Carboex

SA vs
Louis
Dreyfus
Commodit
ies
JIKKU ABRAHAM
MBA PSM 1
ROLL NO : 7

 Defendant/appellant : Shipowners,
Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA

Claimant/respondent
Carboex SA.

Charterers,

DEMURRAGE: CALCULATION OF LAYTIME:

STRIKE EXCEPTION: STRIKE CAUSING
CONGESTION AT PORT AND CHARTERED VESSELS
DELAYED FROM BERTHING AS A RESULT: PERIOD
OF DELAY TO BE DISCOUNTED FROM
CALCULATION OF LAYTIME SO LONG AS STRIKE
WAS THE EFFECTIVE CAUSE OF DELAY

Background
Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA
chartered four of its vessels to Carboex SA for
the carriage of coal from Indonesia to Ferrol,
Spain.
In June 2008, there was a nationwide strike in
Spain. Two of the chartered Vessels arrived at
Ferrol before strike at the port ended, and the
two other Vessels arrived at Ferrol after strike
had ended. When each of the Vessels arrived at
Ferrol, there were vessels ahead of it. As a
result, there was delay in berthing and
discharging the cargo

Background

The Charterers argued that as the delay was

caused by the strike, it should not be excluded
from the calculation of laytime pursuant to
Clause 9. The Shipowners argued the contrary.
The dispute was referred to arbitration. Upon
the request of the parties, the arbitral tribunal
was asked to determine the following
preliminary issues:

Background

(i) Whether Clause 9 applied in the

case of a vessel which was delayed
by the after-effects of a strike
(ii) Whether Clause 9 applied in the
case of a vessel which had arrived
after the strike had ended.
Question (i) was directed at the
situation of the two Vessels which
arrived before the end of the strike,
and Question (ii) the Vessels which
arrived after the strike had ended.

Background

Clause 9 provided that:

... In case of strikes, or any other
causes included but not limited to
breakdown of shore equipment or
accidents beyond the control of the
Charterers which prevent or delay
the discharging, such time is not to
count unless the vessel is already on
demurrage.
.

CASE
The Charterers appealed against the decision of
the tribunal.
The strike exception in Clause 9 applied to a
vessel which was unable to berth due to berth
congestion caused by a strike.
The ordinary meaning of Clause 9 was that it
covered not only delay in discharging caused by
congestion due to a strike but also delay in
discharging caused by congestion due to the
after-effects of a strike which had ended.

CASE
This was so whether the vessel arrived at the
discharging port before or after the strike had
ended.
The Shipowners appealed against the
judgment.

JUDGEMENT
Judgment
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Shipowners appeal.
The Court first noted that, by agreeing that the Vessels
could give notice of readiness whether in berth or not
under Clause 40.
Clause 40 provided that:
At port of discharge, time to commence twelve (12) hours
after the vessels arrival at berth, vessel is ready to unload
and Notice of Readiness received and accepted, unless
sooner commenced in which case time actually used to
count. If the berth is not available when vessel tenders
Notice of Readiness, but provided vessel/Owners not at fault
in relation thereto, then laytime shall commence twelve (12)
hours after first permissible tide, Notice of Readiness
received and accepted, whether in berth or not

JUDGEMENT
Clause 9 showed that the parties also intended
the Charterers to be protected from the effects
of strikes which prevented or delayed the
vessel from entering berth in order to
discharge.