SBT Star Bulk & Tankers (Germany) GmbH & Co KG v Cosmotrade SA

A trip time charter remains a time charter. The charterer generally controls the vessel’s employment during the charter period, subject to the agreed trading limits, route and other express restrictions. The fact that the charter describes a single “trip” does not, without more, restrict the charterer to loading at one port or carrying only one cargo. Any restriction on the number or designation of loading or discharging ports requires clear contractual words. The proper scope of the charter depends on its particular terms. Words describing the contractual route, such as “via” and “to”, do not necessarily define exclusive loading and discharge ranges.

The claimant owner appealed under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 from a partial final award on a preliminary issue. The dispute arose under a trip time charter of the vessel WEHR TRAVE. After the vessel had discharged cargo at Dammam, the respondent charterer ordered it to proceed to Sohar to load further project cargo for discharge in India.

The tribunal held that the charterer was entitled to give that order. The owner contended that the agreed “one time charter trip” had ended with completion of the earlier cargo-carrying voyage and that Sohar was outside the agreed loading range. The central issue was whether the particular charter terms permitted the charterer to order the vessel to load a further cargo.

1. Appeal dismissed. The charterers were entitled to order the vessel to load further cargo at Sohar. The charterers were also entitled to the costs of the appeal.
2. A trip time charter is a form of time charter. Its defining characteristic is that the vessel remains under the charterer’s orders as to employment during the charter period. The charterer’s entitlement may be restricted by agreed terms concerning duration, trading limits, geographical route, or the number and designation of loading and discharging ports, but such restrictions require clear words. The Wisdom C [2014] EWHC 1884 (Comm) and The Eugenia [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 381 supported that characterisation.
3. There is no single definition of “trip” or “one trip”. A trip may include several loading and discharging operations at different ports. The word “one” therefore did not materially assist the owner.
4. On the proper construction of this charter, the specified ranges and route did not restrict loading to the East Mediterranean or Black Sea. “Via” denoted the contractual route, while “to” identified the route’s destination. The charterers could call at ports within the trading limits and on the contractual route, subject to any express contrary agreement. Sohar satisfied those requirements and was not excluded.
5. The commercial consequences of the competing constructions could properly be considered, but they did not determine the result. The authorities relied upon, including The Aragon [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 628 and Ispat Industries Ltd v Western Bulk Pte Ltd (The Sabrina 1) [2011] EWHC 93, turned on their particular wording and offered limited assistance in construing this charter.

• High Court (Commercial Court): allowed appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996; the court dismissed the appeal from the tribunal’s partial final award on the preliminary issue.