National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia v BP Oil Supply Company

A settlement expressed by reference to demurrage may settle all demurrage claims under a charterparty where the commercial context shows that the parties intended finality.

A contractual time bar requiring a claim and supporting documents concerns the substance of the claim. A wrong label does not necessarily defeat a claim, but the claims must be substantially the same and the required documentation must be supplied within time.

Clauses providing payment for shifting between berths do not ordinarily cover departure from and return to the same berth, nor bunker consumption. Where detention caused by failure to load within laydays is compensated by demurrage, a claimant cannot recover the same loss through an implied-term damages claim.

The claimant, owner of the ABQAIQ, chartered the vessel to the defendant for a voyage from Freeport to Singapore. Delays occurred at Freeport when the vessel left her berth awaiting further cargo and later returned.

The claimant issued separate claims for demurrage, additional freight under the Vitol Interim Port Clause, and bunker costs. The parties subsequently settled the demurrage invoice. The claimant later pursued demurrage for the earlier Freeport period, bunker costs under clauses 5.2 and 5.3, and damages for breach of an alleged implied term requiring timely provision of cargo.

The issues were whether the settlement covered the demurrage claim, whether the claims were time-barred under clauses 20.1 and 20.2, whether the bunker claim fell within clauses 5.2 or 5.3, and whether the implied-term claim provided an alternative remedy.

1. Demurrage settlement. The settlement of the amended demurrage invoice settled all claims for demurrage under the charterparty. The commercial context included the separate presentation of a demurrage claim and an additional-freight claim, and the invoice’s reference to demurrage for all ports. The words “Without Prejudice” did not reserve a right to claim further demurrage; at most, they preserved the separate additional-freight and port-cost claims.
2. Time bar. Clause 20.1 was not ambiguous. “A claim in writing” meant the substance of the claim for demurrage, deviation or detention. Whether an earlier claim was substantially the same as the claim ultimately advanced was a matter of fact and degree, informed by the clause’s purposes of investigation while facts remained fresh and finality. The additional-freight claim was not substantially the same as the later demurrage claim. It concerned a different period, different trigger points, different documentation, and bunker costs. The supporting-document requirement also had to be complied with carefully and strictly.
3. Bunkers. Clauses 5.2 and 5.3 concerned expenses, dues or charges arising from specified movements between or at berths. The vessel’s departure from berth 10 to drift and subsequent return to berth 10 was not a shift from one berth to another. Bunkers were not within the relevant categories of expenses or charges. The claim was also time-barred under clause 20.2 because the necessary bunker-consumption records had not been provided.
4. Implied term. The claimant accepted that detention caused by failure to load within laydays was compensated by demurrage. Following the principle described in Inverkip Steamship Co Ltd v Bunge & Co, the claimant could not use an implied-term damages claim as a fallback for the same detention loss after the demurrage claim failed. That claim was also time-barred under clause 20.1 and lacked the required supporting documentation.
5. The claimant’s application for summary judgment was dismissed. The defendant’s application for summary judgment succeeded.