Triton Navigation Ltd. v Vitol S.A.

In a voyage charter, an exception excluding delay in getting into berth operates according to its wording and commercial context. It may protect charterers against congestion or other intervening events outside their control, but does not ordinarily excuse their fundamental obligation to provide cargo within the laydays. A clause dealing with vessel condition and inability to load is directed to conditions affecting cargo operations, not a condition which has ceased before a valid notice of readiness. A premature notice of readiness is ineffective, but tendering an unclean vessel is not necessarily a breach of charter. Demurrage remained payable where the charterers’ failure to arrange timely cargo caused the delay.

The claimant owners chartered the Nikmary to the defendant charterers under an amended Asbatankvoy charter. The vessel arrived at Sikka, India, but required further tank cleaning before she could validly tender notice of readiness. After passing inspection on 5 December 2000, she remained at anchorage until loading began in January 2001.

The owners claimed demurrage for the delay, expenses connected with a call at Limassol, and demurrage arising from slow discharge at Thessalonika. The charterers relied on contractual exceptions concerning cleaning, berthing delay, vessel condition and fault. They also disputed liability for diesel oil consumed during the Limassol call and challenged the owners’ discharge performance.

1. Sikka delay and demurrage. The vessel had been ready to load on 5 December 2000. Cargo was available when she arrived, but the charterers had no effective arrangement requiring the supplier to make cargo available for her within a defined period. The delay resulted from the charterers’ inability to obtain cargo, rather than congestion or the vessel’s earlier condition.
2. Clause 30(c)(v) would have excluded time until connection of hoses after rejection by a jointly appointed inspector. However, the contractual procedure was not implemented because no inspector had been jointly appointed by the owners and charterers. The charterers could not rely on the clause.
3. Clause 6 protected charterers against delay in reaching berth where the delay resulted from congestion or another intervening event outside their control. The clause did not excuse the charterers’ failure to provide cargo. The obligation to have cargo available at the loading port was fundamental, and a clause qualifying it required clear language.
4. Clause 7 concerned the vessel’s ability to perform loading or discharging operations. It did not apply to a condition which existed before a valid notice of readiness but had ceased by then. The vessel’s earlier unclean tanks were not the effective cause of the later delay. Tendering notice of readiness prematurely was ineffective, but was not itself a breach of charter.
5. The charterers were liable for US$291,691.75 demurrage at Sikka. The owners’ additional claim for the cost of returning to anchorage to clean failed.
6. Limassol. “Bunkers” could include fuel oil and diesel oil, but in clause 29 the context indicated fuel oil consumed in additional steaming. Demurrage was treated as covering normal running expenses, including diesel consumed during time in port. The diesel claim therefore failed.
7. Thessalonika. Clause 27 required the owners to maintain 100 p.s.i. at the ship’s rail, subject to the shore facilities’ capacity. The vessel maintained substantially less and was in breach. The owners recovered US$37,183.33 demurrage after deduction for the resulting delay, and US$6,474.63 for discharging-port disbursements after deduction of additional tug and launch costs.

Not stated in the judgment; this was a first-instance decision of the High Court (Commercial Court).