed the view that the equitable jurisdiction remained in existence, but contrast the English law per
Aikens J. in Statoil v. Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP (The Harriette N) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 685, esp. paras
84–106.
207 See FSHC Group Holdings v. GLAS Trust Corp [2019] EWCA Civ 1361 and the commentary in (2020)
L.M.C.L.Q. 1.
208 A signed charterparty is distinct from signature of a guarantee in an email “recap” for the purposes of the
Statute of Frauds: see Golden Ocean Group v. Salgaocar Mining Industries [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 542.
209 The parties’ common subjective intention must be proved in the case of rectification for common mistake;
see FSHC Group Holdings v. GLAS Trust Corp disagreeing with a dictum in Chartbook.
210 See the extensive historical analysis by Leggatt L.J. (as he then was) in FSHC Group Holdings v. GLAS Trust
[2019] EWCA Civ 1361.
211 The Starsin [2004] A.C. 715; Dumford Trading v. OAO Atlantrybflot [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 289, KPMG v.
Network Rail [2007] Bus. L.R. 1336 and Hopkinson v. Towergate Financial (Group) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2744.
212 Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. v. Texas Commerce International Bank [1982] Q.B. 84; The Vistafjord
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243; ING Bank v. Ros Roca [2012] 1 W.L.R. 472.

35
1.74 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

1.74 The circumstances in which this remedy is available were, for the most part,213 sum-
marised by the House of Lords in Chartbrook v. Persimmon Homes.214 The party seeking
rectification must show that: (1) the parties had an actual continuing common intention,215
whether or not amounting to a binding agreement, in respect of a particular matter in the
instrument to be rectified; (2) there was an outward expression of accord; (3) the intention
continued at the time of the execution of the instrument sought to be rectified; and (4) by
mistake, the instrument did not reflect that common intention. Rectification requires a mis-
take about whether the written instrument conformed with the parties’ prior consensus, not
whether it conformed with what the party in question believed that consensus to have been.
Subsequent conduct cannot create a common intention where none existed at the time when
the contract was concluded, but evidence of what the parties said and did subsequently may
cast light on what they in fact intended at the time.216 In deciding whether a common continu-
ing intention exists, the test appears now to be subjective but with an objective element, that
is to say “what an objective observer would have thought the intentions of the parties to be”
and not merely what “the inward thoughts of the parties” may have been. Evidence of what a
party subjectively understood to have been agreed is also evidence tending to show that those
terms, in an objective sense, were agreed, at any rate in a case in which the prior consensus
was not entirely in writing and, further, evidence of subsequent conduct may also have some
material evidential value.
1.75 It is not necessary that the parties should at the material time have formulated the
words which are sought to be inserted by rectification, it being sufficient that they had the
necessary continuing common intention and it is not an automatic bar to rectification if the
instrument contained the very wording that the parties intended it to contain, but that wording
had an effect or meaning different from that which was intended.217
1.76 Unilateral mistake. The mistake as to the execution of the contractual document may
be a mistake by both parties, or by just one, but in the latter case, the circumstances must
be such that the non-mistaken party is estopped from denying that he was mistaken. Thus, in
Agip v. Navigazione Alta Italia218 rectification of a freight escalation clause in two consecutive
voyage charters was refused on the grounds that only the charterers were mistaken as to the
contents of the clause; the owners had not contributed to the charterers’ mistake and were not
aware of it. However, in Commissioner for New Towns v. Cooper (G.B.),219 the unconscionable
conduct of one party had led the other to adopt a mistaken view as to the effect of the written
agreement, and rectification was allowed.

213 In FSHC Group Holdings v. GLAS Trust Corp (above) the Court of Appeal expresses a limited but important
qualification.
214 [2009] A.C. 1101, esp. para. 48 (Lord Hoffmann) approving the statement in Swainland Builders Ltd v.
Freehold Properties Ltd [2002] E.G.L.R. 71 and see also the summary explained by Mustill J. in Ets. Georges et Paul
Levy v. Adderley Navigation (The Olympic Pride) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 67, 72–73, Britoil v. Hunt Overseas Oil
[1994] C.L.C. 561 and PT Berlian Laju Tanker TBK v. Nuse Shipping Ltd (The Aktor) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 346,
paras 38–64 and Equity Syndicate Management Ltd v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 155 and
[2015] EWHC 2163 (Comm) at paras 23–28. Plain and obvious errors may be dealt with as a process of interpreta-
tion: see Hopkinson v. Towergate Financial (above).
215 In FSHC Group Holdings v. GLAS Trust Corp [2019] EWCA Civ 1361, the Court of Appeal held that Lord
Hoffmann’s obiter view that the criterions is objective was wrong and that there must be a subjective error by the
parties. Cf. Daventry D.C. v. Daventry Housing [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1333, where the Court of Appeal treated the obiter
views expressed in Chartbrook as binding. See the lecture by Sir Paul Morgan to the London Common Law Bar
Association on 3 December 2012 for a profound review of the problems.
216 See the seminal judgment of Males J. (as he then was) in Equity Syndicate Management Ltd v. GlaxoSmith-
Kline PLC [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 155 and [2015] EWHC 2163 (Comm) at paras 23–28.
217 T&N v. Royal and Sun Alliance (No. 2) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 106, paras 133–137 and Grand Met v. William
Hill [1997] 1 B.C.L.C. 390.
218 [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 353, affirming [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 333.
219 [1995] Ch. 259.

36
 MISREPRESENTATION 1.79

1.77 It is not normally necessary for a party to seek rectification of a bill of lading, which
is not the contract itself but merely evidence of its terms. However, the parties may, by words
or conduct, agree that an unsigned document shall be the contractual document, in which
case rectification may be necessary if the document fails to reflect the true agreement. In The
Pinta,220 Evans J. held that an unsigned draft charter was not a contractual document, but that,
if it had been, it could have been rectified.
1.78 For other cases on rectification of charters, see Vergottis v. Ford221 (statement of class);
Joint Danube Black Sea Shipping Agencies v. Rederi A/B Iris222 (basis of calculating freight);
Chandris v. Dreyfus223 (capacity of ship); Federazione Italiana v. Federal Commerce224 (orders
for loading port); The Rhodian River225 (charter rectified to substitute name of prospective
registered owner of ship for name of sister company mistakenly identified as “owner”) and
on the non-rectification of a bill of lading The Magellan Strait.226

MISREPRESENTATION
1.79 A contracting party may be entitled to rescind the charter, and sometimes to recover
damages, if he entered into the charter as a result of a misrepresentation made to him by the
other party227 or his agent.228 A misrepresentation will give rise to legal remedies if the follow-
ing requirements are fulfilled:229
(a) The representation may be express or implied,230 but it must be one of fact, and it has
to be judged objectively according to the impact that might be expected on a reason-
able representee with the known characteristics of the actual representee.231 A repre-
sentation of fact may include a representation as to a party’s state of mind, such as his

220 [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 246 (affirmed [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 103).
221 (1918) 34 T.L.R. 234.
222 (1932) 43 Ll. L. Rep. 97.
223 (1934) 50 Ll. L. Rep. 141.
224 (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 717.
225 [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 373.
226 [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (non-incorporation of a jurisdiction clause in a time charter) Rectifying a negotiable
instrument like a bill of lading where third parties have acquired it for value is of course particularly difficult: see
e.g. Caresse Navigation v. Zurich Assurance Maroc (The Channel Ranger) [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 256 at para. 15.
227 Damages may also be recoverable against third parties in tort if they have made a negligent misstatement which
is relied upon: The Arta [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 534, where a Baltic broker was held liable for an owner’s loss of freight
under a charter which was entered into on the basis of misstatements by the broker as to the charterer’s creditworthi-
ness. Presumably if the broker was authorised by the charterer’s principal, that principal would also be liable.
228 Where a claimant has suffered loss in reliance on the deceit of an agent, the principal is vicariously liable if,
but only if, the deceitful conduct of the agent was within his or her actual or ostensible authority: see Winter v. Hockley
Mint [2019] 1 W.L.R. 1617 para. 48 relying on Armagas v. Mundogas [1986] A.C. 717. It may be easier to establish
vicarious liability where the agent’s deceit is committed for the benefit of the principal rather than himself, but (per
paras 64-69) there is no general rule that a principal will always be vicariously liable for the wrongdoing of his or
her agent where the wrongdoing was committed for the benefit of the principal, regardless of the circumstances and
even in cases of deceit. Merely providing the opportunity for wrongdoing is not sufficient, without more, to give rise
to vicarious liability, absent a holding out of the wrongdoer as having authority to act for the defendant sought to be
made vicariously liable (para. 62).
229 Probably the most comprehensive modern judicial analyses of the law of misrepresentation is to be found in
the judgment of Christopher Clarke J. in Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich v. Royal Bank of Scotland [2011] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 123, Cockerill J in The C Challenger [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 and the judgment of Coulson J. in Fitzroy
Robinson Ltd v. Mentmore Towers Ltd [2009] EWHC 1552 (TCC) and see also, when Coulon L.J. was in the Court
of Appeal, BV Nederlandse Industrie van Eiprodukten v. Rembrandt Enterprises Inc [2020] Q.B. 551.
230 Raiffeisen (above), paras 84–85; mere silence cannot found a claim in misrepresentation, but silence may
assume a positive content from its context; it may become a “speaking silence”: see Stocznia Gdanska v. Latvian
Shipping Co. [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 436, para. 96, per Rix L.J. but there may be “exceptional cases” Property Alliance
Group v. Royal Bank of Scotland (No.5) [2018] 1 W.L.R. 3529 (esp. paras 122–132).
231 Raiffeisen (above), paras 81–83 and the cases cited.

37
1.80 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

intentions or expectations, but in such a case the representation is not that his intentions
or expectations will be fulfilled, but merely that he genuinely intends or expects as
represented; and it may also involve an implied representation that his expectation is
based upon reasonable grounds. The representor is entitled to qualify what he is rep-
resenting by a suitable notice that there should be no reliance or that liability for
negligence in or about the making of the representation was disclaimed.232
(b) The representation must be material, in the sense that it would reasonably be contem-
plated that the other party would, as a reasonable person, be entitled and likely to rely
upon it in deciding whether to enter into the contract, or upon what terms and that it
was so intended by the representor.233 There must be a sufficient connection between
the maker of the representation and the recipient of it to show that the maker was
intending the recipient to rely on it in a particular way although the passage of the
representation may be indirect.234
(c) The representation must have been understood in the manner represented235 and, as a
matter of causation,236 relied upon by the representee237 in deciding to enter into the
contract or which terms to stipulate, although it need not have been the only induce-
ment; it must at least have been a real and substantial inducement.238 There is no
definitive requirement that the representee should actually have believed the matter
represented to be true,239 but it is submitted that the less he believed it, the less likely
it is that he was misled by it or relevantly relied on it.
(d) The representation must be false, in the sense of being substantially incorrect such
that the difference between what was represented and what was correct would have
been likely to induce a reasonable person in the position of the representee to act in
reliance on it.240
1.80 A representation may be made: (i) fraudulently, that is to say with the intention of
deceiving the other party, or without any honest belief in the truth of the representation;241

232 Raiffeisen (above), para. 81 and AXA Sun Life Services plc v. Campbell Martin Ltd [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1.
Taberna Europe (above). This would be subject to the requirement of “reasonableness” under s.2(2) of the Unfair
Contract Terms Act 1973.
233 Raiffeisen (above), paras 86 and 220. BV Nederlandse Industrie van Eiprodukten v. Rembrandt Enterprises
Inc [2020] Q.B. 551.
234 Taberna Europe CDO plc v. Selskabet AFI [2017] Q.B. 633.
235 This is particularly important in the case of implied representations: see Raiffeisen (above), para. 87.
236 Raiffeisen (above), para. 195; “might have acted differently but for the representation” is not enough.
237 BV Nederlandse Industrie van Eiprodukten v. Rembrandt Enterprises Inc (above) In Leeds City Council v.
Barclays Bank [2021] 2 W.L.R. 1180 Cockerlill J. held a claimant for rescission must be aware of the misrepresenta-
tion and probably have it actively present in his mind at the relevant time.
238 Raiffeisen (above), paras 153 and 195–199. See Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch.D. 459 as applied in
the House of Lords in Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp. (2003) 1 A.C. 159 is to the
effect that once a representation is an inducement, the courts will not consider any other inducements. See Raiffeisen
(above), paras 153 et seq., 196 and generally the judgments of the Supreme Court on the law of deceit in Zurich
Insurance v. Hayward [2017] A.C. 142. In the case of a non-fraudulent misrepresentation the claimant must show he
would not have entered the contract, or on the terms he did, whereas in the case of deceit, it is enough that he might
not have done so long as material “influence” on the decision is proved and that may be achieved by way of presump-
tion: see BV Nederlandsche Industrie Van Eiprodukten v. Rembrandt Enterprises (above at para. 34) commenting on
Cassa di Risparmio della Republica di San Marino v. Barclays Bank [2011] EWHC 484 (Comm) (para. 233).
A contract term to the effect that a party has not relied on any representations (a “non-reliance clause”) may be
effective to exclude liability in misrepresentation if that term is otherwise enforceable: First TowerTrustees v. CDS
(superstores International) [2019] 1 W.L.R. 632.
239 Zurich Insurance v. Hayward [2017] A.C. 142 and see Rosa Lee in (2017) L.M.C.L.Q. 130.
240 Raiffeisen (above), para. 149 and the cases cited.
241 Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App. Cas. 337 and more recently AIC Ltd v. ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd (The
Kriti Palm) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 555; Dadourian Group International Inc. v. Simms [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 601.

38
 MISREPRESENTATION 1.82

(ii) negligently, that is, without taking reasonable care to verify its truth; or (iii) innocently,
that is, in good faith and without negligence. Upon these distinctions the remedies available
for misrepresentation to some extent depend.242

Rescission for misrepresentation

1.81 By virtue of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the remedy of rescission is, except in
the case of fraudulent misrepresentation, a discretionary remedy, the court or arbitrator having
power to award damages in lieu of rescission.243 Subject to that discretion, rescission is avail-
able unless barred by one of the following factors:244
(1) Impossibility of restitutio in integrum. Rescission is not available if it is impossible to
return the parties to their previous position in financial terms. Before the Misrepresenta-
tion Act, the fact that performance of the contract had commenced, or had been com-
pleted, was in many cases a bar to rescission. The Act abolishes this rule, but the further
performance has progressed, and the more complex the financial adjustments necessary
to achieve restitutio in integrum, the more likely it is that the court would award dam-
ages in lieu of rescission.
(2) Affirmation. If the innocent party affirms the contract with knowledge of the misrep-
resentation, he loses the right to rescind. Affirmation may be express, or it may be
inferred from conduct which shows an unequivocal intention to continue with the
contract.
(3) Lapse of time. Even if the innocent party is unaware of the misrepresentation, exces-
sive lapse of time is a bar to rescission. In Salt v. Stratstone245 the Court of Appeal
confirmed that a lapse of time may serve as a bar to rescission, but only where the
lapse of time is so unreasonable such that it would be inequitable in all the circum-
stances to grant the rescission.
(4) Third party rights. If third parties have acquired proprietary rights as a result of the
contract, rescission is not available.

Damages for misrepresentation

1.82 If the misrepresentation is fraudulent, the innocent party may recover damages whether
or not he also rescinds the contract. The damages, which are recoverable in respect of the tort
of deceit, have been held to include all loss suffered as a result of reliance on the misrepre-
sentation, whether foreseeable or not.246 The basis of the assessment of damages is to place

There is some doubt as to whether an implied representation which is not present in the representor’s mind can ever
be fraudulent: see Property Alliance Group v. Royal Bank of Scotland (No.5) [2018] 1 W.L.R. 3529 at para. 158.
242 This is not the place to consider clauses which seek to exclude or confine liability for misrepresentation, but
see generally the discussion in AXA Sun Life Services plc v. Campbell Martin Ltd (above).
243 Huyton S.A. v. Distribuidora Internacional de Productos Agricolas [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 780. Thomas Witter
Ltd v. TBP Industries [1996] 2 All E.R. 573 and Salt v. Stratstone [2015] EWCA Civ 754 (2016) L.M.C.L.Q. 489.
244 See generally Zurich Insurance v. Hayward [2017] A.C. 142 2017 and Rosa Lee in (2017) L.M.C.L.Q. 130.
245 [2015] EWCA Civ 754.
246 Royscot v. Rogerson [1991] 2 Q.B. 297; in Smith New Court v. Citibank [1997] A.C. 254, at p. 267; the
House of Lords declined to express a view on the correctness of this decision but the Singapore Court of Appeal has
doubted the correctness of Royscot in RBC Properties v. Defus Furnitures [2014] SGCA 62: see [2015] L.M.C.L.Q.
464 and the English Court of Appeal in Taberna Europe CDO plc v. Selskabet AFI [2017] Q.B. 633 (at paras 33–47)
has explained and limited the impact of the decision. See also OMV Petrom v. Glencore International AG [2016] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 412 where Royscot was not even cited; it was held that the basic measure of damages in deceit is the
price paid less the benefits received as a result of the transaction.

39
1.83 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

the representee in the same position in which he would have been if no representation had
been made, and not as if he had been told the truth.247
1.83 Damages are recoverable for negligent misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the
Misrepresentation Act 1967. This statutory remedy, which imposes upon the defendant rep-
resentor the burden of proving that he exercised reasonable care, effectively supersedes any
remedy under the general law of negligence in respect of representations made by or on behalf
of one contracting party to the other, which induce the latter to enter into the contract. The
damages awarded under section 2(1) of the Act are similar to those in deceit; they are intended
to place the innocent party in the same position financially as if he had not entered into the
contract, not to compensate him for loss of bargain, or to place him in the same position as
if the representation had been true. The damages may include compensation for consequential
loss suffered as a result of the misrepresentation.248 But, in principle, section 2(1) entitles the
representee to recover only such damages as flow from his having entered into a contract with
the representor (or, it would seem, the principal of the representor).249 Where the representee
has himself been guilty of fault, his damages may be reduced to reflect that fault pursuant to
section 1 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.250
1.84 Where the representation is entirely innocent, made without fraud or negligence, dam-
ages may nevertheless be awarded, under section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act, in lieu of
the discretionary remedy of rescission, but only if the right to rescind has not already been
lost by one of the factors mentioned above.251 In determining whether to award rescission or
damages the tribunal will take into account: (1) the seriousness of the misrepresentation; (2)
the consequences to the representor if rescission is granted; and (3) the consequences to the
representee if the contract is upheld. In Wm. Sindall v. Cambridgeshire C.C.,252 the Court of
Appeal considered that the damages under section 2(2) were intended to reflect the contractual
measure, namely, to place the claimant in the same position as if the representation had been
true. At first sight this may seem odd, since it has the effect of elevating the representation
into a contractual term, thus giving the claimant the benefit of a better bargain than he actually
made. It is submitted, however, that it is correct, and unobjectionable in practice so long as it
is kept in mind that the purpose of the power to award damages under section 2(2) instead of
rescission is to cater for those cases where the misrepresentation relates to minor or collateral
matter, such that to allow rescission would be out of proportion to its significance.
1.85 The Misrepresentation Act imposes liability in damages only on the parties to the
contract.253 A broker who negotiated a charter but is not himself a party thereto cannot incur
liability under the Act and is only liable, if at all, under the general law of tort for negligent
or fraudulent misrepresentations made by him.254 The principal may be liable under the Act for
the agent’s misrepresentations if made with the actual or ostensible authority of the principal.

247 Doyle v. Olby (Ironmongers) [1969] 2 Q.B. 158; Downs v. Chappell [1997] 1 W.L.R. 426, esp. pp. 438 et
seq., and Dadourian Group International Inc. v. Simms (above).
248 Cemp Properties v. Dentsply [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 197.
249 Taberna Europe CDO plc v. Selskabet AFI [2017] Q.B. 633.
250 See the obiter dicta in Taberna Europe CDO plc v. Selskabet AFI [2017] Q.B. 633 (paras 50–52) and Gran
Gelato v. Richcliffe (Group) [1992] Ch. 560. But contrast the case in deceit: Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan
National Shipping Corp. [2003] 1 A.C. 159.
251 See Salt v. Stratstone [2015] EWCA Civ 754, (2016) L.M.C.L.Q. 489; see also Atlantic Lines v. Hallam (The
Lucy) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 188; Huyton v. Distribuidora Internacional de Productos Agricolas [2003] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 780. Thomas Witter Ltd v. TBP Industries [1996] 2 All E.R. 573.
252 [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1016.
253 Taberna Europe CDO plc v. Selskabet AFI [2017] Q.B. 633.
254 See Resolute Maritime v. Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (The Skopas) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 431.

40
 OTHER VITIATING FACTORS: DURESS AND BRIBERY 1.87

Representation – a term of the contract

1.86 A representation which induces the contract may also become a term of the contract.
In such a case the representee may either avail himself of the remedies described earlier in
respect of the misrepresentation, or invoke his contractual remedies, namely, damages for loss
of bargain and, if the representation is a condition of the contract, or if its inaccuracy goes to
the root of the contract, elect to terminate.

OTHER VITIATING FACTORS: DURESS AND BRIBERY 255

Duress
1.87 A contract is voidable, and thus can be rescinded at the suit of a party to it, who may
have a claim accordingly in unjust enrichment,256 if that party’s apparent agreement resulted
from coercion due to the exercise of duress by, or with the connivance of, the other party, which
is sufficient to deprive his apparent agreement of proper voluntariness; his free will need not
be destroyed, but it must be negatived, vitiated or “deflected” by the imposition of illegitimate
pressure,257 giving him no practical choice other than to express apparent consent.258 It has been
said that the effect of the duress must be to make an apparently voluntary act involuntary.259 It
is not necessary that such duress be the only reason why he expressed consent, as long as it is
a significant cause260 or at least a reason which satisfies the “but for” test.261
A written agreement to the sale and purchase of shares followed A’s making very real threats of
murder and violence against B and his family. Although the threats were of coercive effect and were
a reason for B’s signature of the agreement, he might still have signed it anyway for commercial
reasons and B had not proved that he would not have signed but for the threats.
The Privy Council held by a majority that duress was akin to fraudulent misrepresentation and
that, just as a contract would be rescinded for fraud once reliance on the fraud is shown even though
there may be other contributing causes, so also in the case of duress. If A’s threats were “a” reason
for B’s executing the agreement, B was entitled to the relief of having it set aside even though he

255 There are other such factors in the law, such as undue influence, but these are most unlikely to be relevant
in a commercial context and will thus not be considered here.
256 The precise nature of the remedy is however very fact-dependent: Halpern v. Halpern [2008] Q.B. 195 and
see also Al Nehayan v. Kent [2018] EWHC 333 (Comm). Money, not lawfully due, paid under protest in the face of
actual or threatened illegitimate seizure or detention of goods was held to be recoverable as money had and received
in Maskell v. Horner [1915] 3 K.B. 106. On the recovery of secret commissions generally, see Wood v. Commercial
First Business Ltd. [2022] Lloyd’s Rep. 644.
257 A threat to perform a lawful act coupled with a demand for payment or variation might amount to economic
duress in bad faith, but it would be most unlikely so to do in a commercial context: CTN Cash & Carry v. Gallaher
[1994] 4 All E.R. 714 applied by Phillips J. (as he then was) in Marsden v. Barclays Bank [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 420.
The Court of Appeal in Times Travel (UK) Ltd v. Pakistan International Airlines Corp. [2019] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 89 and
[2020] Ch. 98 at para. 53 “in some circumstances” lawful acts or the threat of lawful acts can give rise to duress; the
judgment of David Richards L.J. sets out the history of the development of the law on duress as affecting otherwise
binding contracts both in English and Australian law. The Supreme Court upheld that judgment [2021] U.K.S.C. 40.
See also Al Nehayan v. Kent [2018] EWHC 333 (Comm) per Leggatt L.J. (at first instance) paras 178 et seq., although
David Richards L.J. in Times Travel did not agree with all that Leggatt L.J. said (see paras 101 et seq).
258 In Al Nehayan v. Kent, at para. 191 Leggatt L.J. (as he then was) said that the absence of any reasonable
alternative is not an absolute requirement but rather is very strong evidence of whether the claimant was induced by
the threat or other illegitimate pressure to enter into the contract, agreeing with Christopher Clarke J. in Kolmar Group
AG v. Traxpo Enterprises Pvt Ltd [2010] EWHC 113 (Comm) at para. 92.
259 On v. Lao Yiu Long [1980] A.C. 614.
260 Al Nehayan v. Kent [2018] EWHC 333 (Comm) at para. 189.
261 See Lynch v. D.P.P. of Northern Ireland [1975] A.C. 653; Barton v. Armstrong [1976] A.C. 104; Dimskal Ship-
ping v. I.T.W.F. (The Evia Luck) [1992] 2 A.C. 152 and Huyton v. Peter Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 620, esp. p. 630.

41
1.88 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

might well have entered into the contract even if A had uttered no threats to induce him to do so.
The burden lay on A to prove that his threats did not contribute to B’s decision to sign.
(Barton v. Armstrong [1976] A.C. 104 and see generally Lynch v. D.P.P. of Northern Ireland [1975]
A.C. 653.)

1.88 Actual or threatened violence to the person,262 or imprisonment, may amount to duress
unless justified in law263 and the threat to destroy or damage property may amount to duress and
it may also amount to the tort of intimidation.264 It was once thought that unlawful seizure or
detention of goods was incapable of amounting to duress, but the principle that agreements can
be avoided if entered into under duress of goods or economic duress is now well established.265
In the commercial context, illegitimate economic duress is likely to be more significant than
any other type.266 Economic duress must, however, be distinguished from commercial pressure
which does not vitiate consent,267 and that is so even where the commercial necessity bearing
upon the party seeking to rely on duress is great.268
1.89 The ingredients of legally sustainable269 economic duress were summarised by Dyson J.
(as he then was) in DSND Subsea Ltd v. Petroleum Geo-Services ASA270 as follows:
. . . there must be pressure, (a) whose practical effect is that there is compulsion on, or a lack of
practical choice for, the victim, (b) which is illegitimate, and (c) which is a significant cause induc-
ing the claimant to enter into the contract. . . . In determining whether there has been illegitimate
pressure, the court takes into account a range of factors. These include whether there has been an
actual or threatened breach of contract; whether the person allegedly exerting the pressure has acted
in good or bad faith; whether the victim had any realistic practical alternative but to submit to the
pressure; whether the victim protested at the time; and whether he affirmed and sought to rely on
the contract. These are all relevant factors. Illegitimate pressure must be distinguished from the
rough and tumble of the pressures of normal commercial bargaining.

Not all pressure, even of the strongest sort, is regarded as illegitimate for these purposes.271
The threat to do an act which is itself unlawful (and may even amount to the tort of unlawful

262 As found in Al Nehayan v. Kent (above).

263 Coke’s 2nd institute 482.
264 Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp. v. Skibs A/S Avanti (The Siboen and the Sibotre) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 293, 335 and Kolmar Group AG v. Traxpo Enterprises PVT Ltd [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 653, esp. para. 119 of
the judgment.
265 Times Travel (UK) Ltd v. Pakistan International Airlines Corp.(above) and also Vantage Navigation v. Suhail
and Saud Bahwan Building Materials (The Alev) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 138, 145 and Kolmar Group AG v. Traxpo
Enterprises PVT Ltd (above), esp. paras 93–94 of the judgment. However, there is much debate about the exact limits
of the doctrine: see Borrelli v. Ting [2010] U.K.P.C. 21 [2010] Bus. L.R. 1718, where the unlawful means of threaten-
ing a lawful act were held to create actionable duress, and the commentary in [2011] L.M.C.L.Q. 333.
266 See generally The Siboen and the Sibotre, ibid. and The Evia Luck (above).
267 See Atlas Express v. Kafco [1989] Q.B. 833, 839; the “rough and tumble of the pressures of normal com-
mercial bargaining”: The Cenk Kaptanoglu (above).
268 See, e.g., Morton Construction v. City of Hamilton (1961) 31 D.L.R. 323.
269 Duress does not itself found a cause of action unless it amounts to some independent wrong, such as the tort
of intimidation, or if it provides the foundation for some other claim, e.g. in restitution: see Al Nehayan v. Kent
(above).
270 [2000] B.L.R. 530 at para. 131 applied by Phillips J. (as he then was) in Marsden v. Barclays Bank [2016]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 420, And see also per Lord Scarman in On v. Lao Yiu Long [1980] A.C. 614. “. . . it is material to
enquire whether the person alleged to have been coerced into making the contract did or did not protest; whether, at
the time he was allegedly coerced into making the contract, he did or did not have an alternative course open to him
such as an adequate legal remedy; whether he was independently advised; and whether after entering the contract he
took steps to avoid it.” There is no absolute requirement of a fiduciary relations and the central question is whether
the payee is under a duty to provide information, advice or recommendation on an impartial or disinterested basis:
Wood v. Commercial First Business Ltd. [2022] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 644.
271 See per Dyson J. in DSND Subsea v. Petroleum Geo Services ASA [2000] EWHC 185 (TCC), esp. paras
131–148 and Marsden v. Barclays Bank (above) at paras 34ff.

42
 OTHER VITIATING FACTORS: DURESS AND BRIBERY 1.91

intimidation) is plainly illegitimate, but the exertion of pressure by otherwise lawful means does
not necessarily prevent the operation of the doctrine of duress.272 It is necessary to consider
both the nature of the threat and the nature of the demand. A threat may be lawful, the sense of
not being a breach of the law, but the demand so extreme and not in good faith that it renders
the threat “illegitimate” for these purposes.273 However, a threat to do something lawful in sup-
port of a demand which the threatening party genuinely (even if unreasonably) believes he is
entitled to make will not amount to duress.274 By contrast, a threat not to effect salvage except
on extortionate terms has resulted in the salvage terms agreed being set aside or not enforced.275
1.90 A threat to break an existing contract may, but will not always, constitute duress. If
it is to do so, the consequences of the refusal to submit to the terms demanded must be seri-
ous and immediate, so that there is no reasonable alternative open, such as legal redress by
injunction or otherwise.
On 2 April, the Cenk Kaptanoglu was voyage chartered for the carriage of scrap to China with a
laycan range of 15 to 21 April. There was no right of substitution and the identity of the vessel was
important to the charterers as the receivers’ approval of her was critical under their sale contract.
The owners then, in repudiation of the charter, fixed her to other charterers on 7 April. They
acknowledged that this was in error and promised to find an alternative vessel. On 23 April the
owners nominated Agia with an ETA of 8 May and the receivers agreed to accept her with an
amended laycan on condition that the sale price was reduced by US$8 per mt. On 27 April, the
owners refused to pay that sum and made a “take it or leave it” offer of a US$2 per mt discount on
the freight rate with the charterers abandoning all their claims for repudiation. The charterers were
forced to accept this offer, but they then brought a claim for damages, arguing that the agreement
was voidable for duress. Arbitrators held that the agreement to abandon all claims in respect of the
owners’ prior repudiation had been procured by economic duress even though the owners had done
nothing illegal.
Cooke J. upheld the award. He held that the issue is not whether the conduct alleged to amount
to duress is lawful or unlawful, but whether it is morally or socially acceptable, with a standard of
impropriety rather than technical unlawfulness. He adopted the exposition of the potential consid-
erations for determining whether there has been actionable duress as stated in Adam Opel GmbH v.
Mitras Automotive (UK) Ltd [2007] EWHC 3205 (Q.B.) which were material similar to those stated
by Dyson J., quoted above. . .
(Progress Bulk Carriers v. Tube City IMS Ltd (The Cenk Kaptanoglu) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 501,
see the interesting note by Prof. Pey-Woan Lee [2012] L.M.C.L.Q. 478. See also B. & S. Contracts
v. Victor Green Publications [1984] I.C.R. 419, applied in The Alev (above) and Huyton v. Peter
Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 620. In Kolmar Group AG v. Traxpo Enterprises PVT Ltd [2010] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 653, Christopher Clarke J. held (at paras 93 et seq.) that there was economic duress
where the claimant had “no practical choice” but to pay an increased price to the defendant since
there was no realistic prospect of speedy legal redress and any rights they may have had were
unsecured (see also Lupofresh v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444, at para. 11 and Al
Nehayan v. Kent [2018] EWHC 333 (Comm) paras 189–191). Likewise in Atlas Express v. Kafco
[1989] Q.B. 833, Tucker J. set aside a variation made unwillingly and under compulsion when the
party had been “over a barrel”, but contrast to Williams v. Roffey Bros. [1991] 1 Q.B. 1, where the
increase in price was due to an unanticipated difficulty which itself imperilled the performance of
the contract. However, in Marsden v. Barclays Bank [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 420 (Stephen) Phillips
J. (as he then was) roundly dismissed a case of duress by a bank saying it would refuse credit unless
complaints against it were dropped; it was a threat to adopt an entirely lawful position, one which
the bank could hardly be criticised for taking and there is no reason to suspect that the bank did
not believe that it was entitled to make such a demand.)1.91

272 Progress Bulk Carriers v. Tube City IMS Ltd (The Cenk Kaptanoglu) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 501.
273 Al Nehayan v. Kent (above).
274 Times Travel (UK) Ltd v. Pakistan International Airlines Corp. (above) paras 70, 105 and 113.
275 E.g., The Rialto [1891] P. 175 and The Crusader [1907] P. 196.

43
1.91 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

Bribery
1.91 A charterparty or related guarantee which resulted from the giving of a bribe may be
avoided by the innocent party.276 There is a bribe where, unbeknownst to his principal, an agent
receives or is promised a (direct or indirect) personal inducement to conclude or recommend a
contract on behalf of his principal.277 The principal must be entitled to be confident that his agent
will act solely in his interests and have no conflict; receipt of a bribe creates a conflict.278 There
is an irrebuttable presumption that the payment of a bribe intended to influence a commercial
event in fact does so.279 In Novoship (UK) Ltd. v. Mikhaylyuk 280 Christopher Clarke J. said this:281
107. The payments (or other benefits) do not have to be made directly to the fiduciary. Bribes may be
paid to third parties close to the agent, such as family members or discretionary trusts, or simply to
those whom the agent wishes to benefit. The test is whether the payment (or other benefit) puts the
fiduciary in a real (as opposed to a fanciful) position of potential conflict between interest and duty.
108. The recipient of the bribe (or the person at whose order the bribe is paid) must be someone
with a role in the decision-making process in relation to the transaction in question e.g. as agent, or
otherwise someone who is in a position to influence or affect the decision taken by the principal.
There is, however, no need to show that the payer intended the agent to be influenced by the payment
or whether he was in fact influenced thereby. There is an irrebuttable presumption as to both . . .

However, it would seem follow that, if the principal282 actually knows of the inducement283
and contracts anyway, then there is no relevant bribery. It is an open question where the prin-
cipal does not in fact know of it, but the payer has taken all reasonable steps to communicate all

276 For an example of how the courts unwind transactions affected by bribery, see Wood v. Commercial First
Business Ltd. [2022] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 644.
277 See the definition of Slade J. in Industrial & General Mortgage Co v. Lewis [1949] 2 All E.R. 573 at p. 575
and per Leggatt J. in Anangel Atlas v. Ishikawajima-Harima [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 167 at p. 171. These cases preceded
the Bribery Act 2010, s.1 of which defines bribery as follows: where P offers, promises or gives a financial or other
advantage to another person, and (b) P intends the advantage to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant
function or activity, or to reward a person for the improper performance of such a function or activity or P knows or
believes that the acceptance of the advantage would itself constitute the improper performance of a relevant function
or activity.
278 See generally Andrew Smith J.’s judgment in Fiona Trust v. Privalov [2010] EWHC 3199 (Comm) esp. paras
70 ff.
279 Shagang Shipping Co Ltd v. HNA Group Co Ltd [2019] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 150 at para. 85.
280 [2012] EWHC 3586 (Comm).
281 The Court of Appeal in Shagang v. HNA (above) expressly approved this dictum (see para. 84). At para. 106
of his judgment Christopher Clarke J. added the important comment “The essential character of a bribe is . . . that it
is a secret payment or inducement that gives rise to a realistic prospect of a conflict between the agent’s personal
interest and that of his principal”. Secrecy is at the heart of the wrong: see Shipway v. Broadwood [1899] 1 Q.B. 367
at p. 373.
282 Who exactly “the principal” is for these purposes may not be altogether easy to discern when a corporate body
is concerned e.g. where a company director receives (and thus knows of) an inducement – Is the director’s knowledge
attributable to the company? It might be said that the director’s fiduciary duties towards the company should lead to
the conclusion that such an inducement is a bribe (see Mahesan v. Malaysian Government Officers Co-Operative Hous-
ing Society Ltd [1979] A.C. 324), but it may be important to examine the precise scope of a director’s authority to
receive information (and thus acquire knowledge) and it is submitted that, for this to be the analysis, there ought to be
reasonable grounds to lead the payer to doubt the director’s good faith for, were it otherwise, the payer would reason-
ably think the payment was authorised by the company and that the payment was a proper one. Moral blame on the
part of the agent is, however, not a necessary ingredient of bribery: In re a Debtor [1927] 2 Ch. 367.
In the specific shipping context, it is common that owning companies have nominee directors with management
companies having more germane executive control and even sometimes effective ownership. A communication to a
manager may rightly be regarded as a communication to the owner and indeed even more so than a communication
to a director of the owning company. The problem is usually critical only when liquidators are involved or when there
has been a significant change of management: see e.g. the underlying facts of Silver Dry Bulk Co. Ltd v. Homer
Hulbert Co. Ltd. [2017] Lloyd’s Rep. 154.
283 And perhaps, according to the circumstances, of the precise amount: Hurstanger v. Wilson [2007] 1 W.L.R.
2351 para. 36.

44
 OTHER VITIATING FACTORS: DURESS AND BRIBERY 1.93

necessary information to the principal (or to persons suitably authorised to receive knowledge
as for the principal) and reasonably believes that the principal does know of it and consents
to it.284 This may be a particular problem with corporate entities since the attribution of actual
knowledge of the company is apt to be closely linked with constructive knowledge and the knowl-
edge of suitably authorised agents of the company.

Remedies
1.92 The right to rescind285 a contract entered into as a result of duress or bribery will be lost
if the innocent party affirms the contract after the duress has ceased to operate or after he learns
of the bribe and takes no action to rescind or avoid the contract.286 A failure to take any steps to
have the contract set aside may amount to affirmation.287 Damages may nonetheless perhaps be
recovered if the facts amounting to duress are independently actionable as a tort288 and damages
for bribery may be recovered not least in the amount of the bribe so paid and any lost profits.289

Duress and the conflict of laws

1.93 In Dimskal Shipping Co. v. International Transport Workers’ Federation,290 the blacking
of a vessel by the I.T.W.F. was threatened in Sweden where such blacking was lawful and not
classified as duress. In the face of the threat, the shipowners entered into agreements with the
I.T.W.F. under which they covenanted to make increased and backdated payments to the crew.
The agreements were governed by English law. The issue was whether the English courts would
hold that the economic duress entitled the shipowners to avoid the agreements notwithstanding
that in Sweden, where the duress was exerted, it was legitimised. The House of Lords held that
the question was governed by English law and the lawfulness or otherwise of the duress in
Sweden was to be determined by English law, as the proper law and by English principles.291
The same reasoning should apply where the proper law of the agreement is foreign, bearing in
mind that an express choice of law may have been induced by the duress. However, there are
some types of duress which are regarded by English public policy as so unconscionable that a
contract induced by that duress will be avoided whatever may be the position under the proper

284 The burden of proof of knowledge rests on the payer of the sum alleged to be a bribe, but whether there has
been sufficient disclosure and resulting consent must depend on the facts of each case: Hurstanger v. Wilson (above)
paras 30ff. It is not enough that the payer trusts the agent to communicate the payment to the principal: Shipway v.
Broadwood (above). There may be a halfway house between knowledge and consent and this may influence the deci-
sion of whether the contract may be rescinded in equity: see Hurstanger v. Wilson paras 39–48 and per Briggs J. (as
he then was) in Ross River Ross River Ltd Cambridge City FC Ltd [2008] 1 All E.R. 1004 at para. 203 and UBS v.
Kommande Wasserwerke Leeipzig [2017] EWCA Civ 1567 at para. 157.
285 There may well be a requirement that restitution to the pre-contractual position is possible: Panama & South
Pacific Telegraph Co v. India Rubber Gutta Percha and Telegraph Co. (1875) 9 Ch. App. 515 at pp. 527 and 532–533
and Hurstanger v. Wilson (above).
286 See Bartram & Sons v. Lloyd (1904) 90 L.T. 357 (on the facts there was no election because the principal
was found to have insufficient knowledge); on affirmation see The Kanchenjunga [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 391 at p.
400. See generally Logicrose v. Southend United FC [1988] 1 W.L.R. 1256 at pp. 1261–1263.
287 See Northern Ocean Shipping v. Hyundai Construction (The Atlantic Baron) [1979] Q.B. 705; Pao On v. Lao
Yiu Long [1980] A.C. 614 and DSND Subsea v. Petroleum Geo Services ASA [2000] EWHC 185 (TCC), esp. paras
131–148.
288 See the differing views of Lord Diplock and Lord Scarman in Universe Tankships of Monrovia v. I.T.W.F.
[1983] A.C. 366, 385 and 400. Or if the same facts constitute the tort of intimidation – see Kolmar Group AG v.
Traxpo (above).
289 Fyffes Group Ltd v. Templeman [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 643 and FHR European Ventures v. Cedar Capital
Partners [2015] 1 A.C. 520.
290 [1992] 2 A.C. 152.
291 But see Lupofresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444, where the governing law was that
of Japan, esp. paras 42–52 of the judgment of Tomlinson L.J.

45
1.94 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

law. In Royal Boskalis v. Mountain,292 Phillips L.J. concluded293 that there are still these two
types of duress: (1) that which is so unconscionable that it will cause an English court, as a
matter of English public policy, to override the effect of the proper law of the contract on the
issue of duress; and (2) that which does not so offend English public policy and its effect will
be determined by the proper law of the contract.

THE TERMS OF THE CHARTER

Express terms
1.94 The express terms of the charter are those which have been expressly agreed upon
by the parties, whether orally or in writing. Where the parties have reduced their agreement
to a signed document, as is usually done with agreements for the chartering of a ship, two
consequences follow:
(1) Any provision incorporated in the document will normally be regarded as a contractual
term. Thus, statements in the charter as to the capacity of the ship, her whereabouts
and the date of her expected readiness to load are generally treated as contractual
terms binding on the owner, rather than as mere representations. The distinction may
be important for the reasons described at paragraph 1.83 above.
(2) There is a presumption that the signed contract document was intended by the parties
to contain all the express terms of the contract. Thus, a party who contends that a further
term, not included in the signed document, was intended to be incorporated into the
agreement, must first rebut this presumption. This can sometimes be done by showing
that there is a collateral contract, or warranty, the consideration for which is entering
into the main contract.294 Thus, in Hassan v. Runciman,295 where a ship was chartered
to carry a cargo of esparto, a statement made by the owners, prior to the conclusion of
the charter, as to the amount of esparto carried by the ship on a previous voyage was
held to be a contractual warranty although not embodied in the charter. The presumption
that the contractual document contains all the terms does not apply with the same force
to bills of lading, which, being issued after the contract is made and not being signed
by both the parties are not themselves the contract, but are merely evidence of its terms
(see Chapter 18). Thus, in The Ardennes,296 a statement of the vessel’s intended route,
not incorporated in the bill of lading, was held to be a contractual term.

Interpretation of charterparty terms

The general principle of interpretation297

1.95 Charterparties, as other commercial contracts, are to be interpreted with the aim of
ascertaining and giving effect to the intention of the parties as objectively derived from the

292 [1999] Q.B. 674; [1997] L.R.L.R. 523, esp. per Phillips L.J. at 639 et seq. applying Kaufman v. Gerson
[1904] 1 K.B. 591.
293 [1997] L.R.L.R. at 642.
294 See Heilbut, Symons v. Buckleton [1913] A.C. 30; De Lassalle v. Guildford [1901] 2 K.B. 215.
295 (1904) 10 Com. Cas. 19.
296 [1951] 1 K.B. 55.
297 For an amusing and profound insight, see Sir Bernard Eder on “The construction of shipping and marine
insurance contracts: why is it so difficult?” (2018) L.M.C.L.Q.

46
 THE TER MS OF THE CHARTER 1.97

ordinary and natural meaning of the words chosen by the parties to express their contract in
context and read as a whole; the process is not literalistic and much will depend on the nature,
formality and quality of drafting298 without regard to what was said in negotiations299 or “without
prejudice” negotiations.300 One must consider the language used and ascertain what a reason-
able person, who has all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been avail-
able to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract, would have
understood the parties to have meant.301

Circumstances in which external evidence is admissible as an aid to interpretation

1.96 The factual background and the commercial purpose of the contract. Although the
parties’ intention must be ascertained objectively, it must be ascertained by reference to the
reasonable intentions of people in the situation of the parties at the time when the contract was
concluded.302 It follows that evidence of the background and object of the transaction is always
admissible. This is now an important, though not dominant, principle of contractual construc-
tion and it is not dependent upon prior proof of ambiguity. In Reardon Smith v. Hansen
Tangen,303 Lord Wilberforce explained the basis for this rule and its limits as follows:

No contracts are made in a vacuum; there is always a setting in which they have to be placed. The
nature of what is legitimate to have regard to is usually described as “the surrounding circumstances”,
but this phrase is imprecise: it can be illustrated but hardly defined. In a commercial contract it is
certainly right that the Court should know the commercial purpose of the contract and this in turn
presupposes knowledge of the genesis of the transaction, the background, the context, the market
in which the parties are operating . . .
It is often said that, in order to be admissible in aid of construction, these extrinsic facts must be
within the knowledge of both parties to the contract, but this requirement should not be stated in
too narrow a sense. When one speaks of the intention of the parties to the contract, one is speaking
objectively – the parties cannot give evidence of what their intention was – and what must be
ascertained is what is to be taken as the intention which reasonable people would have had if placed
in the situation of the parties. Similarly when one is speaking of aim, or object, or commercial
purpose, one is speaking objectively of what reasonable persons would have in mind in the situation
of the parties.

1.97 The extent to which external evidence is admissible, and the correct approach to
the problem of interpretation, was summarised by Lord Hoffmann in Investors Compensation

298 See Arnold v. Britton [2015] A.C. 1619 (a case on a lease) per Lord Neuberger at para. 15 and Lord Hodge
at para. 77, Wood v. Capita (also known as Wood v. Sureterm) [2017] A.C. 1173, per Lord Hodge at para. 10 and per
Sir Geoffrey Vos C in Deutsche Trustee v. Duchess [2019] EWHC 7789 (Ch) paras 29/30 approved in appeal at [2020]
EWCA Civ 521 A plainly misplaced comma no longer carries the weight it might once have done: Vitol E&P v. New
Age (African Global Energy) [2018] EWHC 1580 (Comm).
299 But negotiations may provide relevant evidence of the genesis and commercial purpose of the contract: see
Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd v. Merthyr Tydfil County BC [2019] EWCA Civ 526.
300 Ocean Bulk Shipping and Trading v. TMT Asia [2011] 1 A.C. 662, where the exceptions to that principle are
fully elaborated. See also the judgment of Tomlinson J. in The Zenovia [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 139 on the effect of
“without prejudice” (“WP”) upon the clarity and unequivocality of statements made under that rubric; it prevented a
relevant estoppel from arising.
301 Lukoil Asia Pacific v. Ocean Tankers (The Ocean Neptune) [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 654 (para. 7).
302 See Lloyds Bank Foundation for Scotland v. Lloyds Banking Group [2013] 1 W.L.R. 366, a case where the
Supreme Court held that one had to ignore unforeseeable intervening changes in the law which did not frustrate the
contract, but which had an uncovenanted material impact upon the construction and effect of the contract.
303 [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 621, 624–625 and see also Lake v. Simmons [1927] A.C. 487, 509.

47
1.97 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

Scheme v. West Bromwich Building Society,304 in a judgment in which three other members of
the House of Lords concurred:305
(1) Interpretation is the ascertainment of the meaning which the document would convey
to a reasonable person having all the background which would reasonably have been
available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the
contract.
(2) The background was famously referred to by Lord Wilberforce306 as the “matrix of
fact”, but this phrase is, if anything, an understated description of what the background
may include. Subject to the requirement that it should have been reasonably available
to the parties307 and to the exception to be mentioned next, it includes absolutely
anything which would have affected the way in which the language of the document
would have been understood by a reasonable man.
(3) The law excludes from the admissible background the previous negotiations of the
parties and their declarations of subjective intent. They are admissible only in an
action for rectification. The law makes this distinction for reasons for practical policy
and, in this respect only, legal interpretation differs from the way we would interpret
utterances in ordinary life . . .
(4) The meaning which a document or other utterance would convey to a reasonable man
is not the same thing as the meaning of its words. The meaning of words is a matter
of dictionaries and grammars; the meaning of a document is what the parties using
those words against the relevant background would reasonably have been understood
to mean. The background may not merely enable the reasonable man to choose between
the possible meanings of words which are ambiguous but even (as occasionally hap-
pens in ordinary life) to conclude that the parties must, for whatever reason, have
used the wrong words or syntax: see Mannai Investments Co. Ltd v. Eagle Star Life
Assurance [1997] A.C. 749.
These principles requiring the objective ascertainment of the parties’ intention in the context
in which they made the contract were explicitly applied by the House of Lords in BCCI v.
Ali308 but the parties’ choice of the language in which to express that intention is still paramount;
it is the starting point and often the end point. In Arnold v. Britton,309 Lord Neuberger said
that contracts should be construed in the light of
. . . (i) background knowledge which would have been available to the parties would have understood
them to be using the language in the contract to mean and ordinary meaning of the clause, (ii) any

304 [1998] 1 W.L.R. 896. Although the formal authority of this judgment remains unimpaired, it must be read in
the light of Arnold v. Britton [2015] A.C. 1619 and Wood v. Capita Insurance Services [2017] A.C. 1173. Contrast
also the position in New Zealand: Firm PI Ltd. v. Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd. [2014] NZSC 147 noted in (2015)
L.M.C.L.Q. 174 where Prof McLaughan discussed whether recent developments have led to withdrawal from some
of Investors Compensation Scheme: (2015] L.M.C.L.Q. 406. His article led to a vibrant exchange with Mr Rohan
Havelock: see (2018) L.M.C.L.Q. 40 and 46.
305 For an interesting exchange of extra-judicial views see Sumption (2016–2017) 8 UK Supreme Court Yearbook
74 and Hoffmann (2018) 134 LQR 553.
306 In Prenn v. Simmonds [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1381.
307 As Lord Neuberger stressed in Arnold v. Britton [2015] A.C. 1619, at para. 21, the facts in question must be
known to both parties.
308 [2002] 1 A.C. 251. For a specific consideration of factual matrix, see BNP Mellon Corporate Trustee Services
v. LBG Capital No.1 PLC [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 119.
309 [2015] A.C. 1619. For one of a series of judgments reflecting the fine-tuning of development of the principles
of construction see e.g. Globe Motors v. TRW Lucas Varity Electric Steering [2016] EWCA Civ 396 [2017] 1 All
E.R. (Comm) 601 at paras 56–71.

48
 THE TER MS OF THE CHARTER 1.98

other relevant provisions of the [contract], (iii) the overall purpose of the clause and the [contract],
(iv) the facts and circumstances known or assumed by the parties at the time that the document was
executed, and (v) commercial common sense, but (vi) disregarding subjective evidence of any party’s
intentions.

He emphasised certain specific factors which are pertinent to voyage charter construction:
(1) The reliance placed in some cases on commercial common sense and surrounding
circumstances should not be invoked to undervalue the importance of the language
of the provision which is to be construed.
(2) The less clear the centrally relevant words are, or, to put it another way, the worse
their drafting, the more ready the court can properly be to depart from their natural
meaning. That is simply the obverse of the sensible proposition that the clearer the
natural meaning the more difficult it is to justify departing from it.
(3) Commercial common sense is not to be invoked retrospectively. The mere fact that a
contractual arrangement, if interpreted according to its natural language, has worked
out badly, or even disastrously, for one of the parties is not a reason for departing
from the natural language.
(4) While commercial common sense is a very important factor to take into account when
interpreting a contract, a court should be very slow to reject the natural meaning of
a provision as correct simply because it appears to be a very imprudent term for one
of the parties to have agreed, even ignoring the benefit of wisdom of hindsight. The
purpose of interpretation is to identify what the parties have agreed, not what the court
thinks that they should have agreed.
(5) When interpreting a contractual provision, one can only take into account facts or
circumstances which existed at the time that the contract was made, and which were
known or reasonably available to both parties.
(6) In some cases, an event subsequently occurs which was plainly not intended or con-
templated by the parties, judging from the language of their contract. In such a case,
if it is clear what the parties would have intended, the court will give effect to that
intention.
Thus, evidence is admissible to identify the subject matter of the contract or the identity of
the parties, where this is not clear from the language of the contract itself, or of “market
practice” even if falling short of custom,310 but evidence of the negotiations themselves, and
drafts of the contract, are not admissible as an aid to construction.311 Once the formal charter-
party has been drawn up and signed by the parties or their agents, it is not permissible to have
regard to fixture emails/telexes, or the pre-fixture negotiations, in order to establish or construe
the terms of the charterparty although they may be relevant to a claim for rectification of that
instrument.312
1.98 An agreed meaning of an expression. An exception to this rule which excludes
evidence of negotiations is that evidence may be admitted that the parties habitually used
language in an unconventional sense in order to support an argument that words in a contract
should bear a similar unconventional meaning, the so-called private dictionary principle.313 If

310 Crema v. Cenkos Securities [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2066 at paras 42–55.

311 Chartbrook v. Persimmon Homes [2009] A.C. 1101.
312 See paras 1.74 ff above.
313 Chartbrook (above), at paras 45–47 disapproving The Karen Oltmann [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 708 as not
involving an agreed unconventional meaning of words and thus as an illegitimate extension of the private dictionary
principle, but acknowledging that the doctrines of rectification or estoppel by convention may fill the gap.

49
1.99 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

the circumstances are such that each party is estopped from resiling from the agreed meaning,
then each is bound by it.314 The parties’ conduct after the conclusion of the contract may also
be relied upon where it amounts to an agreement to vary the contract, or where it gives rise to
an estoppel. However, where the circumstances fall short of this, the parties’ subsequent words
or conduct are irrelevant, and cannot be used as an aid to interpretation.315
1.99 A special or technical meaning. As mentioned below, the language of a contract is
normally interpreted according to its ordinary meaning. However, evidence may be admitted
to show that the parties intended the language to be interpreted in a special or technical sense,
and to explain its special or technical meaning.316
1.100 Custom. Custom may become relevant in two ways. First, the parties may have used
language that has, by custom or trade usage, achieved a special sense. In such a case, evidence
is admissible to explain the special meaning. Second, provided that it is not inconsistent with
the express terms of the charter, custom may be relied upon to annex terms to the charter, and
in particular to resolve questions of detail upon which the charter is silent, such as where and
how loading, discharging and delivery are to be effected.
1.101 To resolve ambiguity.317 Although it is not necessary to establish ambiguity before
considering evidence of the background and context of the contract, where the parties use
language that is capable of referring to more than one subject matter, whilst it is plain that
a reference to one was intended, they may give evidence as to what their intention was.318
Where the ambiguity results merely from the fact that the language used is, on the face of it,
vague or confusing, the old rule was that evidence could not be adduced to resolve what it
was intended to mean. That rule seems to have been absorbed by the more general principles
of contractual construction described above, but it is clear that even in such a case the court
will not admit evidence of the parties’ actual intentions, or of their negotiations (except for
the purpose of establishing an agreed meaning), and the evidence will therefore be confined
to that which is admissible on one or more of the preceding grounds.
1.102 Subsequent communication. Generally subsequent communications are irrelevant
to the construction of a contract, but they may be relevant to the issue of whether the parties
have varied their contract.319
1.103 It may also be possible to have regard to subsequent communications if they cre-
ate an estoppel as to the parties’ mutual understanding of the effect of their agreement,320 or
if there is a representation by one party about his agreement to treat the contract as having a
particular effect or having an effect different from that apparent from its express terms, which
is then relied upon by the counterpart making it inequitable to allow the former to go back
on his representation.

Other more specific guidelines for interpretation

1.104 In addition to the general principles discussed above, the courts occasionally invoke
more specific guidelines or canons of construction to resolve problems. With certain exceptions,

314 See Amalgamated Investment & Property v. Texas Commerce International Bank [1982] Q.B. 84, and most
recently ING Bank v. Roc Rosa [2012] 1 W.L.R. 472.
315 James Miller v. Whitworth Street Estates [1970] A.C. 572; Schuler v. Wickman Sales [1974] A.C. 235.
316 See Schuler v. Wickman Sales, at p. 261.
317 It is not necessary to find an ambiguity of language before one may have regard to the background of the
contract: Chartbrook (above), para. 37.
318 See Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H. & C. 906.
319 Allscan Services v. Dougland Support Service [2003] All E.R.(D) 199 (Jan.); see also the comments of Lord
Hoffmann in Carmichael v. National Power [1999] 1 W.L.R. 2042, 2050–2051.
320 See, e.g., Tinkler v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021] 3 W.L.R. 697 paras 31–38; Amalgamated
Investment & Property Co. v. Texas Commerce International Bank [1982] Q.B. 84; The Vistafjord [1988] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 243; ING Bank v. Ros Roca [2012] 1 W.L.R. 472.

50
 THE TER MS OF THE CHARTER 1.106

these are better not regarded as rules, since the circumstances of any particular case may render
them inapplicable, and it has been said that they are “good servants but bad masters”. Some
of those more likely to be of relevance in the interpretation of charterparties are set out below.
1.105 (1) Words to be given their ordinary meaning. Unless it is clear from the context or
proved by evidence (which is admissible for this purpose) that the contrary was intended, words
are to be understood in their ordinary, popular and business sense, rather than in a technical
sense.321 Unlike considerations of commercial common sense and surrounding circumstances, the
parties have control over the language they use in a contract and save in rare cases, the parties
must be presumed to have been specifically focusing on the issue covered by the provision when
agreeing the wording of that provision.322 Where a contract or clause is professionally drafted, it
is to be presumed that the draftsman has in mind previous decisions on the meaning of particular
words and phrases and intends such meaning to apply.323 If there is to be a departure from the
ordinary meaning of the language used, it should be demonstrable that something must have
gone wrong with the language, since linguistic mistakes are not readily or easily established in
a formal document. One should not embark on an exercise of searching for, let alone construct-
ing, drafting infelicities in order to facilitate a departure from the natural meaning.324 The mere
fact that a contract might appear to be unduly favourable to one of the parties is not a sufficient
reason to conclude that there must have been such a linguistic mistake.325 It has to be clear that
something has gone wrong with the language and also clear what a reasonable person would
have understood the parties to have meant.326
1.106 (2) The charterparty must be construed as a whole. As emphasised by Lord Hoff-
mann in the passage quoted above, all words and phrases depend upon their context for their
meaning, and must not be construed in a vacuum.327 The context includes not only the other
provisions of the charter itself, but also the commercial background. Notable recent examples
of this approach are Charter Reinsurance v. Fagan328 and Mannai Investments v. Eagle Star.329
In the context of a carefully drafted document, this principle may give rise to a presumption
that it should be so construed that none of the provisions are unnecessary surplusage, but this
presumption has been held not to apply to charterparties:
I think it would be wrong to treat the charterparty as if it were divided into parcels, each labelled
with the name of an individual subject and constituting, as it were, a complete code on that subject.
A charterparty is built up of clauses generally agreed in the trade; and when they are added to or
varied from time to time, as not infrequently they are, I doubt that the commercial draftsmen pay
much attention to overlapping or that they are afraid of repetition.330

321 See Sailing Ship Garston v. Hickie (1885) 15 Q.B.D. 580 (“port”); Mendl v. Ropner [1912] 1 K.B. 27
(“improper opening of valves”); The Aragon [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 343 (“USA East of Panama Canal”) and ED&F
Man v. Unicargo (The Ladytramp) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412 (“mechanical breakdown”). In New Zealand: Firm PI
Ltd v. Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd. [2014] NZSC 147 noted in (2015) L.M.C.L.Q. 174.
322 Arnold v. Britton [2015] A.C. 1619 per Lord Neuberger at para. 17.
323 The Kleovoulos of Rhodes [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 at 143–145 and The Ladytramp (above).
324 Arnold v. Britton (above) para. 18.
325 Arnold v. Britton (above) para. 19.
326 BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd v. Dolphin Drilling Ltd (The Byford Dolphin) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 192.
327 See also Dreyfus v. Parnaso [1959] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 125; The Laura Prima [1982] A.C. 1, 6; The Product
Star [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 268, 278; The Fina Samco [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 344; but this may be taken to extremes
and may produce surprising results: see The Star Sea [2001] 2 W.L.R. 170 (H.L.).
328 [1997] A.C. 313 and see also Pratt v. Aigaion Insurance Co. S.A. (The Resolute) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 225
and Lloyds Bank Foundation for Scotland v. Lloyds Banking Group [2013] 1 W.L.R. 366.
329 [1997] A.C. 749.
330 Royal Greek Government v. Minister of Transport (1950) 83 Ll. L. Rep. 228, per Devlin J. at p. 235. See
Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v. Swissmarine Services S.A. (The Lowlands Orchid) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357 and The
Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) v. FR8 Singapore Pte. Ltd (The Eternity) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 107. Sometimes arbitration clauses and jurisdiction clauses appear together or even internally inconsistent arbitra-
tion clauses, as in The Eleni P [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 461. The apparent repugnancy was resolved by Darius Chan

51
1.107 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

1.107 (3) Construction to avoid absurdity and to achieve a “reasonable interpretation”.

As noted above, the parties’ choice of the language to express their agreement is paramount;
it is always the starting point and usually the ending point but where the language of the con-
tract is capable of more than one interpretation, that interpretation which most accords with
commercial commonsense is to be preferred.331 As Lord Reid said in Schuler v. Wickman:332
The fact that a particular construction leads to a very unreasonable result must be a relevant con-
sideration. The more unreasonable the result, the more unlikely it is that the parties can have intended
it, and if they do intend it the more necessary it is that they should make that intention abundantly clear.

And Lord Hoffmann reiterated the point in I.C.S. v. West Bromwich Building Society, after the
preceding quoted passage:
(5) The “rule” that words should be given their “natural and ordinary meaning” reflects the common
sense proposition that we do not easily accept that people have made linguistic mistakes, particularly
in formal documents. On the other hand, if one would nevertheless conclude from the background
that something must have gone wrong with the language, the law does not require judges to attribute
to the parties an intention which they plainly could not have had.

This principle was somewhat extended by the Supreme Court in The Rainy Sky,333 where Lord
Clarke JSC said (at paragraphs 21, 23 and 30):
. . . the exercise of construction is essentially one unitary exercise in which the court must consider
the language used and ascertain what a reasonable person, that is a person who has all the background
knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they
were at the time of the contract, would have understood the parties to have meant. In doing so, the
court must have regard to all the relevant surrounding circumstances. If there are two possible
constructions, the court is entitled to prefer the construction which is consistent with business com-
mon sense and to reject the other. . . . Where the parties have used unambiguous language, the court
must apply it . . . it is in essence that, where a term of a contract is open to more than one inter-
pretation, it is generally appropriate to adopt the interpretation which is most consistent with business
common sense.

1.108 However, this approach must be adopted with caution. Notions of commercial com-
mon sense and surrounding circumstances should not be invoked to undervalue the importance
of the language of the provision which is to be construed334 and, as noted by Lord Clarke in
The Rainy Sky, there is no place for them where the words themselves are clear, and their
effect, if given their natural meaning, falls short of a result that flouts business commonsense.335
Commercial common sense is relevant only to the extent of how matters would or could have

A.R. in Tri-MG Intra Asia Airlines v. Norse Air Charter [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 258. On inconsistent arbitration clauses,
something which occurs surprisingly often, see The Eleni P [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 461.
331 See Anzen v. Hermes One [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349 at para. 32.
332 [1974] A.C. 235. Similar views were expressed by Lord Diplock in Antaios Cia. Naviera v. Salen Rederierna,
where he said: “If detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of words in a commercial document is going to lead to
a conclusion that flouts business commonsense it must be made to yield to business commonsense.” See also Lloyds
Bank Foundation for Scotland v. Lloyds Banking Group [2013] 1 W.L.R. 366. But commercial commonsense has its
limits and is not to be elevated to an overriding criterion of construction: BMA Special Opportunity Hub Finance Ltd
and others v. African Minerals Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 416, Cottonex Anstalt v. Patriot Spinning Mills [2014]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 615 paras 52–58 and Soufflet Negoce v. Fedcominvest Europe [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 537. For a slightly
different position in New Zealand see Firm PI Ltd v. Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd. [2014] NZSC 147 noted in
(2015) L.M.C.L.Q. 174.
333 Rainy Sky v. Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2900, but see the seven qualifications stated in Arnold v. Britton
[2015] A.C. 1619 per Lord Neuberger at paras 16–23 and Lord Hodge at paras 77–78. In Wood v. Capita [2017] A.C.
1173 Lord Hodge said (at para. 14) that the courts in Rainy Sky and Arnold v. Britton were “saying the same thing”
on the approach to contractual interpretation.
334 See Arnold v. Britton (above) per Lord Neuberger at para. 17 and Lord Hodge at paras 77–78.
335 See The Byford Dolphin (above).

52
 THE TER MS OF THE CHARTER 1.108

been perceived by the parties, or by reasonable people in the position of the parties, as at
the date they chose to express their contract as they did336 and in Wood v. Capita Insurance
Services337 Lord Hodge said this:
11. . . . the court can give weight to the implications of rival constructions by reaching a view as
to which construction is more consistent with business common sense. But, in striking a balance
between the indications given by the language and the implications of the competing constructions
the court must consider the quality of drafting of the clause . . . it must also be alive to the possibil-
ity that one side may have agreed to something which with hindsight did not serve his interest. . . .
Similarly, the court must not lose sight of the possibility that a provision may be a negotiated
compromise or that the negotiators were not able to agree more precise terms.
12. This unitary exercise involves an iterative process by which each suggested interpretation is
checked against the provisions of the contract and its commercial consequences are investigated. . . .
[O]nce one has read the language in dispute and the relevant parts of the contract that provide its
context, it does not matter whether the more detailed analysis commences with the factual background
and the implications of rival constructions or a close examination of the relevant language in the
contract, so long as the court balances the indications given by each.
13. Textualism and contextualism are not conflicting paradigms in a battle for exclusive occupa-
tion of the field of contractual interpretation. Rather, the lawyer and the judge, when interpreting
any contract, can use them as tools to ascertain the objective meaning of the language which the
parties have chosen to express their agreement. The extent to which each tool will assist the court
in its task will vary according to the circumstances of the particular agreement or agreements. Some
agreements may be successfully interpreted principally by textual analysis, for example because of
their sophistication and complexity and because they have been negotiated and prepared with the
assistance of skilled professionals. The correct interpretation of other contracts may be achieved by
a greater emphasis on the factual matrix, for example because of their informality, brevity or the
absence of skilled professional assistance. But negotiators of complex formal contracts may often
not achieve a logical and coherent text because of, for example, the conflicting aims of the parties,
failures of communication, differing drafting practices, or deadlines which require the parties to
compromise in order to reach agreement. There may often therefore be provisions in a detailed
professionally drawn contract which lack clarity and the lawyer or judge in interpreting such provi-
sions may be particularly helped by considering the factual matrix and the purpose of similar provi-
sions in contracts of the same type. The iterative process, . . . assists the lawyer or judge to ascertain
the objective meaning of disputed provisions . . .

That passage was explicitly relied on by the Court of Appeal in National Bank of Kazakhstan
v. The Bank of New York Meklon SA/NV,338 where Hamblen L.J. (as he then was) added (para. 38)
Wood makes it clear that textualism and contextualism are both tools to be used to ascertain the
objective meaning of the words used. The relative importance of these tools will vary according to
the circumstances, including the quality and expertise of the drafting.

It is particularly necessary to guard against approaching the question with preconceived ideas,
based on generally accepted rules for the sharing of risk,339 as to what is unreasonable:
The task of the court is to construe the meaning of the special condition without any preconceptions
as to what the parties intended. In other words, it is wrong to introduce uncertainty by starting from
the viewpoint of a general rule governing such clauses, and then to resolve the question of construc-
tion by reference to it. The court’s task is simply to determine the meaning of the provision against
its contextual and contractual scene.340

336 Arnold v. Britton (above) per Lord Neuberger at para. 19.

337 [2017] A.C. 1173.
338 [2018] EWCA Civ 1290.
339 See e.g. The Global Santosh [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 629; [2016] 1 W.L.R. 1853.
340 Pagnan v. Tradax Ocean Transportation [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 646, 652, per Steyn J. upheld [1987] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 342. For a particularly powerful example of this approach see: Lloyds Bank Foundation for Scotland v. Lloyds
Banking Group (above).

53
1.109 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

It is accordingly not a permissible method of construction to propound a general or generally

accepted principle for sharing the risk of delay between owners and charterers or seeking in
the abstract to determine a reasonable allocation of risk between them and then to seek to force
the provisions of the charter into the straitjacket of that principle or into that concept of
reasonableness.341
1.109 (4) Surplusage. In general a contract ought to be interpreted so as to give effect to
all of its provisions, with the result that an interpretation which renders certain words or clauses
redundant ought to be avoided. It has been said, however, that this guideline is of little value in
the interpretation of charterparties, which often contain many surplus words and phrases.342 Even
so, one should “lean toward treating words as adding something rather than as mere surplusage”.343
1.110 (5) Eiusdem generis. The so-called eiusdem generis rule lays down that where a list
of specific items is followed by general words such as “any other cause” the general words
should be interpreted as being restricted to things of the same kind as the specific examples. In
charterparty cases its application has been sporadic, and unattended by any generally accepted
principles. In Chandris v. Isbrandtsen-Moller,344 Devlin J. refused to apply it to a provision in
a charterparty which prohibited the shipment of “acids, explosives, arms, ammunition or other
dangerous cargo”. He relied primarily on the ground that there was no presumption to the effect
that it should be applied, and nothing in the context to show that it was intended to apply. Other
charterparty cases, however, in the context of liberty clauses and laytime exceptions clauses,
have adopted the approach that the eiusdem generis rule is generally applicable unless there is
something in the language or the context to rebut its application.345 Another matter of debate is
whether the rule can only apply if the specifically enumerated items form an identifiable class
or kind. This was the view taken in Magnhild v. McIntyre,346 but other decisions have been
to the opposite effect, holding that the rule should be applied in other cases also, by limiting
the general words to matters which are similar to one or more of the enumerated items.347 In
principle the latter approach seems preferable. The operation of the rule can be excluded by
words which indicate that no limitation on the general words is intended.348
1.111 (6) General and specific provisions. Where there is a conflict between different provi-
sions in the charterparty, the more specific provision will prevail. For example, in Marifortuna
v. Government of Ceylon349 it was held that a clause which provided that the owners should
pay the additional costs incurred by the charterers if the vessel arrived late at the loading port
should prevail over a Hague Rules Clause Paramount which exempted the owner from liability
for loss or damage caused by act, neglect or default of the master in the navigation of the ship.
1.112 (7) Exemption clauses.350 It is a general rule that if a party wishes to exclude or
limit his liability by exemption clauses he must do so in clear language,351 and for this reason

341 The Sea Queen [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 500, 502, per Saville J. and see also Sinochem v. Mobil Sales & Supply
[2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 339, Equity & Law Life Assurance Society v. Bodfield Ltd (1987) 1 e.g.l.r. 134 and Temple
Legal Protection v. QBE Insurance (Europe) [2008] Lloyd’s Rep. IR 643.
342 See Chandris v. Isbrandtsen-Moller [1951] 1 K.B. 240; The Angelos Lusis [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 338, 350.
343 See S.A. Maritime et Commercial v. Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. [1954] 1 W.L.R. 492, 495.
344 [1951] 1 K.B. 240.
345 See Knutsford v. Tillmanns [1908] A.C. 406, affirming [1908] 2 K.B. 385; Thorman v. Dowgate [1910] 1
K.B. 410.
346 (1920) 25 Com. Cas. 347.
347 See, e.g., Thorman v. Dowgate [1910] 1 K.B. 410.
348 See The Notos [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 503 (“any other cause of whatsoever nature or kind over which the
Charterer has no control”).
349 [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 247 as applied in The Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) v.
FR8 Singapore Pte Ltd (The Eternity) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 107. In the context of inconsistent arbitration clauses,
see The Eleni P [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 461.
350 See the excellent review of the “Commercial construction of exemption clauses” in [2019] L.M.C.L.Q. 270.
351 Great Elephant Corp. v. Trafigura Beheer BV (The Crudesky) [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1: a force majeure clause
relating to matters “beyond the reasonable control of Charterers or Owners or their respective servants or agents” in the

54
 THE TER MS OF THE CHARTER 1.113

exemption clauses are always construed strictly, and any genuine ambiguity is construed against
the person relying on them.352 The principle applies equally to mutual exemption clauses which
protect both parties.353 However, as Lord Diplock said in Photo Production v. Securicor,354 “it
is wrong to place a strained construction upon words in an exclusion clause which are clear
and fairly susceptible of one meaning only”. Where the charter contains several exemption
clauses covering similar events, some in wider terms than others, the rule of strict construction
may produce the result that only the narrower can be relied on.355
1.113 There are two particular areas of interest in this respect, one relates to the operation
of exemption clauses where there has been negligence and the other is their operation where
there has been deliberate or even fraudulent conduct.
(a) Negligence – There is a general presumption that an exemption clause which does not
expressly refer to negligence does not protect a party from the consequences of his own
negligence or that of his servants. This presumption does not apply if the party relying
on the clause would clearly not be liable in the absence of negligence for any of the
matters covered by the clause, or could only be liable on some ground which is “so
fanciful or remote that [he] cannot be supposed to have desired protection from it”,
since in such a case to interpret the clause as inapplicable to negligence would deprive
it of all effect.356 Since it is debatable whether the underlying liability of a carrier by
sea for loss of or damage to cargo is strict or based on negligence, it cannot be said
that an exception’s clause which does not cover negligence is deprived of all effect or
lacks substance. Thus, exceptions in favour of the shipowner will normally be construed
as not extending to negligence.357 In order to cover negligence, it will normally suffice
if the clause contains general words which make it clear that the exemption applies

BP Voy 3 form approving the view of Moore-Bick J. in Fyffes Group Ltd v. Reefer Express Lines (The Kriti Rex) [1996]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 that “In general it is fair to approach such clauses with the presumption that the expression force
majeure is likely to be restricted to supervening events which arise without the fault of either party or for which neither
of them has undertaken responsibility”. Consistently with the principle that an exemption clause does not apply to exclude
liability for loss caused by actions of both excluded and non-excluded matters, the same is true for most commonly
expressed force majeure clauses: Seadrill Ghana Operations Ltd v. Tullow Ghana Ltd [2018] EWHC 1640 (Comm).
352 Dairy Containers v. Tasman Orient Line (The Tasman Discoverer) [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 647, at para. 12.
This principle does not permit expanding the ambit of exclusion so as to make the entire clause inconsistent with the
main purpose of the contract: Mitsubishi v. East Wind (The Irbenskiy Proliv) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 383.
353 The Pera [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 363, 366.
354 [1980] A.C. 827 at p. 850 and see Ocean Chemical Transport v. Exnor Craggs [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 446. It
is increasingly the case that, in commercial contracts, the courts are prepared to allow the parties latitude in apportioning
risk and liability: see Cero Navigation Corp. v. Jean Lion [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 292; Frans Maas (UK) Ltd v. Samsung
Electronics (UK) Ltd [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 251; Tradigrain S.A. v. Intertek Testing Services (ITS) Canada Ltd [2007]
C.L.C. 188; Stocznia Gdynia v. Gearbulk Holdings [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 461 and Onego Shipping and Chartering v.
JSC Arcadia Shipping (The Socol 3) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 221, at paras 50–60 and 86, referring to the three-stage
guidance set out in Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v. R. [1952] A.C. 192, at p. 208. The principles were outlined by Carr
J. (as she then was) in Fujitsu v. IBM [2014] EWHC 752 (TCC), 153 Con LR 203 and the modern view is as Moore-
Bick L.J. put it in Taberna Europe CDO II v. Selskabet AF [2017] 2 W.L.R. 803 (para. 23) “. . . to recognise that
commercial parties . . . are entitled to make their own bargains and that the task of the court is to interpret fairly the
words they have used. The contra proferentem rule may still be useful to resolve cases of genuine ambiguity, but ought
not to be taken as the starting point” and as Briggs L.J. (as he then was) put it in Hut Group Nobahar v. Cookson
[2016[ EWCA Civ 128 speaking of a clause which “. . . cuts down or detracts from the ambit of some important
obligation in the contract, or a remedy conferred by the general law . . . parties are not lightly to be taken to have
intended to cut down the remedies which the law provides for breach of important contractual obligations without using
clear words having that effect”.
355 Elderslie v. Borthwick [1905] A.C. 93.
356 See Canada Steamship Lines v. The King [1952] A.C. 192; Smith v. South Wales Switchgear [1978] 1 W.L.R.
165 and the valuable analysis in The Socol 3 (above), at paras 50–60 and Pratt v. Aigaion Insurance Co. S.A. (The
Resolute) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 225.
357 See The Satya Kailash [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 465, [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 588; The Emmanuel C [1983] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 310 (“errors of navigation”). See also paras 6.34 et seq. “at shipper’s risk”.

55
1.114 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

whatever may be the cause of the occurrence of the excepted perils. Thus, the words
“howsoever caused” have been held to cover negligence,358 even of a gross degree.359
The terms “howsoever caused” and “howsoever arising” may suffice to exclude liability
for unseaworthiness, outside the context of the Hague Rules,360 but this is not a view
which has achieved universal approval.361
(b) Deliberate wrongs – It was suggested by Lord Diplock in the preceding case that the
degree of strictness which is appropriate might depend on the extent to which the
exemption clause made inroads into what would, in its absence, be the contractual
responsibility of the person relying on it. It has since been held that the fact that a
breach is deliberate and repudiatory is relevant to the question of whether an exemp-
tion clause, on its true interpretation, covered the breach. The more radical the breach,
the stronger the language that needed to be used. An exemption clause would not
normally be interpreted as extending to a situation which would defeat the main object
of the contract or create commercial absurdity, despite the literal meaning of the words
used.362 Words such as “howsoever caused” and “howsoever arising” should not be
construed to cover dishonesty, wilful default or fraud.363

1.114 Contractual discretions may often amount to effective exemption clauses364 and be
construed accordingly.
1.115 (8) Written and printed clauses. In the event of inconsistency between the printed
clauses of a standard form and printed or handwritten provisions negotiated between the parties
the latter will prevail.365 However, the court is not astute to find inconsistency, and will attempt
to give effect to all the provisions; there is no inconsistency when a standard clause merely
modifies or qualifies a negotiated term, “to be inconsistent a term must contradict another term
or be in conflict with it, such that effect cannot fairly be given to both clauses”.366
1.116 (9) Standard clauses. When the parties contract upon a standard form of charter, or
incorporate standard clauses into their charter, it may normally be presumed that they intend
these standard terms to receive the same interpretation as in any other case. These terms should
therefore be interpreted in a way which accords with business common sense in any of the
circumstances in which the form is likely to be used.367 However, this presumption must yield

358 Travers v. Cooper [1915] 1 K.B. 73; Mitsubishi v. East Wind (The Irbenskiy Proliv) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
383. Contrast Canadian Pacific v. Belships (1996) 111 F.T.R. 11, where the Canadian Federal Court held that an
exclusion of liability for loss of deck cargo “however the same may be caused” would, if read by itself, have covered
a loss by negligence, but since the bill of lading contained other clauses which referred specifically to negligence,
which the deck cargo clause did not, the latter should not be construed as extending to negligence. This decision,
however, seems questionable.
359 Mackay v. Scott Packing [1966] 2 F.C. 36 (Canadian Federal Court of Appeal).
360 See The Imvros [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 848; The Irbenskiy Proliv [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 383.
361 See Sunlight v. Ever Lucky Shipping [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 174 (C.A. of Singapore).
362 Internet Broadcasting Corp v. Mar [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 295, 300 and Kudos Catering v. Manchester [2013]
EWCA Civ 38 at para. 19. It may be possible to exclude liability for the fraud of agents or employees but not for
fraud attributable to the principal: see the discussion in HIH Casualty Insurance v. Manhattan [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
61.
363 The Irbenskiy Proliv [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 383; Mackay v. Scott Packing (above).
364 See para. 1.120 below.
365 See The Brabant [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 546; The Starsin [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85.
366 Pagnan v. Tradax Ocean Transportation [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 342, 351; see also Bayoil v. Seawind Tankers
Corp. (The Leonidas) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 533 Data Direct v. Marks & Spencer [2009] EWHC 97 (Ch) Public
Company Rise v. Nibulon [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 108 and RWE Npower v. Bentley [2014] EWCA Civ 150 (where
there was a hierarchy clause to be very much the last resort). On inconsistent arbitration clauses see The Eleni P
[2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 461.
367 Miramar Maritime Corp. v. Holborn Oil [1984] A.C. 676, per Lord Diplock at p. 682.

56
 THE TER MS OF THE CHARTER 1.119

where the standard interpretation of the standard clause would deprive it of all effect368 or
where it would conflict with the main object of the contract.369
1.117 (10) Deletions in a printed form. Much controversy has surrounded the question
whether it is admissible, as an aid to construction, to look at deleted words in a standard printed
form which the parties have adapted. It is submitted that the question has been conclusively
answered by the House of Lords in Mottram Consultants v. Bernard Sunley.370 In that case
Lord Cross, with whom the majority agreed, decided that it is permissible to have regard to
deletions. The reasons why it should be permissible are also explained by Lord Reid in The
London Explorer,371 and further support is provided by Lord Hoffmann in paragraph (2) of the
passage quoted above; the reasons of public policy which exclude evidence of negotiations are
hardly applicable to deletions. However, one must still be careful about the use to be made of
references to deletions. In Mopani Copper Mines plc v. Millennium Underwriting,372 Christo-
pher Clarke J. (as he then was) noted several reasons why parties might delete certain words:
Even if recourse is had to the deleted words, care must be taken as to what inferences, if any, can
properly be drawn from them. The parties may have deleted the words because they thought they
added nothing to, or were inconsistent with, what was already contained in the document; or because
the words that were left were the only common denominator of agreement, or for unfathomable
reasons or by mistake. They may have had different ideas as to what the words meant and whether
or not the words that remained achieved their respective purposes.

In Narandas-Girdhar v. Bradstock,373 Briggs L.J. (as he too then was) approved Mapani and
said this:
. . . the relevant principle is that if the fact of deletion shows what it is the parties agreed that they
did not agree and there is ambiguity in the words that remain, then the deleted provision may be
an aid to construction, albeit one that must be used with care.

1.118 (11) Displacement of general legal rights. Where the common law or equity confers
a right, it takes very clear words to remove that right.374 Thus, where there are parallel rights
of termination at common law and under the terms of the contract, clear words must be used
to demonstrate the intention to abandon the legal right; the more valuable the right, the clearer
the language needs to be for it to be lost.375
1.119 (12) Reliance on one’s own wrong. It is a general presumption that a person may not
rely upon his own wrong,376 but this is a rule of construction not a rule of law.377 The rule is

368 As in Adamastos Shipping v. Anglo Saxon Petroleum [1959] A.C. 133.

369 See Glynn v. Margetson [1893] A.C. 351.
370 [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 197, 209.
371 [1972] A.C. 1, at pp. 15–16. Cf. Ben Shipping v. An Bord Bainne [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285 where Bingham
J. took a different view.
372 [2008] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 976, para. 122 and see also Berkeley Community Villages Ltd v. Pullen [2007] 3
E.G.L.R. 101 [55].
373 [2016] 1 W.L.R. 2366, para. 20.
374 See, e.g., Gilbert-Ash (Northern) Ltd v. Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd [1974] A.C. 689, applied in Seadrill
Management Services Ltd v. OAO Gazprom [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 543.
375 Stocznia Gdynia S.A. v. Gearbulk Holdings Ltd [2010] Q.B. 27.
376 Alghussein Establishment v. Eton College [1988] 1 W.L.R. 587; see also New Zealand Shipping Co. v. Société
des Ateliers et Chantiers de France [1919] A.C. 1 and per McCarthy J. in Scott v. Rania [1966] N.Z.L.R. 527 at 534.
The words of a contract may be so “crystal clear” as to override the principle: Decoma UK Ltd v. Haden Drysis
International Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 723, and Petroplus Marketing AG v. Shell Trading International Ltd [2009] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 611. Although the point is clear under English law (see, e.g., BDW Trading Ltd v. JM Rowe (Investments)
Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 548), the position in the law of Hong Kong may be more nuanced (see Kensland Realty Ltd
v. Whale View Investment Ltd [2001] HKCFA 57).
377 Cheall v. Association of Professional Executive Clerical and Computer Staff [1983] 2 A.C. 180.

57
1.120 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

confined to the case where a party seeks to take advantage of his own breach of a legal obligation
owed by him to the party opposite.378 Where, in breach of a contractual obligation, express or
implied, a party has prevented the fulfilment of a condition precedent, he may not only be liable
in damages, but may also be precluded from claiming that the condition has not been fulfilled.379
1.120 (13) Discretions.380 When a contract gives a discretion to one party, that discretion
will be limited, as matter of necessary implication, by concepts of honesty, good faith and
genuineness,381 and the need to avoid arbitrariness, capriciousness, perversity and irrationality.
The concern is that the discretion should not be abused and the criterion is whether a reasonable
person in the same position could exercise it in a particular way.382 It will normally be the case
that a contractual discretion should be exercised consistently with its contractual purpose.383

Implied terms
1.121 There are two basic types of contractual implied term. The first is a term which is
implied into a particular contract in the light of the express terms, commercial common sense
and the facts known to both parties at the time the contract was made such that the term is
obvious and necessary to make it work sensibly, and the second arises because, unless such a
term is expressly excluded, the law (sometimes by statute, sometimes through the common
law) effectively imposes certain terms into certain classes of relationship.384 The process whereby
a term will be implied into a contract is sometimes regarded as an exercise in the construction
of the contract as a whole,385 but critical to the analysis are, generally, the rigorous criteria of
obviousness and necessity386 and the decisions of courts and arbitrators have long emphasised
that the courts will not be over-ready to imply terms or to make presumptions about the inten-
tion of the parties.387 Having adverted to the aforementioned two types of implied term, Pop-
plewell J. (as he then was) summarised the applicable principles in Europea Plus SCA SIF v.
Anthracite Investments (Ireland) Plc388 in these following terms:

378 Although in the context of construction contracts’ liquidated damages provisions (and possibly even shipbuild-
ing contracts), mere prevention without breach may suffice: see Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v. Honeywell Control
Systems Ltd [2007] EWHC 447 and Adyard Abu Dhabi v. SD Marine Services [2011] EWHC 848 (Comm). See also
the excellent note of Pickavance and Mendelblat at www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/mediaw.
379 Little v. Courage Limited (1994) 70 P. & C.R. 469 at p. 474 and Nautica v. Trafigura [2020] EWHC 1986.
380 See Khan and Bell “Contractual discretion or absolute right?” (2019) 5 JIBFL 296.
381 Braganza v. BP Shipping Ltd (The British Unity) [2015] 1 W.L.R. 1661; [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 240 and see
the excellent review by Foxton in (2017) L.M.C.L.Q. 362 and also Spirit Energy Resources Ltd v. Marathon Oil (UK)
Plc [2019] EWCA Civ 1371 and Skidmore v. Dartford & Gravesend NHS Trust [2003] I.C.R. 721, 729. These limita-
tions on the exercise of a contractual discretion can be excluded by an appropriately clear express term; quaere whether
“absolute discretion” will achieve that effect: see the discussion (in the context of the duties of mortgagees) UBS AG
v. Rose Capital [2018] EWHC 3137 (Ch).
382 See the learned discussion by Popplewell J. in Barclays Ban plc v. UniCredit Bank AG [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
1, paras 56–67 and Socimer International Bank v. Standard Bank [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 558.
383 British Telecommunications v. Telefonica 02 UK [2014] U.K.S.C. 43 [2014] 4 All E.R. 907 at para. 37.
384 Marks and Spencer plc v. BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) (above).
385 Mediterranean Salvage & Towage v. Seamar Trading & Commerce (The Reborn) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 639,
at para. 9, referring to the opinion of Lord Hoffmann in the Privy Council in Attorney-General of Belize v. Belize
Telecom Ltd [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1988.
386 Marks and Spencer plc v. BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) [2015] A.C. 742 at para.
15 and see Kennedy [2016] L.M.C.L.Q. 186; and Ali v. Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago [2017] U.K.P.C. 2.
See also Bou-Simon v. BGC Brokers [2018] EWCA Civ 1690.
387 Where there are various possibilities about what the parties would have agreed if they had directed their
minds to the problem, it is almost certain that there can be no implication at all, however otherwise reasonable it
might have been: see per Lord Pearson and Lord Cross in North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board v. Trol-
lope & Colls [1973] 1 W.L.R. 601.
388 [2016] EWHC 437 (Comm) at para. 33. See also the summary by HHJ Pelling in Sea Master v. Arab Bank
[2020] EWHC 2030 (Comm) at para. 13 and Taqa Bratani Limited v. Rockrose [2020] EWHC 58 (Comm) (para. 27).

58
 THE TER MS OF THE CHARTER 1.122

(2) The question whether a term is to be implied is to be judged at the date the contract, and is to
be made by reference to a reasonable reader of the contract, knowing all its provisions and the sur-
rounding circumstances available to the parties. The implication of a term is not critically dependent
on proof of an actual intention of the parties when negotiating the contract. If one approaches the
question by reference to what the parties would have agreed, one is not strictly concerned with the
hypothetical answer of the actual parties, but with that of notional reasonable people in the position
of the parties at the time at which they were contracting.
(3) Subject to the comments and qualifications below, in order for a term to be implied each of
the following four conditions must be satisfied:
(i) it must be reasonable and equitable; and
(ii) it must either:
(a) be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract; or
(b) be so obvious that ‘it goes without saying’ (although in practice it would be a rare case
where only one of those two requirements would be satisfied); and
(iii) it must be capable of clear expression; and
(iv) it must not contradict any express term of the contract

1.122 Statutorily imposed implied terms apart, a term will be implied into a charterparty,
as with any other contract, only if it is necessary389 to do so in order to give business efficacy
to the transaction, that is to say where the contract will not work, or leads to manifestly absurd
consequences,390 unless391 the term is implied and only if its formulation is obvious,392 but not
otherwise.
The owners of The Moorcock entered into a contract with the defendant wharfingers for the discharg-
ing and landing of the ship’s cargo at the defendants’ jetty. Whilst alongside the jetty the ship, as was
contemplated, took the ground at low tide, and since the bottom was uneven, she was damaged.
The Court of Appeal held that a term was to be implied into the contract that the defendants
would take reasonable care to ensure that the riverbed adjacent to the jetty was a reasonably safe
place for ships to lie aground. Bowen L.J. said:
“The implication which the law draws from what must obviously have been the intention of the
parties, the law draws with the object of giving efficacy to the transaction and preventing such a
failure of consideration as cannot have been within the contemplation of either side; and I believe
if one were to take all the cases, and they are many, of implied warranties or covenants in the law,
it will be found that in all of them the law is raising an implication from the presumed intention of
the parties with the object of giving to the transaction such efficacy as both parties must have intended
that at all events it should have.”
(The Moorcock (1889) 14 P.D. 64, 68; the test has been expressed in different ways over time. One
which had currency for many years is the “officious by-stander” test, referring to the words of MacK-
innon L.J. in Shirlaw v. Southern Foundries [1939] 2 K.B. 206, 227: “Prima facie that which in any
contract is left to be implied and need not be expressed is something so obvious that it goes without
saying; so that, if, while the parties were making their bargain, an officious bystander were to suggest

389 The requirement of necessity should not be watered down: Ali v. Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago
[2017] U.K.P.C. 2. The issue of necessity should be considered only after the process of construction has been under-
taken since it is only at that stage that the necessity may be apparent: Equitas Insurance v. Municipal Insurance [2019]
EWCA Civ 718, [2019] 3 W.L.R. 613.
390 See e.g. Al Jaber v. Al Ibrahim [2019] 1 W.L.R. 885 where it was held that there was no implied term in a
loan agreement as to the payment of interest since it was not necessary to give the agreement business efficacy “nor
so obvious that the agreement would lack commercial or practical consequence without the term.
391 In Tractors Singapore Ltd v. Pacific Ocean Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd [2020] S.G.H.C. 60, Vincent Hoong
J. in the Singapore High Court held that where a contract for the sale of goods gave the buyer the option of nominating
the port of destination, it was necessary, for the efficacy of the contract, to imply a term that the buyer was obliged to
nominate a port of destination within a reasonable time before the agreed delivery date. Although that was a sale of
goods case, it has plain resonances to voyage charters and, for example, the nomination of loading or discharging ports.
392 North West Metropolitan Regional Health Authority v. Trollope & Colls [1973] 1 W.L.R. 601.

59
1.123 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

some express provision for it in their agreement, they would testily suppress him with a common ‘Oh,
of course!’.” It is now probably somewhat outmoded, but it still sets the tone for the process that the
term obviously goes without saying since that is what a reasonable person would understand the contract
to mean: see per Lord Hoffmann in Attorney-General of Belize v. Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] 1 W.L.R.
1988 and see the professorial debate on Belize in (2014) L.M.C.L.Q. 203 and (2015) L.M.C.L.Q. 245
674 but the process of implication is still one that demands strict restraint: see Marks & Spencer v.
BNP Paris-Bas (Jersey) [2015] A.C. 472, Ali v. Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago [2017]
U.K.P.C. 2 para. 5, JN Hipwell v. Szurk [2018] EWCA Civ 674, Ukraine v. Law Debenture Trust
[2018] EWCA Civ 2026 and UTB v. Sheffield United [2019] EWHC 23.)

As Lord Clarke put it in The Reborn:393

. . . the question of implication arises when the instrument does not expressly provide for what is
to happen when some event occurs. The most usual inference in such a case is that nothing is to
happen. If the parties had intended something to happen, the instrument would have said so. Oth-
erwise, the express provisions of the instrument are to continue to operate undisturbed. If the event
has caused loss to one or other of the parties, the loss lies where it falls.

1.123 It is not sufficient (although it is a necessary requirement)394 that the implication

of the term should be fair and reasonable and consistent with the express terms,395 since the
touchstone is necessary in order to give the contract business efficacy, that is to say necessary
to make the contract work as a piece of business consistently with its evident purpose396 but,
as Lord Hoffmann said in the Belize case:
There are dangers in treating these alternative formulations of the question as if they had a life of
their own. Take, for example, the question of whether the implied term is “necessary to give busi-
ness efficacy” to the contract. That formulation serves to underline two important points. The first,
conveyed by the use of the word “business”, is that in considering what the instrument would have
meant to a reasonable person who had knowledge of the relevant background, one assumes the
notional reader will take into account the practical consequences of deciding that it means one thing
or the other. In the case of an instrument such as a commercial contract, he will consider whether
a different construction would frustrate the apparent business purpose of the parties. That was the
basis upon which Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Hyman [2002] 1 A.C. 408 was decided. The
second, conveyed by the use of the word “necessary”, is that it is not enough for a court to consider
that the implied term expresses what it would have been reasonable for the parties to agree to. It
must be satisfied that it is what the contract actually means.
The danger lies however in detaching the phrase “necessary to give business efficacy” from the
basic process of construction of the instrument. It is frequently the case that a contract may work
perfectly well in the sense that both parties can perform their express obligations, but the conse-
quences would contradict what a reasonable person would understand the contract to mean. Lord
Steyn made this point in the Equitable Life case (at page 459) when he said that in that case an
implication was necessary “to give effect to the reasonable expectations of the parties”.

Lord Hoffmann approved a list of overlapping criteria for testing whether a term should be
implied:397 (1) it must be reasonable and equitable; (2) it must be necessary to give business
efficacy to the contract, so that no term will be implied if the contract is effective without it;
(3) it must be so obvious that “it goes without saying” (4) it must be capable of clear expres-
sion; (5) it must not contradict any express term of the contract. And in Marks and Spencer plc

393 Ibid., para. 10; see also North Sea Ventures v. Anstead Holdings [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 265, paras 246–251.
394 Marks and Spencer plc v. BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) [2015] A.C. 742 para. 22.
395 See, for an example of inconsistency, Sea Master v. Arab Bank [2020] EWHC 2030 (Comm) at para. 33.
396 See Reigate v. Union Manufacturing [1918] 1 K.B. 592, per Scrutton L.J. at p. 605.
397 Derived from the Opinion of Lord Simon in BP Refinery (Westernport) v. Hastings (1978) 52 A.L.J.R. 20 (P.C.).

60
 THE TER MS OF THE CHARTER 1.124

v. BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey)398 the following comments on that
analysis were offered by Lord Neuberger:
First, in Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Hyman [2002] 1 A.C. 408, 459, Lord Steyn rightly
observed that the implication of a term was “not critically dependent on proof of an actual intention
of the parties” when negotiating the contract. If one approaches the question by reference to what
the parties would have agreed, one is not strictly concerned with the hypothetical answer of the
actual parties, but with that of notional reasonable people in the position of the parties at the time
at which they were contracting. Secondly, a term should not be implied into a detailed commercial
contract merely because it appears fair or merely because one considers that the parties would have
agreed it if it had been suggested to them. Those are necessary but not sufficient grounds for includ-
ing a term. However, and thirdly, it is questionable whether Lord Simon’s first requirement, reason-
ableness and equitableness, will usually, if ever, add anything: if a term satisfies the other requirements,
it is hard to think that it would not be reasonable and equitable. Fourthly, as Lord Hoffmann I think
suggested in Attorney General of Belize v. Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1988, para. 27,
although Lord Simon’s requirements are otherwise cumulative, I would accept that business necessity
and obviousness, his second and third requirements, can be alternatives in the sense that only one
of them needs to be satisfied, although I suspect that in practice it would be a rare case where only
one of those two requirements would be satisfied. Fifthly, if one approaches the issue by reference
to the officious bystander, it is “vital to formulate the question to be posed by [him] with the utmost
care”, to quote from Lewison, The Interpretation of Contracts 5th edn (2011), para. 6.09. Sixthly,
necessity for business efficacy involves a value judgment. It is rightly common ground on this appeal
that the test is not one of “absolute necessity”, not least because the necessity is judged by reference
to business efficacy. It may well be that a more helpful way of putting Lord Simon’s second require-
ment is, as suggested by Lord Sumption in argument, that a term can only be implied if, without
the term, the contract would lack commercial or practical coherence.

1.124 The courts have refused to imply terms in the following circumstances:
• No implied term that a shipowner would not sell the ship during the currency of the
charter, thereby bringing to an end the broker’s right to earn commission on hire.399
• No implied term that a vessel chartered to load at a Syrian port (but which had,
unknown to the charterers, traded to Israel) would obtain permission to load, the
“expected ready to load” stipulation being sufficient for business efficacy.400
• No implied term in a port charter for a range of ports that the charterers would pay for
waiting time if they nominated a port where the waiting area was outside port limits.401
• It has also been held that there is no implied term in a bill of lading contract, which
incorporates the laytime and demurrage code of a charterparty, that the bill of lading
holder will take all necessary steps to enable cargo to be discharged and delivered within
a reasonable time,402 but this seems to have been decided without full citation of author-
ity, which is discussed in paras 10.20ff below, and may require some refinement.
• A charterparty does not, without more, contain an implied obligation that the owners
would refrain from revoking the charterers’ authority to collect the freight payable
under the bills of lading unless hire or sums were due to the owners under the
charterparty.403

398 [2015] A.C. 742, at para. 22. It has been said that “necessity is not to be watered down: Ali v. Petroleum
Company of Trinidad and Tobago [2017] U.K.P.C. 2 para. 5.
399 French v. Leeston Shipping [1922] 1 A.C. 451.
400 Compagnie Algerienne v. Katana Soc. [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 132.
401 Federal Commerce & Navigation v. Tradax (The Maratha Envoy) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 217, 228–229;
affirmed on this point [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 301.
402 Sea Master v. Arab Bank [2020] EWHC 2030 (Comm).
403 Alpha Marine Corp v. Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co Ltd (The Smart) [2021] EWHC 157 (Comm).

61
1.125 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

However, a term will normally be implied that one party will not prevent the other from
performing404 and will cooperate to bring about the fulfilment of the contract, the degree of
cooperation required being determined by reference to the express obligations imposed by the
contract on each party.405 Thus, if a charterer has to obtain some form of pre-loading clearance
document before a vessel can tender Notice of Readiness, it has been implied that the charterer
should obtain that clearance.406 Where the contract provides that a party shall perform an opera-
tion such as loading or stowage, it is necessary, in the absence of an express term, to imply a
term as to the standard of performance to be attained and the time within which it is to be
completed. In such circumstances the term normally implied is that the operation will be carried
out with reasonable care and skill, and within a reasonable time. An “entire contract” clause
will not prevent the implication of a term since, by definition, the contract itself may contain
both express and implied terms.407
1.125 There are certain terms which the court will imply into all contracts of a particular
kind. This is the second type of implied term noted above. To these a different test applies, as
explained by Lord Cross in Liverpool C.C. v. Irwin:408
When it implies a term in a contract the court is sometimes laying down a general rule that in all
contracts of a certain type – sale of goods, master and servant, landlord and tenant and so on – some
provision is to be implied unless the parties have expressly excluded it. In deciding whether or not
to lay down such a prima facie rule the court will naturally ask itself whether in the general run of
such cases the term in question would be one which it would be reasonable to insert. Sometimes,
however, there is no question of laying down any prima facie rule applicable to all cases of a defined
type but what the court is being in effect asked to do is to rectify a particular – often a very detailed –
contract by inserting in it a term which the parties have not expressed. Here it is not enough for the
court to say that the suggested term is a reasonable one; it must be able to say that the insertion of
the term is necessary to give – as it is put – “business efficacy” to the contract and that if its absence
had been pointed out at the time both parties – assuming them to have been reasonable men – would
have agreed without hesitation to its insertion.

1.126 Terms may also be implied by reference to customs of the port. The following are
among the terms which have been implied into charterparties; they are considered in greater
detail elsewhere in the appropriate chapters.

Implied obligations of the owner

1.127 That the ship is seaworthy. This implied obligation is nearly always modified by the
express terms: such as clause 2 of the Gencon charter, or the Hague Rules.
Where an “expected ready to load” date is given, that the owner honestly and on reasonable
grounds expects that the ship will be ready to load by that date (Chapter 4).
That he will take reasonable care of the cargo.
That he will perform the voyage with reasonable despatch and without deviation (Chapters 4
and 9).

404 The Unique Mariner (No. 2) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 37, 51–52; The Atlantic Sunbeam [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
482, 486–488. “The Prevention Principle” as developed in Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v. Honeywell Control
Systems Ltd [2007] EWHC 447.
405 Liverpool C.C. v. Irwin [1977] A.C. 239.
406 Mackay v. Dick (1880) L.R. 6 App. Cas. 251, The Atlantic Sunbeam [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 482; The Boral
Gas [1988]1 Lloyd’s Rep. 342 and The World Navigator [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 23.
407 See e.g. The Helene Knutsen [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 686.
408 At pp. 257–258.

62
 THE TER MS OF THE CHARTER 1.133

Implied obligations of the charterer

1.128 In certain circumstances, to have the cargo ready for loading by the time of the arrival
of the ship (Chapter 7).
In certain circumstances, to nominate a safe port or berth (Chapter 5).
Not to ship dangerous cargo without giving advance notice (Chapter 6).
Not to present for signature bills of lading containing terms inconsistent with the charter,
alternatively to indemnify the owners against liability to bills of lading holders in excess of
owners’ liability under the charter (Chapter 18).

Classification of terms
1.129 Whenever a term of the charter is breached, the innocent party is entitled to claim
damages. In certain circumstances he may also have the right to treat the breach as a repudia-
tion of the contract and to bring the contract to an end. Whether or not this latter right will
arise depends upon the importance of the term which has been broken, and for this purpose
terms fall into three classes,409 namely: (1) conditions, (2) warranties and (3) intermediate terms.

1. Conditions
1.130 A “condition” of the contract is a promise or undertaking by one party which is
fundamental to the contract, with the result that any breach of it will entitle the innocent party
to terminate (or rescind) the contract, even if the breach is minor in degree or in effect. An
example of a condition is the implied obligation of the owner that the ship will proceed on
the voyage without unjustifiable deviation.
1.131 A “condition” in the sense just described is sometimes called a promissory condition,
and must be distinguished from a suspensive condition. The latter is a condition (e.g., that some
event will occur) which must be fulfilled before the contract itself, or the obligations of one or
both parties under it, come into effect, but which does not form the subject matter of a promise
or undertaking by either party. Examples of suspensive conditions are given at paragraphs 1.16
et seq. Although a suspensive condition, in contrast to a promissory condition, does not amount
to a promise by either party that the condition will be fulfilled, there may be an implied term
that neither party will prevent fulfilment of the condition, or that the parties will use their best
reasonable endeavours to ensure that the condition is fulfilled. This duty not to prevent or impede
performance is not, however, to be assimilated to a more general duty to cooperate.

2. Warranty
1.132 A warranty is a term of the contract of relatively minor importance, such that no breach
of it will give rise to any right to the innocent party to terminate the contract.

3. Intermediate term
1.133 Upon the breach of an intermediate term, the question whether the innocent party has
a right to terminate depends, not upon the classification of the term, but upon the nature and effect
of the breach. In order to give rise to a right of termination the breach must be so serious that it

409 See the important and wide-ranging discussion of the classification of terms in Spar Shipping v. Grand China
Logistics [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 447 (timecharter hire payment clause) and Ark Shipping v. Silverburn Shipping (The
Arctic) [2019] EWCA Civ 1161 (classification certificates under a bareboat charter).

63
1.134 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

goes to the root of the contract410 or deprives the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit
which the parties intended that he should obtain from the contract.411 Where the effect of the breach
is delay in the performance of the contract, the question whether the delay is sufficiently serious
to go to the root of the contract depends upon whether it would be sufficient to frustrate the
contract, and it is not enough that the delay is such that it can be regarded as unreasonable.412
1.134 The question whether a term is a condition, warranty or intermediate term is one of
construction of the contract. However, the fact that the parties, in the contract, refer to a term
as a “condition” or a “warranty” is not necessarily conclusive, since the parties may not intend
to use those expressions in the technical legal sense described above.413 It is rather a question
of ascertaining from the terms of the contract as a whole, construed against its commercial
background, whether the parties intended that the right of termination should arise upon breach
of the term, and if so in what circumstances.414 The so-called warranty of seaworthiness is in
reality an intermediate term.415 “Conditions” in bill of lading incorporation clauses conversely
has a special meaning unrelated to their status.416

Affirmation
1.135 The right to terminate of the innocent party will be lost if he affirms the contract,
that is to say, if, with knowledge of the breach (and in the case of an intermediate term, with
knowledge of its consequences), he so conducts himself as to demonstrate clearly that he
regards the contract as still in existence, for example, by calling for performance, or accepting
performance, from the other side, or by continuing to perform the contract himself.417

Bringing the charter to an end

1.136 The obligations of the parties under the charter may be brought to an end in a number
of different ways. These are listed below.

Performance
1.137 When both parties have fulfilled all their obligations under the contract no further
liability exists under it.

Agreement
1.138 The parties may agree that the charter shall be terminated completely or partially,
or that it shall be varied.418

410 See the test applied in The Hansa Nord [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445.
411 See Photo Production v. Securicor [1980] A.C. 827, 849.
412 Hongkong Fir Shipping v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha [1962] 2 Q.B. 26, 60, 65. See the discussion of Cooke J.
in Wuhan Ocean Economic and Technical Cooperation Co. Ltd v. Schiffs. Hansa Murcia GmbH KG (The Hansa
Murcia) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 161 and his somewhat surprising conclusion in the light of the clear statement of
opinion of the arbitrators.
413 See Schuler v. Wickman [1974] A.C. 235, where a term referred to in the contract as a “condition” was held
to be an intermediate term.
414 Spar Shipping v. Grand China Logistics [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 447.
415 See Hongkong Fir Shipping v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (above).
416 The Varenna [1984] 1 Q.B. 599 – it means those conditions which have to be fulfilled in order to achieve
delivery of cargo.
417 See the thorough exposition of this area of law in the speech of Lord Goff in The Kanchenjunga [1990] 1
Lloyd’s Rep. 391, applied in Argo Systems FZE v. Liberty Insurance (Pte) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 61.
418 In Fibria Celulose S/A v. Pan Ocean Co. Ltd, Mr You Sik Kim [2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch) it was held that an
English contract termination clause overrode local law on insolvency. It has been held by the Court of Justice of the

64
 THE TER MS OF THE CHARTER 1.141

Accepted repudiation
1.139 Where one party commits a breach of condition or a sufficiently serious breach of
an intermediate term the innocent party usually has an option whether or not to accept the
breach as terminating the contract: see paragraphs 1.129 et seq. This will be so even where
there is a distinct contractual termination code or provision unless that provision is expressed
so as to exclude the common law rights of termination.419 Where he elects not to terminate,
the contract remains in existence for all purposes and his obligations remain to be performed
(unless performance is waived), but where he elects to accept the repudiation and to terminate
the contract, the further obligations of both parties to perform the contract are brought to an
end, and the contract remains in existence only for the following purposes:
(1) The enforcement of claims for damages for any breaches of the contract by either
party occurring before termination. The claim for damages of the party not in repudia-
tion may include a claim for loss of the benefits which would have occurred to him
under the contract had it been fully performed.
(2) The enforcement of claims for sums due under the contract which were earned and
payable before the contract terminated.

Provision in the charter

1.140 The charter may be subject to a condition precedent (see paragraphs 1.16–1.28), or
may confer upon one party an option to cancel in certain events (see Chapter 19).

Frustration
1.141 This is dealt with in Chapter 22.

European Union in Hoszig KFT v. Alstom Power Thermal services Case C-222/15, - 7 July 2016 that the Rome I
Regulation 593/2008 means that performance and methods of termination are governed by the applicable law to the
contract, and that includes whether a party is entitled to terminate a contract on the basis of repudiatory breach and/
or the consequences of such termination (see Article 12(1)(c)). Even after Brexit it is overwhelmingly likely that an
English court would take the same view.
419 Stocznia Gdanska v. Gearbulk Holdings [2010] Q.B. 27. But cf. Phones 4U v. EE [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 204
where a termination only by operation of a contractual option was held to preclude a claim for damages for
repudiation.

65
1A.1 FOR MATION AND TER MS OF THE CHARTER

U.S. Law
Formation and terms of the contract
1A.1 A voyage charter is a contract between an owner or disponent owner of the vessel
and a charterer to carry an agreed cargo from one or more loading ports to one or more dis-
charge ports. Voyage charters are maritime contracts and, as such, are governed by the general
maritime law of the United States in the absence of a choice of law clause specifying the
application of other law. A particular state or foreign law will be enforced unless the applicable
provision is contrary to public policy.1 Oral contracts are enforceable although the parties may
agree that only a written contract can be enforced. In The Strider Isis and Strider Juno,2 it was
held that an oral agreement was not valid because “The need for a writing, although not a
requirement of maritime law, was certainly provided for in the Contract of Affreightment.” A
charterparty will be deemed to have come into existence when the parties have reached agree-
ment on its essential terms and conditions. Thus, it is not necessary that agreement be reached
on each and every detail before the charter becomes valid and binding unless the parties have
specifically agreed otherwise.3 Moreover, in some circumstances, a court can find a contract
“implied in law.” The critical inquiry is whether one party has conferred a benefit on another
party under circumstances in which the other has been unjustly enriched.4
1A.2 Disputes arise from time to time whether the terms of the recap, or the terms of the
eventual charter or of a pro forma should prevail. In The Gertrud Salamon,5 the panel ruled,
despite the admission of one broker that he made a mistake, the fixture recap prevails: “The
fixture recap is the clearest representation of the parties’ intentions at the time of the negotia-
tions and outweighs the alternative language of the pro forma charter party.”
1A.3 In The Hanze Gendt6 charterer contended that an executed addendum in which owner
agreed to sail on a “new leg” voyage from Matarani, Peru to Puerto Cabello, Venezuela was
unenforceable because it lacked consideration and was obtained through duress. The panel
disagreed, holding that a) owner agreed to honor charterer’s request for an option to sail to
Puerto Cabello on a new leg, waived its right to calculate laytime to include lost time at Mata-

1 See, e.g., Watts v. Camors, 115 U.S. 353, 361–362 (1885); Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. The Jasmine,
983 F.2d 410, 1993 AMC 957 (2d Cir. 1993) and The Yorkgate, SMA 3273 (1996) (Jacobson, Siebel, Arnold). See
also The Astra Lift, SMA 3270 (1996) (Arnold, Bulow, Hansen) where the arbitration agreement provided that the
dispute would be governed by the “Federal Maritime Law of the United States,” while the bill of lading provided for
the application of the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules. The panel held that adoption of the Federal Maritime Law of the
U.S. did not displace or substitute for the express intentions stated in the bill of lading; that the law was not automati-
cally inclusive or limited to U.S. COGSA, but recognizes the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules in appropriate cases and
co-exists with these Conventions; and that if the parties had intended to substitute COGSA for them, their intent to
do so should have been explicitly stated. See The Bona Fulmar, SMA 3787 (2003) (Arnold, Sheinbaum, Martowski)
in which Part I, clause K of the Asbatankvoy form provided for New York arbitration and a special typewritten term
stated “GA-Arb-New York/US Law”. The panel concluded that reference to “US Law” should be consistently read
together with printed clause 20(b)(i) to mean that U.S. law is generally applicable but the choice of law provisions
of clause 20(b)(i) were to be applied, citing The Astra Lift (ibid.). As the bills of lading were issued in Belgium, the
Hague and Hague-Visby Rules were held to govern. See also Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. et al., 435
F. Supp. 2d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
2 SMA 2296 (1993) (Arnold, Berg, Martin).
3 See Time Charters, paras 2A.6–2A.39, for a full discussion of these principles. See also U.S. Titan, Inc. v.
Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co. Ltd., 241 F.3d 135, 2001 AMC 2080 (2d Cir. 2001) (rehearing en banc denied).
4 Contship v. Howard, 309 F.3d 910, 2002 AMC 2727 (6th Cir. 2002) (owner was entitled to payment of freight
from the shipper even though there was no signed bill of lading and shipper booked cargo through a freight forwarder
and had no direct dealings with owner, because owner conferred a benefit to the shipper by carrying its cargo. Shipper
paid a freight forwarder who arranged the booking at its own risk).
5 SMA 4036 (2009) (Dooley, Mordhorst, Ring).
6 SMA 4426 (2021) (Epstein, Gilmartin, Martowski).

66
 U.S. LAW 1A.4

rani, refrained from commencing arbitration and in any event, no consideration was required
under Section 5–1103 of N.Y. General Obligations Law providing that a contract modification
need not be supported by consideration to be enforceable; and b) charterer had not carried
its heavy burden of avoiding a contract on grounds of duress, citing Davis & Assocs, Inc. v.
Health Mgmt. Servs., Inc.7
1A.4 In The Seaways Hatteras8 the fixture at issue with its references to both “lumpsum”
and “Worldscale” was clearly susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, was there-
fore ambiguous on its face, and the panel considered extrinsic evidence in order to determine
the parties’ intentions at the time of contracting, citing CP III Rincon Towers, Inc. v. Cohen.9

7 168 F. Supp. 2d 109, 114 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

8 SMA 4428 (2021) (Sheinbaum, Tsimis, Martowski).
9 13 F. Supp. 3d 307, 318–319 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), also citing Revson v. Cinque & Cinque, P.C., 221 F.3d 59, 66
(2d Cir. 2000). “Under New York law, ambiguity in a contract is determined by looking within the four corners of
the document, not to outside sources. Contract language is not ambiguous if it has a definite and precise meaning,
unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the contract itself, and concerning which there is no reason-
able basis for a difference of opinion. If the terms are susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, a contract
is ambiguous when viewed objectively by a reasonably intelligent person who has examined the context of the entire
integrated agreement and who is cognizant of the customs, practices, usages and terminology as generally understood
in the particular trade or business. Once the contract is determined to be ambiguous, the finder of fact may evaluate
extrinsic evidence as a matter of law.”

67