K Line Pte Ltd v Priminds Shipping (Hk) Co. Ltd. m.v. “Eternal Bliss” [2021] EWCA 2373 Civ 1712

Some 10 months ago I provided a summary of the decision of the Court of Appeal, given by Males LJ, in which he reversed the first instance decision of Andrew Baker J who held that a shipowner’s remedy for breach of charterer’s obligation to load and discharge within laytime could include damages and was not solely limited to demurrage.

A summary of the first instance case was also provided a year earlier.

The Court of Appeal in allowing the appeal thus held that the demurrage payable by charterers liquidates the whole of damages payable by charterers to owners for failing to complete cargo operations within the laytime allowed and not merely some of them.

I concluded my previous insight with a remark that the Court of Appeal’s judgment would sit well in the commercial shipping market, based on the need and desirability for clarity and certainty and that the judgment may offer some comfort to charterers, confining their liability for damages solely to demurrage when laytime is exceeded.

It appears my comments may have been short-lived. Shipowners have been granted a final word; the Supreme Court granting them leave to appeal, which was refused by the Court of Appeal.

A final determination on the exact nature of demurrage is awaited with bated breath (and reserved comment).

LARA HICKS © 2022

BARRISTER

33 BEDFORD ROW

NOTICE: This article is provided free of charge for information purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.