Previewpdf

VOYAGE
CHARTERS
LLOYD’S SHIPPING LAW LIBRARY

Series editors: Andrew W. Baker, QC and Hatty Sumption
LLOYD’S SHIPPING LAW LIBRARY
Time Charters Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice

seventh edition fourth edition
by Terence Coghlin, Andrew W. Baker Q.C., by Nigel Meeson and John A. Kimbell
Julian Kenny, John D. Kimball, and (2011)
Thomas H. Belknap, Jr
(2014) The Law of Tug and Tow and
Offshore Contracts
Voyage Charters third edition
fourth edition by Simon Rainey
by Julian Cooke, Timothy Young Q.C., (2011)
Michael Ashcroft Q.C., Andrew Taylor,
John D. Kimball, David Martowski, Laytime and Demurrage
LeRoy Lambert and Michael Sturley sixth edition
(2014) by John Schofield
(2011)
Marine Insurance Legislation
fifth edition P&I Clubs: Law and Practice
by Robert Merkin fourth edition
(2014) by Steven J. Hazelwood and
David Semark
Maritime Letters of Indemnity (2010)
by Felipe Arizon and David Semark
(2014) The York-Antwerp Rules: The Principles and
Practice of General Average Adjustment
International Cargo Insurance third edition
edited by John Dunt by N. Geoffrey Hudson and
(2012) Michael D. Harvey
(2010)
The Law of Shipbuilding Contracts
fourth edition London Maritime Arbitration
by Simon Curtis third edition
(2012) by Clare Ambrose, Karen Maxwell and
Angharad Parry
Ship Sale and Purchase (2009)
sixth edition
by Iain Goldrein, Q.C., Matt Hannaford, Marine Cargo Insurance
and Paul Turner by John Dunt
(2012) (2009)
Marine Insurance: Law and Practice Shipping and the Environment

second edition second edition
by Francis Rose by Colin De La Rue and Charles B. Anderson
(2012) (2009)
Berlingieri on Arrest of Ships Ship Registration: Law and Practice

fifth edition second edition
by Francesco Berlingieri by Richard Coles and Edward Watt
(2011) (2009)
Bills of Lading
by Richard Aikens, Richard Lord and
Michael Bools
(2006)
Bareboat Charters
second edition
by Mark Davis
(2005)
Enforcement of Maritime Claims

fourth edition
by D. C Jackson
(2005)
Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims

fourth edition
by Patrick Griggs, Richard Williams
and Jeremy Farr
(2005)
Marine War Risks

third edition
by Michael D. Miller
(2005)
Merchant Shipping Legislation

second edition
by Aengus R. M. Fogarty
(2004)
The Law of Ship Mortgages

by Graeme Bowtle
(2002)
CMR: Contracts for the International

Carriage of Goods by Road
third edition
by Donald James Hill, Andrew Messent,
and David A. Glass
(2000)
EC Shipping Law
second edition
by Vincent Power
(1998)
This page intentionally left blank
VOYAGE
CHARTERS
BY
JULIAN COOKE JOHN D. KIMBALL

of Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister New York Attorney, Blank Rome LLP
TIMOTHY YOUNG DAVID MARTOWKSI

of Gray’s Inn, One of Her Majesty’s Counsel New York Arbitrator and Mediator
MICHAEL ASHCROFT L E ROY LAMBERT

of Gray’s Inn, One of Her Majesty’s Counsel President Charles Taylor P&I Management
(Americas), Inc.
ANDREW TAYLOR MICHAEL STURLEY

London Solicitor, Reed Smith Professor, University of Texas at Austin
FOURTH EDITION
informa law
from Routledge
Fourth Edition published 2014
by Informa Law from Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Informa Law from Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Informa Law from Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
© Julian Cooke, Timothy Young, Michael Ashcroft, Andrew Taylor, John Kimball,
David Martowski, LeRoy Lambert, Michael Sturley 2014
The rights of Julian Cooke, Timothy Young, Michael Ashcroft, Andrew Taylor,
John Kimball, David Martowski, LeRoy Lambert and Michael Sturley to be identified as
the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78
of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter
invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and
are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Every attempt has been made to obtain permission to reproduce copyright material.
If any proper acknowledgement has not been made, we would invite copyright holders
to inform us of the oversight.
Whilst every effort has been made to trace copyright holders, this has not been possible in all
cases. Any omissions brought to our attention will be remedied in future editions.
Lloyd’s is the registered trade mark of the Society incorporated by the Lloyd’s Act 1871
by the name of Lloyd’s.
First edition published by Lloyd’s of London Press 1993
Third edition published by Informa in 2007
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Cooke, J. H. S. (Julian Humphrey Spencer), author.
Voyage charters, fourth edition / Julian Cooke [and seven others]. — Fourth edition.
pages cm — (Lloyd’s shipping law library)
ISBN 978-0-415-83360-8 (hardback) — ISBN 978-1-315-79502-7 (ebook)
1. Charter-parties. 2. Voyage charters I. Title.
K1182.C66 2014
343.09’68—dc23
2013051111
ISBN 978-0-415-83360-8
eISBN 978-1-31579-502-7
Typeset in Times New Roman

by Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon, UK
Preface
Since the third edition, there have been no earth-shaking changes to the law relating to the carriage
of good by sea. The progress of the Rotterdam Rules has been slow and uncertain. Although
doubtless the fifth edition may have to devote much space to them, it has not been thought that
this edition need do so. There have been some important English decisions on demurrage (The
Archimidis, The Eternity, The Eagle Valencia and The Abqaiq), on the Hague Rules package
limitation (The Limnos) and on the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 (The Pace decisions),
but they have been largely discrete in their operation.
There has been a steady accretion of developments in the general law of contract, which
inevitably have an impact on carriage contracts. Scarcely a section on the general principles of
the law of contract in Chapter 1 (probably not a chapter much considered by practitioners) has
gone unaffected by change of some sort: the rules on determining the applicable law, duress,
illegality, mistake, repudiation, the implication of terms, and the general rules of contractual
interpretation and even good faith have all been subjected to judicial exegesis. The law of the
assessment of damages has likewise developed not, as many thought, by a drawing back from
The Golden Victory, but in quite the opposite direction, with wasted expenses loss now rationalised
in line with the “compensation principle” in The Mamola Challenger and as the “available
market” has become a less available tool with the post-Lehman crisis in the field of remoteness
with The Kildare. Remoteness has undergone perhaps a more short-lived tremor with The
Achilleas. The minimum performance principle may be ripe for substantial change after the
bmiBaby case.
But there have been enough changes to merit a fourth edition, changes all over the world. We
have tried to embrace decisions in major jurisdictions as well as those principally involved in
this book: the courts of Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada have all
contributed much useful learning. We can only regret that the references to such decisions are
less full than they really deserve, usually through practical difficulties of access in spite of the
Internet.
There is a not-dissimilar problem with English decisions. The growth of the unreported “neutral
citation” decisions has created its own minefield. Gone are the days when authors and practitioners
alike could keep up with change by reading their parts of Lloyd’s Law Reports and their less
frequent Lloyd’s Maritime and Law Quarterly. Now the dreaded neutral citation references
“EWCA Civ” or “EWHC Comm”, coming across the radar like stealth bombers, are enough to
strike dread in the hearts of many stalwart practitioners. We have done our best to incorporate
most of the relevant “neutral citation” cases. We here offer our particular thanks to the many
members of the Bench who have sent copies of their judgments; and, importantly, there are
significant decisions from the Construction and Technology Court as well as the Commercial
Court that receive some mention. The two streams of jurisprudence practised in the two courts
might merge to the benefit of each.
We thank Thomas Corby for his valuable research work in relation to developments in the
case law.
vii
PREFACE
We have continued the process of trying to eradicate persistent errors, and in this we give our
unqualified thanks to colleagues who have not been slow to render criticism, comment and
suggestion. Errors will assuredly have gone unspotted, but it is devoutly hoped that they are
reducing in number. We still assume full blame for their continued presence, and still welcome
contributions from users who find error or obscurity.
The process of authorship has undergone a more fundamental change than the law perhaps.
Michael Ashcroft, whose knowledge, insight and skill have been to the huge benefit of the book,
has joined to reinforce the English team, while the US team has also received their own boost
with the arrival of Michael Sturley and his unequalled contribution to the US law on the Carriage
of Goods by Sea Act 1936. It is hard to think of a greater authority on that topic than Michael,
and the authors on both sides of the Atlantic are delighted to have him on board.
But the last word should go to a celebration of the part that Julian Cooke has played in the
development of this book. Julian, so long the leading light of the English team and the man who,
in the view of all users, gave his name to Cooke on Voyage Charters, has begun the process of
retirement. He had hoped to escape the fourth edition altogether, especially with the arrival of
Michael Ashcroft, but it was not so easy to break free from the clutches of his fellow authors.
Without Julian this work would have been a weak shadow of what we hope it now is. It is hoped
that, when he does finally manage to extricate himself completely, the standards he set will persist.
Our thanks are also due to our families and the publishers, in particular Faye Mousley, for
the monumental patience they have shown in the face of continual missed deadlines, last-minute
alterations, and all the other impositions which have been inflicted upon them. The United States
team acknowledges with thanks the contributions of Kate Belmont and Michele Granito.
As ever, we gratefully thank the following organisations for their permission to reproduce,
and for assistance with the various forms and documentation used within this publication:
Association of Shipbrokers & Agents (U.S.A.) Inc., New York, United States; the Baltic and
International Maritime Council (BIMCO), Copenhagen, Denmark; and Genoc Chartering Limited,
London, United Kingdom.
Our intention has been to state the law as at 1 April 2014, although when the limits of editing
have allowed, we have tried to incorporate some references after that date.
viii
Contents
Page
Preface vii
Table of U.K., Commonwealth and European Cases xliii
Table of U.S. Cases xcviii
Table of Arbitrations cxii
Table of Legislation cxxiii
Table of Conventions and Rules cxxvii
Table of Charterparties and Standard Clauses cxxx
SECTION I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND GENCON CHARTER

para.
CHAPTER 1. FORMATION AND TERMS OF THE CHARTER 1.1
Formation of the charter 1.1
Types of charter 1.1
Concluding a binding agreement 1.3
Matters which must be agreed if the contract is not to be unworkable or void for
uncertainty 1.5
The parties’ intention to contract 1.12
“Subject to contract” 1.16
“Subject to details” and similar expressions 1.17
“Subject to logical amendments/alterations” 1.20
“Subject to survey” 1.21
“Subject to stem” 1.23
“Subject to satisfactory completion of two trial voyages” 1.24
“Fixed in good faith” 1.25
Other “subjects” 1.26
Law governing the charter 1.27
Governing law chosen by the parties 1.28
1. Express choice of governing law 1.30
“Floating” governing law clauses 1.31
2. Choice of law “clearly demonstrated by the terms of the contract or the circumstances
of the case” 1.33
(a) Use of a standard form known to be governed by a particular system of law 1.34
(b) Course of dealing between the same parties 1.35
(c) Express choice of forum 1.36
(d) Reference to certain provisions of a system of law, without an express general
choice of the law 1.37
Other indications of a choice of law 1.38
Where the parties have made no choice of governing law 1.39
The role of the governing law 1.47
Procedural law—limitation of shipowners’ liability 1.50
Illegality of the contract of affreightment 1.51
Mistake 1.64
1. Mistake as to underlying circumstances 1.65
2. Mistake as to the parties, subject matter or other terms 1.67
ix
CONTENTS
Parties 1.68
Subject matter 1.69
Terms of the contract 1.70
Rectification 1.73
Misrepresentation 1.79
Rescission for misrepresentation 1.81
Damages for misrepresentation 1.82
Representation—a term of the contract 1.86
Duress 1.87
Duress and the conflict of laws 1.93
The terms of the charter 1.94
Express terms 1.94
Interpretation of charterparty terms 1.95
The general principle of interpretation 1.95
Circumstances in which external evidence is admissible as an aid to
interpretation 1.96
Other more specific guidelines for interpretation 1.104
Implied terms 1.121
Implied obligations of the owner 1.127
Implied obligations of the charterer 1.128
Classification of terms 1.129
1. Conditions 1.130
2. Warranty 1.132
3. Intermediate term 1.133
Affirmation 1.135
Bringing the charter to an end 1.136
Performance 1.137
Agreement 1.138
Accepted repudiation 1.139
Provision in the charter 1.140
Frustration 1.141
U.S. Law 1A.1
Formation and terms of the contract 1A.1
CHAPTER 2. PARTIES TO THE CHARTER 2.1

1. The basic rule: the identity of the parties depends on construction of the charter
as a whole 2.2
Misnomer 2.3
Principal and agent 2.4
Decisions on construction 2.6
2. Real principal can sue and be sued 2.13
When the terms of contract exclude intervention of another person as principal 2.15
When the agent is the real principal 2.18
Election to sue agent or principal 2.21
3. Authority of agents 2.22
Actual authority 2.23
Ostensible authority 2.26
Ratification 2.33
Warranty of authority 2.34
Mortgagees and purchasers 2.36
The effect of the charter on non-parties 2.38
“Piercing the corporate veil” 2.39
1. Liability as a party to the charter 2.39
2. Other cases 2.44
U.S. Law 2A.1
Parties 2A.1
Identification of owner or charterer 2A.4
x
CONTENTS 0.00
“Piercing corporate veils” 2A.7

Piercing the corporate veil in arbitration 2A.22
Piercing corporate veils in tort cases 2A.24
Parties in interest 2A.26
Consolidation in arbitration 2A.27
Participation of non-signatories in arbitration 2A.29
Consolidation class actions in arbitration 2A.34
CHAPTER 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE SHIP 3.1

Contractual effect of descriptive statements 3.1
Condition, warranty or intermediate term 3.2
When the ship must comply 3.4
Name of the vessel 3.5
Vessel “to be nominated” 3.6
Liberty to substitute 3.7
Chartered tonnage 3.13
Owner’s right of transhipment 3.15
Registered tonnage 3.18
Deadweight and bale capacity 3.19
“About” 3.23
Classification 3.26
Oil major approvals 3.29
Flag and nationality 3.32
Condition of the vessel and her gear 3.34
Speed 3.35
Vessel’s description in shipping register 3.39
“Without guarantee” 3.40
U.S. Law 3A.1
Description of the ship 3A.1
Vessel’s name 3A.5
Gross and net registered tonnage (GRT/NRT) 3A.7
Cargo carrying capacity 3A.8
Vessel’s flag 3A.21
Classification Society 3A.23
Length 3A.27
Arrival draft 3A.28
“Air draft” 3A.29
“WLTHC” 3A.30
“Under keel clearance” (“UKC”) 3A.31
Present condition of tanks/holds 3A.32
Shovel clean 3A.33
Whether description of cranes implies they can work simultaneously 3A.34
Suitable for grab discharge 3A.35
“Self-discharging” 3A.39
Sugar charters: non-compliance clauses 3A.41
CHAPTER 4. PROCEEDING TO THE LOADING PORT 4.1

Introduction 4.1
1. The position of the vessel at the date of the charter 4.2
Statements as to the time when the vessel is to sail for the loading port 4.4
2. “Expected ready to load” 4.5
Reasonable grounds 4.8
“About” 4.9
3. The obligation to proceed to the loading port 4.10
The effect of an “expected ready to load” date or a cancelling date 4.11
Intermediate engagements 4.13
Condition or intermediate term 4.14
xi
CONTENTS
The effect of excepted perils 4.15

When and where does the approach voyage begin? 4.17
4. Post-fixture notices of expected time of arrival 4.18
U.S. Law 4A.1
Present position of vessel and expected readiness to load 4A.1
“Expected Ready to Load (abt.)” 4A.2
Proceeding to the loading port 4A.12
CHAPTER 5. LOADING AND DISCHARGING PORTS, PLACES AND BERTHS 5.1

“Port or place” 5.1
The identification and nomination of the port, place or berth 5.4
Delegation of nomination 5.6
Nomination under a bill of lading 5.7
The obligation to nominate 5.8
By whom the nomination may be made 5.10
When the nomination must be made 5.13
How the nomination is made 5.15
Order of call at two or more ports 5.18
The irrevocable effect of a valid nomination 5.20
Impossibility 5.23
Existing impossibility at the time of nomination 5.24
Supervening impossibility 5.27
Safety 5.30
The warranty of safety—express and implied 5.30
1. Named ports or places 5.35
2. Choice from a range of named ports/places 5.36
3. Choice from a number of unnamed ports within a range 5.38
4. Choice of a berth within a port 5.43
Due diligence 5.47
Can the warranty of safety be qualified by the context/circumstances? 5.49
At what time does the charterer’s warranty as to safety operate? 5.50
Re-nomination after supervening unsafety 5.52
Definition of safety 5.58
Types of unsafety 5.59
Physical safety 5.60
“Political” or non-seafaring unsafety 5.65
“Always lie safely afloat” 5.68
“always accessible” or “always available” or “reachable on arrival” 5.69
The particular vessel 5.71
The duration and ambit of the warranty of safety 5.73
1. “reach” 5.73
Lightening and safety 5.76
2. “use” 5.80
Interruptions in safe conditions for use 5.82
Tug and shifting costs 5.85
3. “return” 5.86
4. Port/berth ceasing to be unsafe prior to the vessel’s arrival 5.88
Temporary obstacles 5.89
Abnormal occurrences 5.94
Negligence on the part of the master or navigator 5.97
“So near thereto as she may safely get” 5.101
The effect on the implied warranty of safety 5.101
The effect of the term 5.102
Notice 5.107
The effects of the nomination of an unsafe or impossible port or place: the owner’s
rights 5.108
The right to consider the order 5.108
xii
CONTENTS
The right to reject the order 5.109

Loss of the right to reject and damages 5.112
Damages for delay 5.116
U.S. Law 5A.1
Safe ports and berths 5A.1
“Or so near thereto as she may safely get and lie always afloat” 5A.1
Owner may be a third-party beneficiary of the safe port warranty in a sub-charter 5A.11
Waiver and acceptance of named port 5A.12
What conditions make a port or berth unsafe? 5A.21
Avoidability by good navigation and seamanship 5A.34
Apportionment of damages 5A.40
CHAPTER 6. THE CARGO 6.1

Obligations: mutual and prior to loading 6.1
Meaning of a “full and complete” cargo 6.2
Only ordinary cargo spaces to be used 6.3
Ballast 6.4
Stowage and broken stowage 6.5
Preparation of the goods for loading 6.7
“not exceeding what she can reasonably stow and carry” 6.9
Bunkers, water and stores 6.10
Draft restrictions, harbours with bars 6.11
Effect of clauses describing the capacity of the vessel 6.13
Effect of clauses describing the stowage factor of cargo 6.14
Clauses fixing the amount of cargo to be shipped 6.15
Maximum and minimum quantities fixed by the charter 6.16
Options as to quantity to be loaded 6.18
Charterparty for “a cargo” 6.19
Part cargo 6.20
De minimis 6.21
Deck cargo 6.23
When carriage of deck cargo is permissible 6.23
1. Where the contract of carriage provides for carriage on deck 6.24
2. Custom of the trade 6.27
3. Where the ship is specially designed for carriage on deck 6.28
4. Containers 6.29
Rights and responsibilities where goods are carried on deck 6.31
Unauthorised deck carriage 6.31
Authorised deck carriage 6.32
1. Standard of stowage and seaworthiness appropriate to deck cargo 6.33
2. Where goods are carried “at charterer’s risk” or “at shipper’s risk” 6.34
3. Application of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules 6.37
4. General average 6.39
Owners’ right to freight where goods are carried on deck 6.41
The type of cargo 6.42
Cargo described specifically 6.43
Cargo not described specifically—“lawful merchandise” 6.44
Dangerous cargo 6.46
Express prohibition 6.46
Implied term relating to dangerous cargo 6.49
The meaning of “dangerous goods” 6.51
The nature of the notice required 6.53
Dangerous goods and inherent vice 6.57
Legal obstacles—risks of non-physical damage 6.58
Is the carrier obliged to carry dangerous goods? 6.60
The effect of a clause paramount 6.62
BIMCO cargo clause 6.63
xiii
CONTENTS
Rights of the owner when cargo loaded in breach of the terms of the charter 6.64
U.S. Law 6A.1
“Full and Complete Cargo” 6A.1
Cargo to be loaded 6A.3
“Lawful general cargo” 6A.19
Dangerous cargoes 6A.20
CHAPTER 7. CHARTERERS’ OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE CARGO 7.1

Nature of the charterers’ obligation 7.1
The time at which the cargo must be available 7.2
Loading in turn 7.3
Consequences of a breach of the obligation to provide cargo 7.5
Exceptions to the charterers’ obligation to provide cargo 7.6
1. Frustration of the charterparty 7.6
Illegality 7.8
2. Express exceptions clauses 7.9
(a) General principle of interpretation 7.10
(b) Customary place of storage outside the port 7.11
(c) Exceptions clauses extending to the providing of cargo 7.14
(d) Prevention by excepted perils of intended method of providing cargo 7.16
(e) “Cargo or intended cargo” 7.19
Cargo options—selection or election? 7.21
The effect of a true option 7.25
1. Mode of exercise 7.25
2. Failure to exercise the option punctually 7.26
3. Nomination of cargo already affected by delay 7.27
4. Revocation of the exercise of the option 7.28
U.S. Law 7A.1
Charterer’s duty to supply a cargo 7A.1
Waiting at the altar: When is there an anticipatory repudiation of the charter? 7A.2
Charterer’s breach 7A.8
Damages 7A.30
Duty to avoid or minimize damages 7A.32
Contracts of affreightment 7A.34
“Fairly evenly spread” 7A.38
CHAPTER 8. DUNNAGE 8.1

Meaning of dunnage 8.1
“Separations” 8.3
Removal of dunnage at end of voyage 8.4
U.S. Law 8A.1
Dunnage 8A.1
CHAPTER 9. PROCEEDING ON THE CARGO VOYAGE 9.1

U.S. Law 9A.1
CHAPTER 10. DELIVERY 10.1

What constitutes delivery? 10.2
Delivery under f.i.o. terms 10.5
Where, how and to whom delivery is to be made 10.6
Notification of readiness to deliver 10.8
Delivery of mixed goods 10.10
1. Undifferentiated goods shipped as one parcel 10.11
2. Where goods become unidentifiable during the voyage as a result of an excepted
peril 10.12
3. Where goods are shipped with inadequate or inaccurate marks 10.13
xiv
CONTENTS
When mixing of goods is due to the fault of the shipowner 10.15

The method of apportioning unidentifiable goods 10.16
Cargo mixed with goods belonging to the shipowner 10.18
Failure of the consignee to take delivery 10.19
Special contractual provisions 10.20
Provisions which entitle the carrier to land and warehouse the goods (usually at the
merchant’s risk and expense) if the consignee does not take delivery 10.21
Provisions which stipulate that delivery to a person who would not, on ordinary principles,
be the agent of the consignee shall be deemed to amount to good delivery 10.26
U.S. Law 10A.1
CHAPTER 11. OWNERS’ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSE 11.1

The incorporation of the Hague Rules 11.3
The layout of the clause 11.5
The first paragraph—liabilities accepted 11.6
“Owners to be responsible . . .” 11.6
“. . . for loss of or damage to goods or for delay in the delivery of goods . . .” 11.7
1. Improper or negligent stowage 11.8
“Unless stowage performed by shippers/Charterers or their stevedores or servants” 11.11
The effect of the third paragraph of the clause 11.14
2. Unseaworthiness caused by personal want of due diligence on the part of the owners
or their manager 11.17
The role of absolute warranty at common law 11.17
Seaworthiness in general 11.18
The ISM Code 11.26
Ship-vetting institutions 11.27
Structure and hull 11.28
Machinery 11.29
Hold preparation 11.30
Stowage 11.31
Manning 11.34
Equipment and supplies 11.36
Compliance with legal and documentary requirements 11.40
When must the ship be seaworthy? The doctrine of stages 11.43
The period before the beginning of loading 11.45
The loading stage 11.49
The intermediate stage after the end of loading and before the open sea voyage 11.50
Bunkering and the doctrine of stages 11.51
Personal want of due diligence of the owners or their manager 11.52
The effect of “personal” 11.52
The relevant persons—“The Owners or their Manager” 11.53
“ . . .the Owners or their Manager. . .” 11.58
The position of the disponent owners 11.59
Personal obligations of owners or their manager 11.60
3. “. . . or by the personal act or default of the Owners or their Manager” 11.64
The second paragraph—liabilities excluded 11.68
“. . . loss, damage or delay . . .”—financial loss 11.69
To what matters, acts or omissions do the exceptions apply? 11.72
When the exceptions apply 11.74
The relationship of clause 2 with other clauses 11.76
Descriptive clauses and clause 2 11.79
The burden of proof 11.81
U.S. Law 11A.1
General principles 11A.1
The duty to make the vessel seaworthy 11A.3
Clause paramount 11A.17
COGSA defenses 11A.26
xv
CONTENTS
Financial unseaworthiness 11A.27

Improper or negligent stowage 11A.29
Condition and stowage 11A.45
Personal want of due diligence, or act of default of the owners or their manager 11A.46
The burden of proof 11A.57
Contribution and indemnity—tender of defense 11A.74
CHAPTER 12. DEVIATION AND DELAY 12.1

Basic obligation of the carrier 12.1
Usual and customary route 12.2
Departure from direct route for navigational reasons 12.4
Bunkering 12.5
Departure from direct route for loading or discharging cargo 12.6
Deviation by delay 12.8
Deviation in case of necessity 12.10
To effect repairs to the ship 12.11
To avoid capture or confiscation 12.12
To save life 12.13
To obtain fill-up cargo 12.14
Deviation must not exceed what is reasonably necessary 12.15
Clauses granting liberty to depart from the direct or usual route 12.16
The Gencon deviation clause 12.17
“To call at any ports in any order” 12.17
“For any purpose” 12.20
“To tow and assist vessels in all situations” 12.21
“To deviate for the purpose of saving life and/or property” 12.22
The BIMCO Liberty and Deviation Clause 12.23
Other liberties to deviate 12.24
Effect of unjustifiable deviation 12.28
1. Rights and liabilities after deviation when contract is rescinded 12.29
(a) Terms of bailment 12.30
(b) Effect of rescission on owner’s accrued rights 12.37
2. Rights and liabilities after deviation where contract is affirmed 12.41
(a) Carrier remains liable for loss caused by deviation 12.42
(b) Exclusion clauses may not apply to a devious voyage 12.44
Deviation on the voyage to the loading port 12.46
U.S. Law 12A.1
Deviation and delay 12A.1
Usual and customary route 12A.6
Departure from direct route for navigational reasons 12A.9
Bunkering 12A.12
Departure from direct route for loading and discharging cargo 12A.19
Inadvertent failure to discharge cargo 12A.30
Deviation by delay 12A.31
Deviation in case of necessity 12A.34
Gencon form 12A.35
Deviation by unseaworthiness 12A.39
Burden of proving causal connection 12A.42
Effect of deviation on limitation of liability 12A.47
Effect of deviation on time bar 12A.52
Deviation by the carriage of cargo on deck 12A.53
CHAPTER 13. FREIGHT 13.1

The meaning of freight 13.1
The quantity of cargo on which freight is payable 13.4
“Freight on intaken quantity” 13.6
“Freight on delivered quantity” 13.9
xvi
CONTENTS
Other stipulations: conclusive evidence 13.10

The rate of freight 13.13
Overage freight 13.18
Lumpsum freight 13.19
Lumpsum freight where no cargo is shipped or delivered 13.20
Lumpsum freight when cargo is short-shipped or when some cargo is lost 13.21
Freight on transhipment 13.24
Fault of the charterer preventing the earning of freight 13.25
Pro rata freight for delivery short of destination 13.27
The amount of pro rata freight 13.30
Rate of freight where the parties agree to a discharge port outside the agreed range 13.31
The persons from whom freight may be due 13.32
“Freight payable as per charterparty” 13.38
Where freight is payable to a third party 13.45
Deadfreight 13.47
Method of payment 13.48
Currency of account and currency of payment 13.48
Place of payment 13.54
Time for payment 13.55
Payment “in cash” 13.57
Payment by cheque or bill of exchange 13.59
Payment “without discount” 13.61
Deductions from freight—the rule against set-off 13.63
Claims for damages: equitable set-off 13.63
Liquidated claims: legal set-off 13.68
Procedural rules 13.69
Special clauses permitting deduction from freight of cargo claim 13.70
Payment of freight “on delivery” 13.73
“Right and true delivery” 13.79
Freight on delivery of damaged cargo 13.81
Freight payable in advance 13.87
Advances under clause 4 13.92
“Cash for vessel’s ordinary disbursements at port of loading to be advanced by
Charterers if required. . .” 13.92
“Ordinary disbursements at port of loading” 13.93
“If required” 13.94
“At highest current rate of exchange” 13.97
“Subject to two per cent to cover insurance and other expenses” 13.98
Partial loss of cargo after part of freight advanced 13.100
Other provisions for the payment of advance freight 13.102
Advance freight payable on loading 13.103
Advance freight payable on sailing 13.104
Advance freight payable on signing bills of lading 13.105
Calculating the amount of advance freight payable 13.108
Provisions which advance the date at which freight is earned 13.111
Freight “earned” on shipment and similar provisions 13.112
Freight payable “lost or not lost” 13.114
“Freight prepaid” 13.116
U.S. Law 13A.1
“Freight” defined; contrasted with “hire”; usual modifications to the printed
clause 13A.1
Amount: lumpsum or per measurement unit 13A.5
Amount based on trading range/ports 13A.14
“Without discount” 13A.16
When earned: “non-returnable, vessel and/or cargo lost or not lost” 13A.24
Cases in which the owner was entitled to retain prepaid freight 13A.28
Cases in which the owner was not entitled to retain prepaid freight 13A.32
The double recovery problem 13A.39
xvii
CONTENTS
Recovery of trans- or on-shipment costs 13A.48

Another line of cases: the owner’s decision to abandon the voyage must be “reasonable”
in order to retain prepaid freight 13A. 51
Freight pro rata 13A.56
Time freight earned vs. time freight payable 13A.59
Time for payment: “prepaid” freight within so many days “after” signing/releasing bills
of lading 13A.66
Interest on late payment 13A.71
CHAPTER 14. LOADING AND DISCHARGING 14.1

General background 14.1
Customs of the port 14.4
Clause 5 of the Gencon charter 14.8
Gross terms 14.10
Receipt and delivery “alongside” the vessel 14.10
Effect of customs of the port when cargo to be received or delivered “alongside” 14.11
Responsibility for handling goods “alongside” 14.16
Operating the cargo gear 14.19
Large pieces or packages 14.20
Loading by elevator or discharging by spout 14.21
Stowage 14.22
Ensuring proper stowage and trim between discharging ports 14.29
Shipowner’s right to land and reload 14.29
“Seaworthy trim” clauses 14.30
F.I.O.S.T. terms 14.36
Effect of f.i.o.s.t. alternative 14.36
Incorporation of f.i.o.s.t. alternative into bill of lading 14.38
Effect of provisions retaining “supervision” or “responsibility” of captain 14.40
Residual responsibility of owners for bad stowage 14.42
Use of ship’s cargo gear and winchmen 14.46
Opening and closing hatches 14.50
Loading spaces with difficult access 14.51
Responsibility for stevedores under other forms of clause 14.52
Bagging bulk cargo 14.57
Liner terms 14.60
Lighterage 14.61
Exceptions clauses and optional methods of discharge 14.62
U.S. Law 14A.1
Loading/discharging costs 14A.1
Responsibility for port dues and cargo taxes 14A.3
CHAPTER 15. LAYTIME 15.1

General 15.3
Loading/discharging within the agreed laytime 15.5
Fault of the owner 15.7
Defining the period of laytime 15.10
Charterer’s obligation where no laytime is agreed 15.13
Interruptions and exceptions to laytime 15.14
Interruptions to laytime 15.15
“Weather permitting” 15.16
“Sundays and holidays excepted” 15.18
“Unless used, in which case time actually used to count” 15.20
Laytime exceptions 15.21
Construction of laytime exceptions 15.22
1. Strict construction 15.23
2. Applicability of general exceptions to laytime and demurrage 15.24
3. Failure to have cargo available 15.25
xviii
CONTENTS
4. The period covered by the exception 15.26

5. Reasonable efforts to overcome the hindrance 15.27
6. Charterer causing the hindrance 15.28
The commencement of laytime 15.29
Notice of readiness 15.29
1. The place 15.34
2. The ability to load or discharge 15.39
Delay by the charterer 15.47
“Acceptance” by charterer of an invalid notice of readiness, or waiver of notice 15.49
“Laytime for loading and discharging shall commence at 1 p.m. if notice of readiness is
given before noon and at 6 a.m. next working day if given during office hours
after noon” 15.53
“Next working day” 15.55
Special cases of time counting 15.56
“Time actually used before commencement of laytime shall count” 15.56
“Time lost in waiting for berth to count as loading or discharging time” 15.57
Other periods deemed to be laytime 15.60
Other provisions which place the risk of berthing delays on the charterers 15.61
Shifting 15.66
Shifting from anchorage to berth 15.68
Shifting out of berth 15.70
U.S. Law 15A.1
Introduction: basic concepts 15A.1
Where no time period is fixed for loading and/or discharging, or where it is left to
custom 15A.8
Time waiting for a berth under a charter with no fixed laytime 15A.11
Charters in which a period of time is fixed for loading and/or discharging; notice of
readiness 15A.17
Content of notice of readiness 15A.21
Importance of notice of readiness 15A.23
From where may NOR be given? Herein of berth charters and port charters and
“arrived ships” 15A.25
“Whether in berth or not” 15A.35
Meaning of “port” 15A.38
Free pratique and customs clearance 15A.47
Physical readiness 15A.52
To whom must the NOR be given? 15A.64
How NOR is given 15A.68
Tender of NOR prior to laydays 15A.69
When may NOR be given? “Office hours” 15A.70
Time actually used before notice time expires 15A.75
Tender of NOR before first day of canceling period 15A.83
Meaning and effect of “time lost waiting for berth provision” 15A.85
Calculation of laytime 15A.94
“Running days” 15A.95
“Working days” 15A.98
“Sundays and holidays” 15A.101
“Weather permitting” and “weather working day” 15A.104
“Weather working day of 24 hours” 15A.110
“Weather working days of 24 consecutive [or running] hours” 15A.113
“Days” based on an amount of cargo loaded or unloaded per day 15A.114
“Days” based on an amount of cargo per workable hatch 15A.119
“Days” based on an amount of cargo “per hatch” 15A.124
“Separate” or “total” laytime for loading and discharging 15A.127
Other exceptions to laytime 15A.132
Vis major 15A.134
Fault of owner 15A.140
Specific contractual exceptions: general principles 15A.149
xix
CONTENTS
Any cause [whatsoever] beyond the control of charterer 15A.158

Congestion: “obstructions” 15A.164
CHAPTER 16. DEMURRAGE 16.1

General 16.2
Exceptions clauses—“once on demurrage always on demurrage” 16.3
Delay caused by the fault of the shipowner 16.5
Demurrage and mitigation 16.6
Demurrage and damages for detention 16.11
When demurrage falls due 16.16
Who is liable to pay demurrage? 16.18
Time bar clauses 16.21
U.S. Law 16A.1
How and when payable 16A.5
Demurrage contrasted with “damages for detention” or “detention” 16A.8
“Liner terms” 16A.19
Does the owner have a duty to “mitigate” demurrage? 16A.20
Despatch 16A.21
CHAPTER 17. LIENS 17.1

The nature of a lien 17.1
Lien and cesser clauses 17.2
The scope of the cessation of the charterer’s liability 17.4
The Gencon clause 17.4
Other clauses 17.7
“Supersession” clauses 17.8
The effect of a failure to exercise a lien 17.10
The burden of proof 17.12
The creation of the lien 17.14
Lien for sums due under the charterparty or the bill of lading 17.19
The exercise of the lien 17.23
The demand 17.24
Retaining possession 17.28
The cesser clause and the exercise of the lien 17.29
No lien for sums not payable at the time of discharge 17.31
The cargo over which the lien is exercisable 17.35
The costs of exercising the lien 17.37
What costs are recoverable? 17.37
The cesser clause and the costs of exercising the lien 17.40
The charterer as bill of lading holder 17.44
U.S. Law 17A.1
The maritime lien 17A.1
Executory contracts 17A.4
Shipowner’s lien on the cargo for freight, deadfreight, demurrage and damages
for detention 17A.8
When the shipowner’s lien can be exercised 17A.17
Deadfreight, despatch and other items 17A.25
Self-help and owner’s right to refuse to deliver the cargo 17A.26
“Freight pre-paid” bills of lading 17A.30
Charterer’s liens 17A.32
When a maritime lien for breach of charter arises 17A.37
Scope of charterer’s lien on the ship 17A.38
Liens for necessaries provided by charterer 17A.41
Priority of charterer’s lien 17A.44
Cesser clause 17A.46
Charterer not relieved from liability accrued prior to loading and issuance of
bills of lading 17A.48
xx
CONTENTS
Charterer relieved from liability incurred subsequent to loading and issuance of

bills of lading if and only if the bill of lading adequately incorporates the terms
of the charterparty 17A.49
Charterer not relieved from liability incurred subsequent to loading and issuance of
bills of lading if the bill of lading does not adequately incorporate the terms
of the charterparty 17A.57
If the bill of lading adequately incorporates the charterparty provisions, the consignee/
receiver is secondarily liable for demurrage incurred at the load port 17A.62
The cesser clause does not protect the charterer from liability for breaches of duties
which it itself agreed to perform subsequent to loading 17A.63
“. . .but only to such extent as the Owners have been unable to obtain payment
thereof by exercising the lien on the cargo” 17A.65
The effect of contradictory typed clauses 17A.68
CHAPTER 18. BILLS OF LADING 18.1

Bills of lading in general 18.1
The bill of lading issued under a charterparty 18.2
Further variants 18.3
1. Bill of lading as a receipt 18.7
Bailment 18.8
Representations in the bill of lading 18.9
1. Evidence 18.10
2. Estoppel 18.12
3. Liability in tort 18.14
4. Liability in contract 18.15
Statements as to condition 18.16
The obligations of the master with regard to clausing the bill of lading 18.22
Statements as to quantity, weight, etc. 18.25
Section 4 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 18.30
Conclusive evidence clauses 18.33
Statements as to marks 18.37
Statements as to quality 18.38
Statements as to the date of loading 18.39
2. Bill of lading as a contract of carriage 18.45
Charterparty terms and bills of lading 18.47
Incorporation of charterparty terms into bills of lading 18.48
Identification of the charterparty 18.60
Parties to the “bill of lading contract” 18.65
(a) The identity of “the carrier” 18.66
(b) The identity of the cargo interest who is party to the contract 18.78
The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 18.81
The types of document to which the Act applies 18.81
Transfer of rights against the carrier under the bill of lading 18.83
Transfer of rights to a “lawful holder” of a bill of lading 18.85
What happens to the rights of the original party? 18.88
Concurrent rights 18.90
Undivided bulk cargoes 18.94
Endorsement of a “spent” bill of lading or after lawful delivery or loss of the goods 18.97
The original party’s liabilities and their imposition on other parties 18.98
The liabilities imposed 18.99
The imposition of liabilities on “lawful holders” 18.101
The continuing liabilities of transferors 18.105
Sea waybills and ship’s delivery orders 18.106
Implied contract 18.109
Cases of no implied contract 18.114
Third parties: independent contractors and employees 18.115
Bailment generally 18.118
xxi
CONTENTS
The liabilities of bailees 18.119

The rights of bailees 18.124
Bailment and sub-bailment 18.125
The “bailment on terms” 18.127
The “sub-bailment on terms” 18.130
Stevedores and owners’ employees 18.136
The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 18.138
3. The bill of lading as a document of title 18.142
Classification of bills of lading 18.143
“Straight”, “order” and “bearer” bills of lading 18.143
“Shipped”, “received for shipment” and “through” bills 18.147
“Exhausted” or “accomplished” bills 18.149
The effect of a bill of lading being “negotiable” 18.151
Endorsement 18.153
Pledges 18.155
Sales 18.156
Stoppage in transit 18.157
Delivery and misdelivery by the carrier 18.161
Special terms 18.166
Discharge and delivery against a letter of indemnity 18.172
The charterparty bill of lading clause 18.174
“The Captain to sign Bills of Lading” 18.174
Who may sign 18.175
Charterers’ authority themselves to sign 18.178
The description of the goods in the bill of lading 18.180
Bills of lading to be signed in accordance with mate’s receipts 18.182
“at such rate of freight as presented without prejudice to this Charterparty” 18.184
1. Charterparties which require the bill of lading to be in a specific form 18.185
2. Charterparties which require the captain to sign bills of lading “at such rate
of freight as presented” but contain no express provisions as to the other
terms of the bill of lading 18.189
Bills of lading differing from the charter 18.190
Freight terms 18.192
Terms other than freight 18.200
3. Charterparties which allow the charterer to present a bill of lading in such
terms as he chooses without express restriction 18.203
Implied restrictions on charterer’s rights 18.204
Statements in the bill of lading 18.206
Further consequences of duty to sign bill of lading “as presented” 18.207
Effect of signing “without prejudice to this Charterparty” 18.208
“but should the freight by Bills of Lading amount to less than the total chartered
freight the difference to be paid to the Captain in cash on signing Bills of Lading” 18.210
Differing terms as to earning of freight 18.212
“Freight prepaid” bills of lading 18.213
Loss of cargo after payment of advance 18.216
The owner’s right of recourse 18.217
1. Basis of the right of recourse 18.218
(a) Damages for breach of the charter 18.218
(b) Damages for breach of a collateral warranty 18.219
(c) Damages in accordance with Article III rule 5 of the Hague Rules 18.220
(d) Express contract to indemnify 18.221
(e) Implied contract to indemnify 18.222
2. Examples of the right of recourse 18.225
(a) Bill of lading terms differing from those of charter 18.225
(b) Inaccurate statements in the bill of lading 18.231
(c) “Captain to sign clean bills of lading” 18.236
(d) Where bill of lading not signed 18.239
xxii
CONTENTS
(e) Departure from the bill of lading contract at charterer’s request 18.240
(f) No indemnity if act is manifestly unlawful 18.241
Difference between damages and contractual indemnity 18.244
Causation and remoteness 18.245
Limitation of action 18.246
U.S. Law 18A.1
CHAPTER 19. CANCELLING CLAUSE 19.1

Nature of the rights derived from the cancelling clause 19.1
Cancellation of consecutive voyage charters 19.5
The mode of exercise of the charterer’s option 19.6
Accrual of the right to cancel 19.8
Burden of proof 19.8
Readiness 19.10
1. The role of the notice of readiness in cancelling 19.11
2. Where need the vessel be ready? 19.14
3. How ready need the ship be? 19.16
4. Supervening unreadiness 19.20
5. Time of day 19.21
6. Breach by the charterer 19.23
Premature cancellation 19.27
Charterer’s cancellation 19.28
Owner’s request for cancellation 19.31
“Such option to be ‘declared, if demanded, at least 48 hours before the vessel’s
expected arrival at port of loading’” 19.33
Latest time for the exercise of the right to cancel 19.38
“Should the vessel be delayed on account of average or otherwise, Charterers to be
informed as soon as possible, and if the vessel is delayed for more than 10 days
after the day she is stated to be expected ready to load, Charterers have the
option of cancelling this contract, unless a cancelling date has been agreed upon” 19.43
U.S. Law 19A.1
General principles 19A.1
The Gencon 1976 form 19A.12
When can the charterer recover damages? 19A.14
CHAPTER 20. GENERAL AVERAGE 20.1

English law 20.1
Which law governs the adjustment of general average? 20.2
The York-Antwerp Rules 20.5
The scheme of the York-Antwerp Rules 20.8
Meaning of a general average act under Rule A 20.10
Extraordinary sacrifice 20.10
Extraordinary expenditure 20.12
Intention 20.16
Reasonableness—the Rule Paramount in the 1994 Rules 20.18
The peril 20.21
Common maritime adventure 20.25
Causation under Rule C 20.26
Pollution and damage to the environment 20.30
Non-separation agreements 20.31
Contributing interests 20.32
Calculating the amount made good and the amount of contribution 20.35
Fault of person claiming contribution 20.39
Fault of other persons 20.45
Enforcing rights of contribution in general average 20.46
xxiii
CONTENTS
General average “forum” clauses 20.52

Limitation of actions 20.53
The Gencon general average clause 20.56
“General average to be settled according to York-Antwerp Rules 1974” 20.56
“Proprietors of cargo to pay the cargo’s share in the general expenses even if same
have been necessitated through neglect or default of the Owners’ servants
(see clause 2)” 20.58
General average and the cesser clause 20.60
U.S. Law 20A.1
A common danger 20A.2
A voluntary sacrifice 20A.6
Success 20A.8
York-Antwerp Rules 1974 20A.9
Rule of interpretation 20A.10
Rule A 20A.13
Losses must be a direct consequence of the general average act 20A.15
Time in which to commence action 20A.19
Contributions from cargo interests 20A.20
New Jason clause 20A.22
Separation of interests 20A.27
Non-separation agreements 20A.28
Security 20A.30
“Special charges” 20A.31
CHAPTER 21. REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF THE CHARTER 21.1

Damages in general 21.1
The object of damages in contract and tort 21.1
Wasted expenditure 21.3
The assessment of the claimant’s “expectation” damages and the compensatory principle 21.5
What would have happened but for the breach? 21.6
1. The accepted repudiatory breach 21.7
2. Where innocent party unable or unwilling to perform 21.14
3. The breach which does not determine the contract 21.15
Optional methods of contractual performance and “minimum contractual obligations” 21.19
Remoteness of damage 21.27
Relevant knowledge of the contract breaker 21.31
With what degree of probability must the loss be contemplated? 21.38
Exclusion of liability for remote damages 21.40
Causation and mitigation 21.41
Avoided loss 21.45
Loss increased by mitigation 21.50
Insurance and hedging 21.51
Avoidable loss 21.52
The time at which the duty to mitigate arises 21.54
Diminution in value, reinstatement and betterment 21.57
Contributory negligence 21.61
The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 21.62
The defendant’s fault 21.63
(a) The clear law 21.64
(b) The less clear law 21.65
The claimant’s fault 21.71
Limitation and contributory negligence 21.74
Costs 21.77
Indemnities in respect of judgments, awards and settlements 21.78
The court judgment 21.79
The arbitration award 21.82
xxiv
CONTENTS
The settlement 21.83

Costs and expenses 21.88
Damages for particular breaches of charter 21.90
A. Breach by charterers 21.90
1. Failure to nominate a loading port or delay in nomination 21.90
2. Failure to provide cargo and delay in providing cargo 21.92
Deadfreight 21.93
3. Nomination of an unsafe port 21.95
4. Calculation of damages for loss of profit 21.96
Where the owners make more than one substitute charter 21.98
Sub-charters 21.99
5. Calculation of damages for detention of the ship 21.101
6. Physical damage to the ship 21.107
Where charterers pay for insurance 21.109
B. Breach by owners 21.110
1. Failure to provide ship for loading 21.110
Where charterers do not charter in 21.113
2. Short loading 21.115
3. Non-delivery or short delivery 21.119
4. Delay in loading 21.121
5. Delay in delivery 21.123
6. Damage to cargo 21.124
7. Persons entitled to sue for cargo loss or damage 21.126
8. Sub-charters 21.129
Currency in which damages awarded 21.130
Damages fixed by the charter 21.131
“Indemnity for non-performance of this charter proved damages not exceeding
estimated amount of freight” 21.134
Remedies other than damages 21.139
Injunction 21.140
Specific performance 21.144
Account of profits 21.145
U.S. Law 21A.1
General principles of damages 21A.1
Burden of proof 21A.5
Recovery of expenses 21A.8
Limitations on recovery of damages 21A.12
Optional methods of performance 21A.12
Remoteness of damages 21A.13
Avoidance of loss or mitigation 21A.25
Events hindering or preventing performance 21A.36
“Causation”; “Avoidable consequences” 21A.37
Damages for particular breaches of charter 21A.41
A. Breach by charterers 21A.41
1. Failure to provide a cargo 21A.41
2. Deadfreight or charterer’s failure to load a complete cargo 21A.46
3. Physical damage to the vessel 21A.56
4. Detention damages 21A.58
B. Breaches by owner 21A.64
1. Failure to provide ship for loading 21A.64
2. Short loading 21A.65
3. Damage to cargo 21A.66
4. Non-delivery or short delivery of cargo 21A.69
5. Delay in delivery of cargo 21A.73
Anticipatory repudiation of charter 21A.76
Interest 21A.83
xxv
CONTENTS
Currency in which damages awarded 21A.84

Damages fixed by the charter 21A.87
Punitive damages 21A.92
Remedies other than damages 21A.94
Injunctions 21A.95
Specific performance 21A.97
Declaratory relief 21A.102
Interest fees and cost 21A.103
CHAPTER 22. FRUSTRATION OF THE CHARTER 22.1

Frustration in general 22.1
Self-induced frustration 22.2
1. Events resulting from breach of contract 22.3
2. Events occurring without breach of contract 22.4
Events for which the contract makes provision 22.7
Frustration of the commercial purpose 22.10
Assessing the delay or interruption 22.11
Unforeseen expense 22.14
Fact or law 22.15
Instances of frustration of charterparties 22.16
1. Loss of ship 22.17
2. Damage to ship 22.18
3. Delay to ship 22.19
4. Destruction of or damage to cargo 22.22
5. Delay in obtaining or loading cargo 22.25
6. Contemplated route impossible 22.27
7. Impossibility of loading or discharging cargo at the contractual port 22.30
Frustration of consecutive voyage charters 22.31
Effect of frustration 22.34
Terms of bailment after frustration 22.36
U.S. Law 22A.1
CHAPTER 23. AGENCY 23.1

Appointment of port agents 23.1
Duty and authority of port agents 23.3
Liability of principal for acts of port agent 23.8
Liability of agent to third parties 23.9
Receipt of freights by agent—owner’s “lien” 23.10
U.S. Law 23A.1
CHAPTER 24. BROKERAGE 24.1

Arbitration clauses 24.6
Defences 24.7
Charters to which the Act does not apply 24.8
When freight is paid net of commission 24.11
Deduction of commission pursuant to express provision in charter 24.12
No express provision permitting deduction 24.13
Enforcing a claim for commission against the charterer 24.14
The calculation of brokerage commission 24.15
Commission due on freight earned 24.15
Where charter varied or rescinded so as to prevent freight from being earned 24.16
Breach of the charter preventing the earning of freight 24.19
Payment to broker in case of non-execution 24.21
Brokerage clause in charter not reflecting the true brokerage agreement 24.25
U.S. Law 24A.1
xxvi
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 25. GENERAL STRIKE CLAUSE 25.1

General Strike Clause 25.2
Part 1—lines 149–151 25.4
Part 2—lines 152–162 25.8
In what circumstances do the owner’s options arise? 25.9
The exercise of the owner’s rights under Part 2 25.11
Where the charterer does not agree to reckon the laydays as if there were
no strike 25.12
Where the charterer does agree 25.14
Part 3—lines 163–177 25.15
In what circumstances does Part 3 apply? 25.16
The charterer’s options 25.17
U.S. Law 25A.1
What constitutes a strike? Herein of “48 Hours” 25A.4
After the strike is over, are delays caused by subsequent congestion excepted? 25A.9
The option to cancel at the load port 25A.12
The right to half-demurrage at the discharge port 25A.13
CHAPTER 26. WAR RISKS (“VOYWAR 1950”) 26.1

“War Risk” 26.2
Blockade or action announced as a blockade 26.3
Government, belligerent or organised body 26.9
Sabotage 26.12
Piracy 26.13
Actual or threatened war 26.16
Hostilities and warlike operations 26.19
Civil war, civil commotion or revolution 26.23
The effect of the clause 26.27
The conditions of the rights and liberties 26.29
“It appears that [further] performance of the contract will subject the Vessel or
her Master and crew or her cargo to war risks . . . it appears that the
Vessel, her Master and crew or her cargo will be subjected to war risks” 26.29
Risks at the date of the charter 26.34
“The Vessel or her Master and crew or her cargo” 26.36
“At any stage of the adventure” 26.37
“Any directions or recommendations” 26.40
The rights and liberties conferred by the clause 26.44
“Before the Vessel commences loading” 26.45
After loading has begun 26.47
Sub-clause (3) 26.49
Freight under the sub-clauses 26.64
All extra expenses 26.68
The effect of delay in the exercise of the liberties 26.76
Is there any implied term as to the time within which rights under the clause will
be exercised? 26.76
Waiver, election or estoppel 26.77
Damage to or detention of the vessel by war risks 26.78
The relationship of the Voywar clauses with frustration 26.79
CHAPTER 27. GENERAL ICE CLAUSE 27.1

Loading port 27.2
Sub-clause (a) 27.2
“Inaccessible” 27.3
“the Captain for fear of being frozen in is at liberty to leave without cargo” 27.6
xxvii
CONTENTS
“This Charter shall be null and void” 27.8

Sub-clause (b) 27.9
Sub-clause (c) 27.10
Sub-clause (d) 27.13
“This Ice Clause not to apply in the Spring” 27.13
Port of discharge 27.15
Sub-clause (a) 27.15
Sub-clause (b) 27.16
Sub-clause (c) 27.17
“if the distance of the substituted port exceeds 100 nautical miles, the freight on the cargo
delivered at the substituted port to be increased in proportion” 27.17
Inter-relationship with safe port warranty 27.18
U.S. Law 27A.1
SECTION II. GENCON CHARTER 1994
CHAPTER 28. CLAUSE 1 28.1
CHAPTER 29. OWNERS’ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSE 29.1
CHAPTER 30. DEVIATION CLAUSE 30.1
CHAPTER 31. PAYMENT OF FREIGHT 31.1

Clause 4(b) 31.2
Clause 4(c) 31.5
Calculation of freight 31.7
CHAPTER 32. LOADING/DISCHARGING 32.1

Clause 5(a) 32.2
Clause 5(b) 32.3
Clause 5(c) 32.5
CHAPTER 33. LAYTIME 33.1
CHAPTER 35. LIEN CLAUSE 35.1
CHAPTER 36. CANCELLING CLAUSE 36.1
CHAPTER 37. BILLS OF LADING 37.1
CHAPTER 38. BOTH-TO-BLAME COLLISION CLAUSE 38.1
CHAPTER 39. GENERAL AVERAGE AND NEW JASON CLAUSE 39.1
CHAPTER 40. TAXES AND DUES CLAUSE 40.1
CHAPTER 41. AGENCY 41.1
CHAPTER 42. BROKERAGE 42.1
xxviii
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 43. GENERAL STRIKE CLAUSE 43.1
CHAPTER 44. WAR RISKS (“VOYWAR 1993”) 44.1

Sub-clause (1) 44.2
Sub-clauses (2)–(6) 44.5
Voywar 2004, further revisions and specific piracy clauses 44.14
CHAPTER 45. GENERAL ICE CLAUSE 45.1
CHAPTER 46. LAW AND ARBITRATION 46.1
SECTION III. ASBATANKVOY CHARTER
CHAPTER 47. PREAMBLE 47.1

Origin and layout of the charter 47.1
Formation of the charter 47.3
Parties to the charter 47.4
“Chartered Owner/Owner” 47.5
CHAPTER 48. PART I: DESCRIPTION AND POSITION OF VESSEL 48.1

Items of description generally 48.1
Deadweight 48.2
Class 48.3
Loaded draft 48.4
Capacity for cargo 48.5
Coated 48.6
Heating coils 48.7
Present position and expected ready 48.8
CHAPTER 49. THE VOYAGE 49.1

Commencement of laydays 49.1
Cancelling 49.2
Loading and discharging port(s) 49.3
Cargo 49.4
CHAPTER 50. FREIGHT, DEMURRAGE, COMMISSION 50.1

Freight 50.1
Laytime 50.2
Demurrage 50.3
Commission 50.4
CHAPTER 51. GENERAL AVERAGE AND ARBITRATION/TOVALOP/

SPECIAL PROVISIONS 51.1
General average 51.1
Arbitration 51.2
Failure to strike out London or New York 51.3
Tovalop 51.4
CHAPTER 52. PART II: WARRANTY—VOYAGE—CARGO 52.1

1. Condition of the ship 52.2
Maintenance of class 52.2
Seaworthiness and cargoworthiness 52.4
xxix
CONTENTS
When does the obligation arise? 52.7

2. Proceeding to the loading port 52.9
“with all convenient dispatch” 52.10
“as ordered to Loading Port(s) named in accordance with Clause 4” 52.12
“or so near thereunto as she may safely get (always afloat)” 52.13
3. The cargo to be loaded 52.14
Quantity of cargo—“a full and complete cargo” 52.14
Type of cargo—“petroleum and/or its products in bulk” 52.15
The loading operation 52.16
4. The cargo voyage 52.17
Commencing the voyage 52.17
“as ordered on signing Bills of Lading” 52.18
“direct to the Discharging Port(s)” 52.19
“so near thereunto as she may safely get (always afloat)” 52.20
Delivery of the cargo 52.21
Heating of the cargo 52.22
U.S. Law 52A.1
CHAPTER 53. FREIGHT 53.1

Rate of freight 53.1
Computed on intake quantity 53.2
Payment of freight upon delivery 53.4
“without discount” 53.5
“disbursements or advances” 53.6
No deduction for water or sediment contained in the cargo 53.7
Cargo retention clauses 53.8
In-transit loss clauses 53.11
Charter to arrange and pay for Petroleum Inspector 53.12
U.S. Law 53A.1
Freight—general 53A.1
Computed on intake quantity as shown on the certificate of inspection prepared
by a petroleum inspector arranged and paid for by the charterer 53A.2
Excess cargo 53A.3
The “best evidence” of intake quantity in the absence of a petroleum inspector 53A.4
Payable without discount 53A.5
Freight may not be withheld as security for charterer’s claims 53A.8
Alternative means for charterers to obtain security 53A.9
Demurrage as “extended freight” 53A.10
Partial final awards for withheld freight 53A.11
Upon delivery of cargo at destination 53A.14
Owners’ remedies 53A.16
Cargo retention clauses 53A.17
Worldscale 53A.18
CHAPTER 54. DEADFREIGHT 54.1

Deadfreight in general 54.1
Deadfreight under clause 3 of the Asbatankvoy charter 54.2
“fail to supply” 54.3
“a full cargo” 54.4
“In that event” 54.5
“at the rate specified in Part I” 54.6
“the difference between the intake quantity and the quantity which the vessel would
have carried if loaded to her minimum permissible freeboard for the voyage” 54.7
Effect of demurrage or despatch on calculation of deadfreight 54.9
Where no cargo is loaded 54.11
Where freight not earned 54.12
xxx
CONTENTS
U.S. Law 54A.1

Deadfreight—general 54A.1
Protest of short-loading 54A.2
“full cargo”—deadweight versus cubic capacity 54A.4
Defenses 54A.7
Damages 54A.12
CHAPTER 55. NOMINATION OF LOADING AND DISCHARGING PORTS 55.1

Clause 4(a)—loading port(s) 55.2
Clause 4(b)—discharging port(s) 55.5
Clause 4(c)—change of loading or discharging port 55.6
Any extra expense incurred in connection with any change of port 55.8
U.S. Law 55A.1
Nomination of loading and discharging ports—general 55A.1
Clause 4—general 55A.1
Clause 4(a)—charterer’s obligation to timely nominate loading port(s) 55A.4
Charterer’s option to nominate discharging ports 55A.5
Extra expenses and time lost for charterer’s account 55A.8
Discharge and reloading clauses 55A.9
CHAPTER 56. LAYDAYS—CANCELLING 56.1

Narrowing the laydays 56.6
U.S. Law 56A.1
Commencement of laytime before first layday 56A.1
“except with the Charterer’s sanction” 56A.3
Canceling date 56A.5
Notice of cancellation must be timely, unequivocal and final 56A.7
Vessel readiness 56A.12
Charterer has the option to cancel the charter, and charterer may also have a right
to damages in the event of an independent breach by the owner 56A.14
Force majeure 56A.20
CHAPTER 57. COMMENCEMENT AND CALCULATION OF LAYTIME 57.1

Time counting before laytime 57.1
Notice of readiness 57.4
Delay in getting into berth 57.7
Laytime—general 57.14
The exceptions 57.15
1. “. . . delay due to Vessel’s condition or breakdown or inability of the Vessel’s
facilities to load or discharge cargo within the time allowed” 57.16
2. “. . . regulations of the Owner or port authorities [which] prohibit loading or
discharging of the cargo at night” 57.19
3. “Time consumed by the vessel in moving from loading or discharge port
anchorage to her loading or discharge berth, discharging ballast water
or slops” 57.22
Demurrage and the clause 6 and 7 exceptions 57.24
U.S. Law 57A.1
Introduction 57A.1
Notice of readiness—commencement of laytime 57A.5
“arrival at customary anchorage” 57A.9
Extenuating circumstances 57A.11
“the Master or his agent shall give the Charterer or his agent notice by letter,
telegraph, wireless or telephone” 57A.12
“that the Vessel is ready to load or discharge cargo” 57A.14
Free pratique and customs clearance 57A.20
Effect of tender prior to laydays stipulated in Part I(B) 57A.21
xxxi
CONTENTS
“. . . laytime . . . shall commence upon the expiration of six (6) hours after receipt of
such notice, or upon the Vessel’s arrival in berth (i.e., finished mooring when
at a sealoading or discharging terminal and all fast when loading or discharging
alongside a wharf), whichever first occurs” 57A.30
The treatment of clause 6’s six-hour “free period” once the vessel is on demurrage 57A.33
“However, where delay is caused to Vessel getting into berth after giving notice of
readiness for any reason over which Charterer has no control, such delay
shall not count as used laytime” 57A.38
Charterer’s burden of proof 57A.39
Congestion/cargo unavailability 57A.41
Pro-rating time 57A.45
Navigational risks 57A.46
Weather and sea conditions 57A.49
Does clause 6 or clause 8 govern? 57A.50
Clause 6 and clause 9 57A.54
Clause 7: hours for loading and discharging 57A.55
“but any delay due to the Vessel’s condition or breakdown or inability of the
Vessel’s facilities to load or discharge cargo within the time allowed shall
not count as used laytime” 57A.55
Charterer’s obligation to provide a cargo 57A.57
Proper cargo documentation at loading and discharge ports 57A.58
Charterer’s obligation to issue orders on completion of loading 57A.59
Discharging at night 57A.60
Shifting time 57A.61
Deballasting time 57A.65
Ballasting time 57A.69
Shipside restrictions 57A.70

Demurrage 58.1
The demurrage exceptions 58.3
The first group—half-rate demurrage 58.4
“Fire” 58.4
“Explosion” 58.5
“Storm” 58.6
“Strike, lockout, stoppage or restraint of labor” 58.7
“Breakdown of machinery or equipment in or about the plant of the Charterer, supplier,
shipper or consignee of the cargo” 58.8
Causation 58.9
The second group—complete demurrage exemption 58.10
“strike, lockout, stoppage or restraint of labor of Master, officers and crew of the vessel
or tugboat or pilots” 58.10
Period of excused delay 58.11
U.S. Law 58A.1
Burden of proof for half-demurrage 58A.1
“storm” 58A.3
“strike . . . in or about the plant” 58A.9
“breakdown of machinery or equipment in or about the plant” 58A.13
“delay caused by . . . tugboat” 58A.15
Laches 58A.16
Demurrage time bar clauses 58A.19
Calculation of demurrage rates 58A.21
Interest on unpaid demurrage and late payment of undisputed claims 58A.22
Clauses 6, 7 and 8 58A.24
xxxii
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 59. SAFE BERTHING—SHIFTING 59.1

“Reachable on her arrival” 59.2
Shifting 59.6
U.S. Law 59A.1
Safe berthing—shifting in general 59A.1
Adverse weather and tidal conditions 59A.2
Vessel deficiencies 59A.4
Bridge obstructions 59A.5
Unavailability of tugs 59A.6
Recovery for extra tug assistance 59A.7
“Reachable on her arrival” 59A.9
Shifting from berth to berth 59A.20
CHAPTER 60. PUMPING IN AND OUT 60.1

Pumping in 60.1
Pumping out 60.3
Short-delivery claims 60.5
Flushing of shore lines 60.7
Admixture—“load on top” 60.8
U.S. Law 60A.1
Slow loading 60A.4
Slow discharging (pumping) 60A.11
Burden of proof/Shore conditions permitting 60A.15
Lightering/More than one discharge port/Berth 60A.21
The 100 psi requirement 60A.24
Remedies 60A.30
CHAPTER 61. HOSES—MOORING AT SEA TERMINALS 61.1

Hoses 61.1
Mooring at sea terminals 61.2
U.S. Law 61A.1
“Hoses for loading and discharging shall be furnished . . . at the Charterer’s risk
and expense” 61A.1
“Laytime shall continue until the hoses have been disconnected” 61A.2
“the Vessel shall be properly equipped at Owner’s expense for loading or
discharging . . . at a sea terminal” 61A.4
CHAPTER 62. DUES—TAXES—WHARFAGE 62.1

Generally 62.1
Taxes on freight 62.2
Charges for the use of any wharf, dock, place or mooring facility arranged by the charterer
for the purpose of loading or discharging cargo 62.3
U.S. Law 62A.1
General 62A.1
CHAPTER 63. EXCLUDED CARGOES—VAPOUR PRESSURE 63.1

“Vapor pressure” 63.1
Flash point 63.3
U.S. Law 63A.1
General 63A.1
CHAPTER 64. ICE 64.1

Sub-clause (a) 64.2
Sub-clause (b) 64.6
xxxiii
CONTENTS
U.S. Law 64A.1

General 64A.1
CHAPTER 65. TWO OR MORE PORTS COUNTING AS ONE 65.1

“Freight rate standard of reference” 65.1
Groupings or combinations of ports or terminals 65.2
“For purposes of calculating freight and demurrage only” 65.3
Sub-clause (a)—rate of freight 65.5
Sub-clause (b)—expenses of using more than one berth 65.6
Sub-clauses (c) and (d)—time spent in shifting 65.7
U.S. Law 65A.1
Shifting time 65A.1
CHAPTER 66. GENERAL CARGO 66.1
CHAPTER 67. QUARANTINE AND FUMIGATION 67.1

Quarantine 67.1
“Should the Charterer send the Vessel” 67.2
Fumigation 67.3
U.S. Law 67A.1
CHAPTER 68. CLEANING 68.1

Cleaning to charterer’s inspector’s satisfaction 68.1
Responsibility of owners for admixture, leakage, contamination and deterioration 68.6
“admixture” 68.7
“leakage” 68.8
“contamination” 68.10
U.S. Law 68A.1
“The Owner shall clean the tanks, pipes and pumps of the Vessel” 68A.1
“to the satisfaction of the Charterer’s Inspector” 68A.9
The consequences of tank rejection 68A.22
Tank cleanliness and the doctrine of “frustration” 68A.26
Consequence of tank acceptance 68A.27
Liability for “admixture,” “leakage, contamination or deterioration”; relationship
between clauses 18 and 20 68A.28
Nitrogen purging of tanks 68A.32
CHAPTER 69. GENERAL EXCEPTIONS CLAUSE 69.1

U.S. Law 69A.1
CHAPTER 70. ISSUANCE OF BILLS OF LADING 70.1

“The Master shall . . . sign Bills of Lading” 70.2
“in the form appearing below” 70.3
“without prejudice to the rights of the Owner and Charterer under the terms of this Charter” 70.4
Unsafe ports, blockaded ports 70.5
U.S. Law 70A.1
CHAPTER 71. TERMS OF BILLS OF LADING 71.1

“The carriage of cargo” 71.2
“such terms shall be incorporated verbatim or be deemed incorporated by the reference
in any such Bill of Lading” 71.3
“carrier” includes owner and chartered owner 71.4
U.S. Law 71A.1
xxxiv
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 72. CLAUSE PARAMOUNT AND CARGO CLAIMS 72.1

Clause Paramount and the Hague Rules 72.1
U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 72.2
Incorporation of other Hague Rules legislation 72.3
U.S. Law 72A.1
Standing to make claim 72A.1
Incorporation of the U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”) 72A.2
Notice of claim; Commencement of proceedings; Timeliness 72A.3
Notice of claim 72A.4
Commencement of proceedings; Timeliness 72A.5
Recoupment/set-off 72A.12
Burdens of proof 72A.13
COGSA burdens of proof 72A.14
Claimant’s burden 72A.15
Owner’s burden 72A.20
Inherent vice—trade allowance 72A.25
Courts 72A.28
Arbitration 72A.30
Cargo retention clauses 72A.34
Burdens of proof 72A.36
“. . . pumpable . . .” 72A.37
“. . . as determined by an independent surveyor” 72A.40
Time bar 72A.41
Withholding demurrage as “extended freight” 72A.42
“Any action or lack of action in accordance with this provision shall be without
prejudice to any rights or obligations of the parties” 72A.43
Cargo conversion 72A.44
Arbitral fees and costs, and legal fees 72A.45
Punitive damages 72A.46
RICO treble damages 72A.49
CHAPTER 73. JASON CLAUSE 73.1

Salvage 73.4
Deposit 73.6
U.S. Law 73A.1
CHAPTER 74. GENERAL AVERAGE 74.1

“adjusted, stated and settled” 74.2
“York/Antwerp Rules 1950” 74.3
“as to matters not provided for by those rules, according to the laws and usages at the
port of New York or at the port of London, whichever place is specified in Part I” 74.4
“General Average statement” 74.5
“an Adjuster appointed by the Owner and approved by the Charterer” 74.6
“General Average agreements and/or security” 74.7
Cash deposits 74.8
U.S. Law 74A.1
CHAPTER 75. COLLISION CLAUSE 75.1

U.S. Law 75A.1
CHAPTER 76. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 76.1

“Any statute or rule of law for the time being in force” 76.1
U.S. Law 76A.1
xxxv
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 77. WAR RISKS 77.1
CHAPTER 78. DEVIATION 78.1

Deviation in general 78.1
Reconciling the deviation clause and clause 1 78.2
“to call at any ports in any order” 78.3
“to go to the assistance of vessels in distress” 78.4
“to deviate for the purpose of saving life or property” 78.5
“to call for fuel at any port or ports in or out of the regular course of the
voyage” 78.6
Salvage 78.7
CHAPTER 79. LIEN 79.1

U.S. Law 79A.1
CHAPTER 80. AGENTS 80.1

U.S. Law 80A.1
CHAPTER 81. BREACH 81.1

Damages generally 81.1
“all provable damages” 81.2
“costs of suit and attorney fees” 81.3
U.S. Law 81A.1
CHAPTER 82. ARBITRATION 82.1

“all differences and disputes of whatsoever nature arising out of this Charter” 82.1
“the City of New York or in the City of London, whichever place is specified
in Part I” 82.3
Appointment of arbitrators 82.4
The right to submit further disputes 82.5
Costs and attorneys’ fees 82.6
Entering judgment upon the award 82.7
U.S. Law 82A.1
CHAPTER 83. SUBLET 83.1

Generally 83.1
Assigning the charter 83.3
U.S. Law 83A.1
CHAPTER 84. OIL POLLUTION 84.1

U.S. Law 84A.1
Tanker Vetting 84A.14
SECTION IV. THE HAGUE AND HAGUE-VISBY RULES
CHAPTER 85. THE HAGUE AND HAGUE-VISBY RULES 85.1

The role of the Rules in relation to charterparties 85.1
The Paramount Clause 85.1
The approach to the interpretation of the Hague Rules 85.9
When the Rules are incorporated into a charterparty 85.10
The relevance of the Rules to charterparties 85.19
xxxvi
CONTENTS
The specific statutory role of the Hague-Visby Rules 85.23

The application of the Rules by the “force of law” and by contract 85.24
Exclusive jurisdiction clauses 85.25
The compulsory application of the Hague-Visby Rules with the “force of law” 85.31
International carriage 85.34
Shipment in the United Kingdom and non-international carriage 85.37
Compulsory application of the Rules by virtue of a contractual term 85.38
Transhipment 85.49
The Hague Rules 85.55
Article I. Definitions 85.57
(a) “Carrier” includes the owner or the charterer who enters into a contract of carriage
with the shipper 85.59
(b) “Contract of carriage” applies only to contracts covered by a bill of lading or any
similar document of title, in so far as such document relates to the carriage of
goods by sea, including any bill of lading or any similar document as aforesaid
issued under or pursuant to a charterparty from the moment at which such bill
of lading or similar document of title regulates the relations between the carrier
and a holder of the same 85.64
(c) “Goods” includes goods, wares, merchandises, and articles of every kind whatsoever,
except live animals and cargo which by the contract of carriage is stated as being
carried on deck and is so carried 85.70
(d) “Ship” means any vessel used in the carriage of goods by sea 85.77
(e) “Carriage of goods” covers the period from the time when the goods are loaded on
to the time when they are discharged from the ship 85.79
Article II. Risks 85.83
Contractual allocation of functions and the scope of Article II 85.85
Article III. Responsibilities and Liabilities 85.92
The overriding effect of Article III rule 1 85.94
Seaworthiness, etc. 85.95
“Due diligence” 85.98
The duty is not delegable 85.99
“Before and at the beginning of the voyage” 85.101
Want of due diligence before the ship comes into the carrier’s “orbit” 85.103
Where a charterer is the “carrier” 85.105
The termination of the obligation 85.106
Multiple loadings 85.108
The burden of proof in relation to claims arising from unseaworthiness 85.109
Article III rule 2 85.110
Discharge and delivery 85.115
“Properly and carefully” 85.117
The burden of proof in relation to claims not arising from unseaworthiness 85.121
“Marks” 85.137
“Quantity” 85.139
“Apparent order and condition” 85.142
The amendment in the Hague-Visby Rules 85.153
The time bar in the third paragraph 85.171
“the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability” 85.171
“. . . in respect of loss or damage . . .” 85.176
“Unless suit is brought” 85.183
The commencement of arbitrations 85.195
“Within one year of their delivery or of the date when they should have been
delivered” 85.198
xxxvii
CONTENTS
The effect of Article III rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules 85.203

Deviation 85.206
Article III rule 6bis 85.208
The effect of the Hague-Visby Rules 85.221
“A contract of carriage” 85.224
“Any clause, covenant or agreement” 85.226
The extent of the nullifying effect of the rule 85.240
1. Only parts of the term offend Article III rule 8 85.243
2. Periods and activities beyond those covered by the Rules 85.245
3. Matters on which the Rules are silent 85.248
“Liability for loss or damage to or in connection with goods” 85.249
“A benefit of insurance” 85.250
Article IV. Rights and Immunities 85.252
Article IV rule 2 85.259
General principles 85.261
“(a) Act, neglect or default of the master, mariner, pilot, or the servants of the carrier
in the navigation or in the management of the ship” 85.264
The relevant persons 85.265
Navigation of the ship 85.268
Management of the ship 85.275
“(b) Fire, unless caused by the actual fault or privity of the carrier” 85.281
“(c) Perils, dangers and accidents of the sea or other navigable waters” 85.285
“(d) Act of God” 85.298
“(e) Act of war” 85.301
“(f) Act of public enemies” 85.305
“(g) Arrest or restraint of princes, rulers or people, or seizure under legal process” 85.307
“(h) Quarantine restrictions” 85.317
“(i) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, his agent or representative” 85.318
“(j) Strikes, lock-outs or stoppage or restraint of labour from whatever cause, whether
partial or general” 85.323
“(k) Riots and civil commotions” 85.329
“(l) Saving or attempting to save life or property at sea” 85.332
“(m) Wastage in bulk or weight or other loss or damage arising from inherent defect,
quality or vice of goods” 85.333
“(n) Insufficiency of packing” 85.337
“(o) Insufficiency or inadequacy of marks” 85.342
“(p) Latent defects not discoverable by due diligence” 85.345
“(q) Any other cause arising without the actual fault or privity of the carrier, or
without the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier . . .” 85.348
The shipper 85.352
The liability excluded 85.354
“Reasonable deviation” 85.358
The effect on other contract terms 85.361
The effect of a reasonable deviation 85.363
The effect of an unreasonable deviation 85.364
Tonnage limitation 85.367
“In any event” 85.368
Limitation by reference to “£100 per package or unit” 85.369
The meaning of “package or unit” 85.372
Package 85.372
Unit 85.378
xxxviii
CONTENTS
The exclusion of the carrier’s liability 85.380

The version of the rule in the Hague-Visby Rules 85.381
The calculation of damages 85.385
“The total amount recoverable” 85.385
“The value of the goods” 85.388
Lost and damaged goods 85.389
Late delivery 85.390
The relevant “price” 85.391
Commodity exchange price 85.392
Current market price 85.393
Normal value 85.395
Subsidy loss 85.396
The time of “discharge” as the date for the ascertainment of value 85.399
Currency of loss and recovery 85.400
The limitation of the carrier’s liability 85.401
“In any event” and the nature of the carrier’s breach 85.401
The higher of 666.67 units of account per package or unit or 2 units of account per
kilogramme of gross weight of the goods lost or damaged 85.402
“Package or unit” in the Hague-Visby Rules and containerisation 85.407
Hybrid cases 85.411
The conversion into the appropriate national currency 85.412
Exceeding the limit 85.415
Declaration of nature and value 85.416
Agreement for higher figure 85.419
Intentional or reckless act or omission of the carrier done with knowledge 85.421
The identification of “the carrier” whose misconduct is relevant 85.422
The mental element 85.424
Damage and loss 85.426
The exclusion of the carrier’s liability 85.427
The relationship of the common law and the Hague Rules code 85.431
“Goods of an inflammable, explosive or dangerous nature” 85.433
Knowledge of the nature and character of the goods and consent to their shipment 85.435
Consent 85.436
Knowledge of the nature and character of the goods 85.438
The separation of knowledge from consent 85.442
The shipper’s “fault” 85.443
The carrier’s rights 85.444
Immunity 85.445
Cause of action 85.446
“directly or indirectly” 85.448
The exercise of the right of landing, destroying or rendering the goods innocuous 85.450
The effect of a breach of duty by the carrier 85.456
Where there is a breach of Article III rule 1 85.457
Where there is a breach of Article III rule 2 85.459
Immunity as against the shipper 85.460
Apportionment 85.462
Article IVbis of the Hague-Visby Rules 85.464
The position of the carrier 85.466
“in respect of loss of or damage to goods covered by a contract of carriage” 85.467
The position of the carrier’s servants and agents 85.470
The limit on recovery against the carrier, his servants and agents 85.475
Article V 85.479
Article VI 85.486
Bill of lading or non-negotiable receipt 85.489
Factors justifying a special agreement 85.491
Article VII 85.497
xxxix
CONTENTS
Article VIII 85.500

Article IX of the Hague Rules 85.503
Article IX of the Hague-Visby Rules 85.507
Article X of the Hague-Visby Rules 85.513
U.S. Law 85A.1
The U.S. COGSA enacting clause 85A.3
U.S. COGSA § 1(a)—the “carrier” definition 85A.6
Multiple carriers 85A.6
Himalaya clauses 85A.9
U.S. COGSA § 1(c)—the “goods” definition 85A.13
U.S. COGSA § 3(2) and the burden of proof in relation to claims not arising from
unseaworthiness 85A.14
U.S. COGSA § 3(3)(c)—the carrier’s obligation to show “apparent order and condition” 85A.16
U.S. COGSA § 3(4)—the prima facie evidence of a bill of lading 85A.18
U.S. COGSA § 3(6) and the notice-of-loss provision 85A.20
U.S. COGSA § 3(6) and the one-year time-for-suit provision 85A.22
Arbitration 85A.23
Deviation 85A.24
U.S. COGSA § 3(7)—converting “received for shipment” bills of lading 85A.25
U.S. COGSA § 4(2)(a)—the nautical fault exception 85A.26
U.S. COGSA § 4(2)(c)—the “perils of the sea” exception 85A.28
U.S. COGSA § 4(2)(j)—the labor unrest exception 85A.30
U.S. COGSA § 4(2)(q)—the “catch all” exception 85A.31
U.S. COGSA § 4(4)—deviation 85A.32
U.S. COGSA § 4(5)—the package limitation 85A.34
The Limitation Amount 85A.35
The Customary Freight Unit 85A.36
Breaking Limitation 85A.42
Deviation 85A.43
The fair opportunity doctrine 85A.44
False bills of lading 85A.47
Actual damages 85A.50
Knowing and fraudulent misstatements 85A.51
The Hague-Visby Rules 85A.52
U.S. COGSA § 4(6)—dangerous goods 85A.56
U.S. COGSA § 7—freedom of contract before loading and after discharge 85A.59
U.S. COGSA § 8—global limitation of liability 85A.60
Title II of the U.S. COGSA 85A.61
SECTION V. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. U.K. STATUTES A1.1

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 A1.1
Carriage of Goods by Sea (Parties to Convention) Amendment Order 2000
(S.I. 2000 No. 1103) A1.2
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 A1.3
Merchant Shipping Act 1995, sections 185, 186, Schedule 7 A1.4
Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1995 A1.5
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 A1.6
APPENDIX 2. U.S. STATUTES A2.1

The Harter Act 1893 (As recodified in 2006) A2.1
The United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936 A2.2
APPENDIX 3. CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT 1924 A3.1
xl
CONTENTS
APPENDIX 4. NON-STATUTORY RULES A4.1

York-Antwerp Rules 1974 and 1994 A4.1
Laytime Definitions for Charter Parties 2013 A4.2
APPENDIX 5. FORMS A5.1

Amwelsh Form 1993 A5.1
Baltimore Form 1976 A5.2
Gencon Form 1976 A5.3
Gencon Form 1994 A5.4
Norgrain Form 1989 A5.5
Sugar Charter-Party 1999 A5.6
Asbatankvoy Charterparty A5.7
Congenbill 2007 Bill of Lading A5.8
Index 1281
xli
Table of U.K., Commonwealth and European Cases
4 Eng v v. Harper [2009] Ch. 91 ................................................................................................................................21.43

21st Century Logistic Solutions v. Madison [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 92....................................................................... 1.54
A Turtle Offshore S.A. v. Superior Trading Inc. (The A Turtle) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 177 ........................11.37, 11.72
AB Corp. v. CD Corp. (The Sine Nomine) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 805 .................................................................. 21.145
A/B Karlshamns Oljefabrinker v. Monarch SS. Co. Ltd (1948/9) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 137 ..............................................11.41
A.B. Marintrans v. Comet Shipping (The Shinjitsu Maru) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 568;
[1985] 1 W.L.R. 1270............................................................................................................................... 14.40, 21.67
A.B.D. (Metals & Waste) v. Anglo-Chemical Ore [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 456 ........................................... 21.12, 85.393
AET Inc. v. Arcadia Petroleum Ltd. (The Eagle Valencia) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 257 (C.A.)......................15.45, 16.21
A.G. v. Liverpool and London War Risk Insurance Association [1921] 2 A.C. 141 ................................................ 26.21
AG Securities Limited v. Vaughan [1990] 1 A.C. 417 ................................................................................................ 2.43
AIC Ltd v. Marine Pilot Ltd (The Archimidis) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 597.............................5.31, 5.79, 6.11, 54.3, 69.4
A.I.C.C.O. v. Forggensee Navigation (The Polar) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 478.................... 14.24, 14.38, 85.116, 85.333
AIG Europe v. Anonymous Greek Co. of General Insurance (The Ethniki) [2000] 2 All E.R. 566 ...................... 85.190
AJU Remicon Co. Ltd v. Alida Shipping Co. Ltd [2007] All E.R. (D).................................................................214 2.28
AP Moller-Maerskl v. Sonaec Villas Cen Sad Fadoul [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .............................................18.81, 18.82
A.P.J. Priti, The (Atkins International v. Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines) [1987]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 37..................................................................................................... 5.33, 5.36, 5.45, 5.46, 5.66, 5.74
A/S Awilco v. Fulvia S.p.A. di Navigazioni (The Chikuma) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 371 ............................. 13.58, 13.59
A/S Brovigtank v. Transcredit (The Gunda Brovig) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 39; aff’g [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 43 ...... 62.2
A/S Dux v. Arcos (1935) 52 Ll. L. Rep. 250 ............................................................................................................... 27.5
A/S Gunnstein v. Jensen (The Alfa Nord) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 434...................................................................... 13.67
A/S Hansen Tangens Rederi v. Total (The Sagona) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 194 .................................................... 18.240
A/S Iverans Red. v. K.G.M.S. Holstencruiser [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 378 .............................................................. 85.230
A/S Ocean v. Harding [1928] 2 K.B. 371................................................................................................................... 18.64
A/S Rendal v. Arcos (1937) 58 Ll. L. Rep. 287 (H.L.)...............................................................................................16.21
A/S Skagerak v. Saremine (1939) 64 Ll. L. Rep. 153.................................................................................................... 8.3
A/S Tank v. Agence Maritime L. Strauss (1939) 64 Ll. L. Rep. 19....................................................5.8, 5.13, 5.17, 5.24
A/S Westfal-Larsen v. Russo-Norwegian Transport (The Hosanger) (1931) 40 Ll. L. Rep. 259 ............................. 15.18
ASM Shipping Ltd of India v. TTMI (The Amer Energy) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 293 .............................................21.30
A.U.X. v. G.M. Solders, The Times, 7 July 1982..................................................................................................... 18.122
Aaby’s (E.B.) Rederi v. LEP Transport (1948) 81 Ll. L. Rep. 465 ............................................................................22.23
Aaby’s Rederi v. Union of India (The Evje) (No. 2) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 714; [1978]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 351 (C.A.) .......................................................................................................................... 11.37, 73.3
Abqaiq, The (National Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia v. BP Oil Supply Co.) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 18..................16.21
Abrahams v. Herbert Reiach Ltd. [1922] 1 K.B. 477 ............................................................................ 21.5, 21.16, 21.21
Abt Rashtra, The [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 575 ............................................................................................................. 20.31
Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co. v. Product Star Shipping (The Product Star) (No. 2) [1993]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 397 (C.A.)............................................................................................................. 26.30, 26.34, 26.35
Acatos v. Burns (1878) 3 Ex. D. 282 .................................................................................................................. 6.49, 6.57
Accomac, The (1890) 15 P.D. 208 .............................................................................................................. 85.270, 85.273
Ace Imports v. Lloyd Brasileiro (The Esmeralda I) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 206 (Aust. Ct.) .......... 18.26, 85.112, 85.139
Achille Lauro v. Total [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 65; [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 247 ................................................ 12.2, 13.16
Achilleas, The (Transfield Shipping v. Mercator Shipping) (2006) L.M.L.N. 706 .......................... 21.30, 21.39, 21A.23
Aconcagua, The (Compania Sud American Vapores S.A. v. Sinochem Tianjin Import and
Export Corporation) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 upheld [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 683 ........................6.53, 11.18, 11.28,
11.31, 11.34, 85.98, 85.276, 85.277, 85.431, 85.446, 85.458, 85.459
Acre 1127 Ltd (formerly Castle Galleries) v. De Montfort Fine Art Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ. 87..............................21.14
Action v. Britannic Shipping [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 119 (C.A.); [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 481.................................... 17.3
xliii
TABLE OF U.K., COMMONWEALTH AND EUROPEAN CASES
Actis v. Sanko (The Aquacharm) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 7 (C.A.) ................................................................. 11.23, 85.95
Adamastos Shipping Co. v. Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co. (The Saxon Star) [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 271 (C.A.); [1959]
A.C. 133............................................................................. 1.116, 4.15, 20.59, 52.2, 71.2, 85.8, 85.10, 85.12, 85.13,
85.17, 85.20, 85.177, 85.181, 85.253, 85.260,
85.353, 85.483
Adams v. Cape Industries [1990] Ch. 433 (C.A.) ............................................................................................... 2.40, 2.42
Adams v. Hall (1877) 37 L.T. 70.................................................................................................................................. 2.18
Addax v. Arcadia Petroleum [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 493..................................................................... 21.33, 21.51, 21.56
Adelfamar S.A. v. Silos E Mangimi Martini SpA (The Adelfa) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 466 .... 14.37, 16.15, 22.6, 22.30
Aditya Vaibhav, The [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 63 .............................................................................................. 85.96, 85.98
Adler v. Dickson (The Himalaya) [1955] 1 Q.B 158 (C.A.) ......................................................... 18.136, 85.224, 85.471
Adolf Leonhardt, The (R. Pagnan & Fratelli v. Finagrain) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 395................................. 15.21, 15.63
Adyard Abu Dhabi v. SD Marine Services [2011] EWHC 848 (Comm) ...................................................................1.119
Aectra Refining & Manufacturing v. Exmar [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 191; [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1634 ............... 13.63, 85.414
Aegean Dolphin, The (Dolphin Hellas v. Itemslot) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 178.......................................................... 3.38
Aegean Sea Traders Corp. v. Repsol Petroleo (The Aegean Sea) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 39.................... 5.7, 5.25, 5.33,
5.38, 5.38, 18.85, 18.86, 18.102, 18.103, 18.222, 76.3, 85.353
Aegis Progress, The (Cargill v. Marpro) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 570 ........................................................................ 15.12
Aegnoussiotis, The [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 208 .......................................................................................................... 17.14
Aello, The (Sociedad Financiera de Bienes Raices v. Agrimpex) [1961] A.C. 135 (H.L.); aff’g [1958] 2 Q.B. 385
(C.A.).................................................................................................... 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 15.36, 15.44, 15.110, 16.15
Aeolian, The (ISS Machinery Services v. Aeolian Shipping) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 641........................................ 13.63
Aercap Partners 1 Ltd. v. Avia Asset Management AB [2010] EWHC 2431 (Comm); (2010) 806
L.M.N......................................................................................................................................................1 21.12, 21.43
Aerospace Publishing v. Thames Water Utilities [2006] All E.R. (D) 39 ................................................................. 21.58
Affréteurs Réunis v. Walford [1919] A.C. 801 (H.L.)........................................................... 24.1, 24.2, 24.5, 24.9, 24.25
Afovos, The [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 469.......................................................................................................... 13.57, 19.22
Afrapearl, The (Portolana Cia. Nav. v. Vitol S.A.) [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 305 ....................... 5.10, 15.28, 15.29, 15.57,
15.67, 15.69, 57.13, 57.16, 57.22, 58.8, 59.6, 59.7
Agamemnon, The (T.A. Shipping v. Comet Shipping) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 675.................................................. 15.31
Aghia Marina, The [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 62 ..................................................................................................... 82.4, 82.5
Agios Georgis, The [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 192 ......................................................................................................... 17.14
Agios Lazarus, The (Nea Agrex S.A. v. Baltic Shipping Co. Ltd.) [1976] Q.B. 933.................. 1.8, 85.3, 85.14, 85.196
Agios Stylianos, The (Agios Stylianos Compania Naviera v. Maritime Associates
International Ltd.) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 426 ......................................................................................... 15.40, 15.59
Agios Stylianos Compania Naviera v. Maritime Associates International Ltd. (The Agios Stylianos)
[1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 426........................................................................................................................ 15.40, 15.59
Agip v. Navigazione Alta Italia [1953] Lloyd’s Rep. 353; aff’g [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 333 ..................................... 1.76
Agro v. Parnassos [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 290............................................................................................................ 14.51
Agrosin Pte. v. Highway Shipping (The Mata K.) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 614 ................................. 13.10, 18.26, 18.31,
85.139, 85.151, 85.409
Ailsa Craig, The (Mansel Oil Ltd v. Troon Storage Tankers S.A.) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 384 ..................................5.14
Ailsa Craig Shipping Co. v. Malvern Fishing Co. [1983] 1 W.L.R. 964 ................................................................ 85.428
Aiolos, The (Central Insurance v. Seacalf Shipping) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 25 ..................................................... 85.184
Aitken Lilburn v. Ernsthausen [1894] 1 Q.B. 773...................................................................................................... 21.94
Akt. Adalands v. Whitaker (1913) 18 Com. Cas. 229.............................................................................................. 85.326
Akt. Helios v. Ekman [1897] 2 Q.B. 83 ..................................................................................................................... 14.18
Aktiebolaget Nordiska Lloyd v. J. Brownlie & Co. (The Gevalia) (1925) 30 Com. Cas. 307 ...................... 19.11, 19.15
Akties. Steam v. Arcos (1933) 47 Ll. L. Rep. 225 ....................................................................................................... 27.5
Aktieselskabet de Danske Sukkerfabrikker v. Bajamar Compania Naviera S.A. (The Torenia) [1983]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 210................................................................ 11.81, 18.118, 85.109, 85.125, 85.129, 85.262, 85.347
Aktieselskabet Olivebank v. Dansk Svovlsyre Fabrik (The Springbank) [1919] 2 K.B. 162
(C.A.) ............................................................................................................................... 5.16, 5.24, 5.25, 5.37, 13.25
Al Taha, The (Lyric Shipping Inc. v. Intermetals Ltd.) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 117 ............................................... 85.360
Alaskan Trader (No. 2), The [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 645 ........................................................................................... 21.55
Alastor, The [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 581 ..................................................................................................................... 11.61
Albacora S.R.L. v. Westcott & Laurence Line [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 53 ................ 11.9, 11.20, 85.117, 85.261, 85.336
Albazero, The [1977] A.C. 774 .......................................................................................................... 18.78, 18.87, 21.127
Albemarle Supply Co. Ltd. v. Hind & Co. [1928] 1 K.B. 307 ....................................................................... 17.24, 17.25
Albion Sugar v. William Tankers (The John S. Darbyshire) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 457.................................. 1.23, 1.24
Aldebaran Compania Maritima v. Aussenhandel A.G. (The Darrah) [1977] A.C. 157 ........................ 15.57, 15.58, 33.2
Alecos M, The (Sealace Shipping v. Oceanvoice) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 120 ......................................................... 21.57
xliv
Alev, The (Vantage Navigation v. Suhail and Saud Bahwan Building Materials) [1989]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 ....................................................................................................................................... 1.88, 1.90
Alexander v. Rayson [1936] 1 K.B. 169....................................................................................................................... 1.63
Alexander (William) v. Akt. Hansa [1920] A.C. 88 ......................................................................... 15.7, 15.8, 16.2, 60.4
Alexandros P., The [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 421.......................................................................................................... 14.40
Alfa Nord, The (A/S Gunnstein v. Jensen) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 434..................................................................... 13.67
Alfred McAlpine v. Panatown [2001] 1 A.C. 518........................................................................................................ 21.1
Alghussein Establishment v. Eton College [1988] 1 W.L.R. 857................................................................... 1.118, 13.25
Algrete Shipping Co. v. International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 327 ....................... 85.9
Alhambra, The (1881) 6 P.D. 68 ........................................................................................................................... 5.3, 5.76
Aliakmon, The (Leigh and Sillavan v. Aliakmon Shipping) [1986] A.C. 785; [1983]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 203 ............................................................................................ 18.91, 18.92, 18.114, 18.115, 21.128
Alimport v. Sonbert Shipping Co. [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 447 .................................................................................. 18.42
Aliza Glacial, The (Handelsbanken Svenska v. Dandridge) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 421 ........................... 85.307, 85.316
Allan v. Leo Lines [1957] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 127............................................................................................................. 24.1
Allen v. Coltart (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 782 ..................................................................................................................... 18.112
Allianz Versicherungs v. Furtuna [1999] 1 W.L.R. 2117 ........................................................................................ 85.196
Allied Maples v. Simons & Simmons [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1602 ...........................................................................21.6, 21.43
Alligator Fortune, The [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 315................................................................................................... 18.150
Allison v. Bristol Marine Insurance Co. (1875) 1 App. Cas. 209 ........................................ 13.87, 13.88, 13.100, 13.107
Allscan Services v. Dougland Support Service [2003] All E.R. (D) 199 (Jan) ......................................................... 1.103
Alma Shipping Corp. v. Union of India [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 494 ..................................................... 20.52, 20.53, 39.2
Almak, The (Rudolf A. Oetker v. I.F.A.) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 557 ......... 18.24, 18.39, 18.84, 18.183, 18.207, 18.235
Almare Seconda, The (Blackgold Trading v. Almare S.p.A.) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 433 .................................. 4.6, 4.14
Alpha Trading v. Dunshaw Patten [1901] 1 Q.B. 290 (C.A.) .................................................................................... 24.19
Alpha, The [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 515 ....................................................................................................................... 20.18
Alquife Mines v. Miller (1919) 1 Ll. L. Rep. 321........................................................................................................ 3.13
Altus, The (Total Transport Corp. v. Amoco Trading Co.) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 423........................ 16.3, 16.14, 54.7,
54.8, 54.9, 57.13, 57.22, 57.23, 60.7, 65.7
Ama Ulgen, The (Galaxy Energy International v. Bayoil) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 512 (C.A.) ............................... 85.476
Amalgamated Property Co. v. Texas Commerce International Bank [1982] Q.B. 84................................................. 1.12
Amazona, The, and the Yayamaria (Government of Sierra Leone v. Marmaro Shipping Co.)
[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 130 ...................................................................................................... 85.185, 85.186, 85.228
Ambatielos v. Grace Bros. (1922) 13 Ll.LRep. 227 (H.L.) .................................................................................. 1.1, 19.5
Amer Energy, The (ASM Shipping Ltd of India v. TTMI) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 293 ............................................21.30
American Express Co. v. British Airways Board [1983] 1 W.L.R. 701 .................................................................. 18.118
American Hoesch v. Aubade [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 123 .......................................................................................... 10.23
American Motorists Ins. v. Cellstar [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 216 .................................................................................. 1.38
Amin Rasheed Shipping v. Kuwait Insurance [1984] A.C. 50..................................................................................... 1.34
Amis Swain v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha (1919) 1 Ll. L. Rep. 51 ................................................................ 18.43
Amoco v. Parpada Shipping (The George S.) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 369 (C.A.); rev’g [1987]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 69 ............................................................................................................................ 60.5, 60.6, 85.127
Amphion, The (General Feeds v. Burnham Shipping) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101 ................. 6.48, 6.60, 18.222, 85.436
Amstelmolen, The (N.V. Reederij Amsterdam v. President of India) [1960] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 82........... 15.26, 16.2, 17.8
Amstelslot, The (Union of India v. N.V. Reederij Amsterdam) [1963] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 223 (H.L.).......................................................................................................................... 85.98, 85.121, 85.257
Anastassia (Owners) v. Ugle-Export Charkow (1934) 49 Ll. L. Rep. 1...................................................................... 27.5
Anders Maersk, The [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 483 (H.K. High Ct.) ....................................................... 85.49, 85.50, 85.51
Anderson v. Crundall (1898) 14 T.L.R. 256............................................................................................................... 14.53
Anderson v. Ocean SS. Co. (1884) 10 App. Cas. 107 (H.L.) .................................................................................... 20.20
Anderson’s (Pacific) v. Karlander New Guinea Line [1989] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 870....................................................... 85.61
Anderton v. Clwyd CC (Cummins v. Shell International Manning Services) [2002] 1 W.L.R. 3174.................... 85.187
Andra, The (DGM Commodities Corp.oration v. Sea Metropolitan S.A.) [2012] Lloyd’s Rep. 587 ........................14.37
Andreas Lemos, The (Athens Maritime Enterprises Corp. v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks
Association (Bermuda) Ltd.) [1983] Q.B. 647.................................................................................................... 26.14
Andreas Vergottis v. Robinson, David & Co. Ltd. (1928) 31 Ll. L. Rep. 23 ............................................... 17.1.8, 18.53
Andrew v. Moorhouse (1814) 5 Taunt. 435 ............................................................................................................... 13.90
Andros, The (China Ocean Shipping Co. v. Owners of M.V. Andros) [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1213 (P.C.) ...... 85.210, 85.211
Angelia, The (Trade and Transport v. Iino Kaiun Kaisha) [1973] 1 W.L.R. 210; [1972]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 154 ............................................................................................................... 9.2, 22.21, 22.26, 85.315
Angelos Lusis, The (Sociedad Carga Oceanica v. Idolinoele Vertriebs G.m.b.H.) [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 28.. 59.2, 59.3
Angelos Lusis, The [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 338.......................................................................................................... 1.109
xlv
Angfartygs A/B Halfdan v. Price & Pierce (1939) 64 Ll. L. Rep. 290; (1939) 45 Com. Cas. 23 ..................... 6.8, 21.93
Anglia Television v. Reed [1972] 1 Q.B. 60 ................................................................................................................ 21.3
Angliss (W.) & Co. (Australia) Pty. v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. [1927]
2 K.B. 456................................................................................................................................ 85.102, 85.104, 85.347
Anglo Irish Beef Processors v. Federated Stevedores Geelong [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 207 ................................... 85.193
Anglo-African Co. v. Lamzed (1866) L.R. 1 C.P. 266 .................................................................................................. 6.5
Anglo-African Shipping v. Mortner [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81.................................................................................. 21.55
Anglo-Argentine v. Temperley [1899] 2 Q.B. 403 ......................................................................................... 20.27, 20.29
Anglo-Danubian Transport Co. v. Ministry of Food (1949) 83 Ll. L. Rep. 137......................................... 5.5, 5.20, 5.21
Anglo-Grecian v. Beynon (1926) 24 Ll. L. Rep. 122 ............................................................................ 20.1, 20.27, 20.28
Anglo-Northern Trading v. Emlyn Jones & Williams [1918] 1 K.B. 372................................................................... 22.9
Anglo-Overseas Transport v. Titan Industrial [1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 152 ......................................................... 23.3, 23.9
Anglo-Polish Lines v. Vickers (1924) 19 Ll. L. Rep. 121 .............................................................................. 17.37, 17.38
Anna Ch., The (Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Royal Bank of Scotland) [1987]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 266 ............................................................................................................... 5.29, 5.103, 26.59, 26.71
Anne Holme, The [1898] P. 173.................................................................................................................. 85.325, 85.328
Annefield, The [1971] P. 168...................................................................................................................................... 18.51
Anonima Petroli Italiana v. Marlucidez Armadora S.A. (The Filiatra Legacy) [1991]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 337 (C.A.); rev’g [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 354........................................................ 60.5, 60.6, 85.127
Antaios Compania Naviera v. Salen Rederierna [1985] A.C. 191 ............................................................................. 1.107
Antares, The (Nos. 1 and 2) (Kenya Railways v. Antares Co. Pte.) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 424
(C.A) ........................................................ 6.31, 12.32, 12.40, 85.24, 85.71, 85.174, 85.175, 85.197, 85.206, 85.401
Antariksa Logistics Pte. v. McTrans Cargo (S) Pte [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 117
(High Court of Singapore) 18.8, 18.118
Antclizo Shipping Corp. v. Food Corporation of India (The Antclizo) (No. 2) [1992]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 558 ........................................................................................................... 15.31, 15.44, 15.45, 85.213
Ante Topic, The (Compania Naviera Termar v. Tradax Export S.A.) [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 566 ............... 15.68, 57.23
Anthony Hordern & Sons v. Commonwealth & Dominion Line [1917] 2 K.B. 420 .............................................. 85.236
Anticosti Shipping v. Viateur St. Amand [1959] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 352 (Can.).......................................................... 85.374
Antigoni, The [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 209 ................................................................................................................ 85.109
Antiparos ENE v. SK Shipping Co. Ltd (The Antiparos) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 237...............................5.55, 55.6, 55.8
Anton Durbek GmbH v. Den Norske Bank ASA [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 93 .............................................................. 2.36
Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp. v. Stepanovs [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 647 .................................................................2.41
Antwerp United Diamonds v. Air Europe [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 224............................. 85.387, 85.416, 85.419, 85.427
Antwerpen, The [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 213 (Aust. Ct.)......................... 18.170, 85.126, 85.205, 85.368, 85.401, 85.423
Anwar Al Sabar, The (Gulf Steel v. Al Khalifa Shipping) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 261..... 13.47, 18.189, 18.190, 18.201
Apollo, The (Sidermar S.p.A. v. Apollo Navigation) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 200 ......................................... 5.66, 85.204
Apollonius, The (Cosmos Bulk Transport v. China National Foreign Trade Transportation)
[1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 53 ......................................................................................... 3.4, 3.26, 3.27, 3.35, 3.36, 11.80
Apostolis, The (A. Meredith Jones & Co. v. Vangemar Shipping) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 241............................................................................................................. 11.24, 85.95, 85.256, 85.282, 85.284
Apostolis, The (No. 2) (A. Meredith Jones & Co. v. Vangemar Shipping) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 292 ....... 15.28, 21.57
Appleby v. Myers (1867) L.R. 2 C.P. 651.................................................................................................................. 13.27
Aquacharm, The (Actis v. Sanko) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 7 (C.A.) ................................................................ 11.23, 85.95
Aqualon (UK) v. Vallana Shipping Corp. [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 669 ...................................................................... 85.60
Aquator Shipping v. Kleimar IV (The Capricorn 1) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 379 ...................................................... 21.82
Aragon, The [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 343..................................................................................................................... 1.105
Aramis, The [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 213 (C.A.) ................................................................ 18.111, 18.112, 18.114, 85.467
Arawa, The [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 135 (C.A.); rev’g [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 416 ............................ 10.22, 10.25, 85.56,
85.80, 85.326, 85.327
Archbolds (Freightage) v. Spanglett [1961] 1 Q.B. 374............................................................................................... 1.55
Archimidis, The (AIC Ltd v. Marine Pilot Ltd) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 597............................5.31, 5.79, 6.11, 54.3, 69.4
Arcos v. Ronaasen [1933] A.C. 470 ............................................................................................................................. 6.22
Arctic Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Mobilia A.B. and Others (The Tatra) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 51 .................................... 2.31
Arctic Trader, The (Trade Star Line v. Mitsui) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449 (C.A.) ................................................. 18.89,
18.181, 18.191, 18.183, 85.144
Ardan SS. Co. v. Weir [1905] A.C. 501 (H.L.) ...................................................................................... 6.1, 7.1, 7.4, 7.10
Ardennes, The [1951] 1 K.B. 55; (1950) 84 Ll. L. Rep. 340 ........................................ 1.94, 13.33, 13.44, 18.46, 21.123
Argentino, The (1889) 14 App. Cas. 519 ............................................................................ 21.99, 21.102, 21.122, 21.129
Argobeam, The (Carras v. President of India) [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 282 .................................................... 14.33, 14.35
Argobec, The (Argonaut Navigation Co. v. Ministry of Food) [1949] 1 K.B. 572;
(1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 223 ................................................................................ 14.22, 14.33, 14.57, 15.6, 15.7, 15.42
xlvi
Argonaut, The [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 216 ........................................................................................... 14.24, 14.40, 14.45
Argonaut Navigation Co. v. Ministry of Food (The Argobec) [1949] 1 K.B. 572;
(1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 223 ................................................................................ 14.22, 14.33, 14.57, 15.6, 15.7, 15.42
Arianna, The (Athenian Tankers Management S.A. v. Pyrena Shipping Inc.) [1987]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 376 .......................................................................................................................... 3.34, 11.29, 19.19
Aries, The (Aries Tanker Corp. v. Total Transport) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 334; [1977]
1 W.L.R. 185 (H.L.) ............................................................................................ 13.63, 13.66, 13.68, 85.172, 85.188
Aries Tanker Corp. v. Total Transport (The Aries) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 334; [1977]
1 W.L.R. 185 (H.L.) ............................................................................................ 13.63, 13.66, 13.68, 85.172, 85.188
Armada Lines v. Naviera Maropan S.A. (The Elexalde) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 485 ............................................... 25.16
Armagas v. Mundogas (The Ocean Frost) [1986] A.C. 717 ............................................................................... 2.27, 2.28
Armar, The [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 450 ........................................................................................................................ 1.31
Armement Adolf Deppe v. John Robinson & Co. [1917] K.B. 204 .......................................................................... 15.41
Armour & Co. v. Leopold Walford [1921] 3 K.B. 473 ........................................................................... 6.25, 6.33, 85.72
Armstrong v. Strain [1952] 1 K.B. 232 .................................................................................................................... 85.429
Arne, The [1904] P. 154..................................................................................................................................... 10.19, 16.9
Aron (J.) & Co. Inc. v. Comptoir Wegimont [1921] 3 K.B. 435.................................................................... 18.10, 18.39
Arpad, The [1934] P. 189 ............................................................................................................... 21.119, 21.124, 85.393
Arrospe v. Barr (1881) 8 R. 602 ............................................................................................................................... 18.197
Arta, The [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 534............................................................................................................................ 1.79
Asfar & Co. v. Blundell [1896] 1 Q.B. 123 (C.A.)...................................................... 13.80, 13.83, 13.85, 13.86, 85.201
Ashville v. Elmer [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 73 ................................................................................................................ 82.1
Asia Star, The [2010] 2 Lloyds Rep. 21 (Singapore Court of Appeal)............................................................21.111, 48.6
Assicurazione Generali v. The SS. Bessie Morris Co. [1892] 2 Q.B. 652; aff’g [1892] 1 Q.B. 571........................ 22.18
Associated Bulk Carriers v. Shell International Petroleum (The Nordic Navigator) [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 182 ...... 68.5
Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers v. Houlder (1917) 22 Com. Cas. 279 ...................................................... 4.6
Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers v. Teigland (The Oakworth) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 581 ........... 1.2, 21.140
Assunzione, The [1954] P. 150 ..................................................................................................................................... 1.34
Astra Trust v. Adams [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 ................................................................................................. 1.21, 1.24
Asty Maritime v. Rocco Guiseppe & Figli (The Astyanax) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 (C.A.);
rev’g [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 459 .................................................................................................................. 2.17, 2.23
Astyanax, The (Asty Maritime v. Rocco Guiseppe & Figli) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 (C.A.);
rev’g [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 459 .................................................................................................................. 2.17, 2.23
Athamas (Owners) v. Dig Vijay Cement Co. Ltd. (The Athamas) [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 287..........................................
5.104, 5.106, 5.107, 26.60
Athanasia Comninos, The, and the Georges Chr. Lemos [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 277.................... 6.49, 6.50, 6.51, 6.55,
6.57, 6.60, 85.355, 85.431, 85.438, 85.439,
85.440, 85.446, 85.447
Athel Line v. Liverpool & London War Risks Association [1944] K.B. 87 ............................................................. 20.15
Athelvictor, The [1946] P. 42 ................................................................................................................................... 85.273
Athena (No. 2), The (Sea Trade Maritime Corp. v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association
(Bermuda) Ltd) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 280 .........................................................................................................18.50
Athenian Harmony, The (Derby Resources A.G. v. Blue Corinth Marine Co.) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 410 .............................................................................. 21.110, 21.113, 21.124, 85.120, 85.386, 85.389, 85.392
Athenian Tankers Management S.A. v. Pyrena Shipping Inc. (The Arianna) [1987]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 376 ........................................................................................................................ 3.34, , 11.29, 19.19
Athens Maritime Enterprises Corp. v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd.
(The Andreas Lemos) [1983] Q.B. 647............................................................................................................... 26.14
Athinoula, The (Bravo Maritime (Chartering) Est. v. Baroom) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 481..................................... 17.36
Atisa S.A. v. Aztec A.G. [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 579 .................................................................................. 7.8, 2.2, 22.24
Atkins International v. Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (The A.P.J. Priti) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 37...................................................................................................................... 5.33, 5.36, 5.45, 5.46, 5.66, 5.74
Atlantic Baron, The (Northern Ocean Shipping v. Hyundai Construction) [1979] Q.B. 705 ..................................... 1.92
Atlantic Duchess, The (Atlantic Oil Carriers v. British Petroleum Co.) [1957] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 55 ...................................................................................................... 6.43, 6.50, 6.54, 6.55, 6.60, 52.15, 85.431
Atlantic Lines v. Hallam (The Lucy) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 188................................................................................ 1.84
Atlantic Maritime v. Gibbon [1954] 1 Q.B. 88 .......................................................................................................... 22.11
Atlantic Mutual v. King [1919] 1 K.B. 307................................................................................................................ 26.10
Atlantic Oil Carriers v. British Petroleum Co. (The Atlantic Duchess) [1957] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 55 ...................................................................................................... 6.43, 6.50, 6.54, 6.55, 6.60, 52.15, 85.431
Atlantic Sunbeam, The (Sunbeam Shipping Co. v. President of India) [1973] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 482.................................................................................................................................. 1.124, 5.14, 15.5, 15.47
xlvii
Atlas, The (Noble Resources v. Cavalier Shipping) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 642 ............................... 13.10, 18.26, 18.82,
18.142, 85.139, 85.151, 85.409
Atlas Express v. Kafco [1989] Q.B. 833 ............................................................................................................. 1.89, 1.90
Atlas Shipping v. Suisse Atlantique [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 188 ...................................................................... 24.9, 24.14
Atrice, The (Vinmar International Ltd. v. Theresa Navigation, S.A.) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (Q.B.
(Com. Ct.)).......................................................................................................... 21.41, 21.52, 21.73, 21.124, 21A.39
Attica Sea Carriers v. Ferrostaal Poseidon (The Puerto Buitrago) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 250 ....................... 21.55, 32.6
Attorney-General v. Blake [2001] A.C. 268.................................................................................................... 6.41, 21.145
Attorney-General v. Smith (1918) 34 T.L.R. 566 ........................................................................................................ 12.8
Attorney-General of Belize v. Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1988 5.33
Attorney-General of Ceylon v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. [1962] A.C. 60 (P.C.) ........................................... 85.139
Attorney-General of Hong Kong v. Humphreys Estate (Queen’s Gardens) Ltd [1987] A.C. 114.............................. 1.16
Attorney-General of the Republic of Ghana v. Texaco Overseas Tankships (The Texaco Melbourne)
[1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473 (H.L.); [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 471 (C.A.); [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 303 .............. 21.119,
21.130, 85.386, 85.389, 85.391, 85.392, 85.393, 85.394, 85.400, 85.413
Atwood v. Sellar (1880) 5 Q.B.D. 286 ......................................................................................................................... 20.9
Austin Friars, The (1894) 10 T.L.R. 633......................................................................................................... 15.44, 15.45
Austin Friars SS. Co. v. Spillers & Bakers [1915] 1 K.B. 833; [1915] 3 K.B. 586......................................... 20.1, 20.27
Australasian United Steam Navigation Co. v. Hiskens (1914) 18 C.L.R. 646 (H.C. Aust.)............... 10.21, 10.22, 10.23
Australasian United Steam Navigation Co. v. Hunt [1921] 2 A.C. 351 .................................................................. 85.228
Australian Coastal Shipping v. Green [1971] 1 Q.B. 456 (C.A.) ........................................................ 20.15, 20.20, 20.28
Australian General Electric v. Australian United S.N. [1946] S.A.S.R. 278 ........................................................... 85.338
Australian Oil Refining Pty. v. R.W. Miller & Co. Pty. [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 448 ................................................ 85.13
Austroships v. Armada Lines (unreported, C.A., 29 March 1990) ............................................................................ 85.21
Automatic Tube Co. v. Adelaide SS. (The Beltana) [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 531 .............................. 10.23, 85.81, 85.201
Avery v. Bowden (1856) 6 E. & B. 953 (Ex. Ch.); aff’g (1855) 5 E. & B. 714 (Q.B.)................................. 21.17, 22.34
Avon SS. Co. v. Leask (1890) 18 R. 280 ................................................................................................................... 14.10
Axa Sun Life Services plc v.Campbell Martin Ltd [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ..............................................................3.40
Axel Johnson Petroleum v. M.G. Mineral Group [1992] 1 W.L.R. 270.................................................................... 13.63
Azimut Benetti v. Healey [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.473 ...............................................................................................21.132
Azur Gaz, The (SHV Gas Supply & Trading v. Naftomar Sshipping & Trading) [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 163.............4.8
B. & S. Contracts & Design v. Victor Green Publications [1984] I.C.R. 419................................................ 1.90, 85.326
BBC Greenland, The (Sideridraulic Systems SpA v. BBC Chartering & Logistic GmbH & Co. KG)
[2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 230 ...................................................................................................6.38, 85.72, 85.73, 85.76
BCCI v. Ali [2002] 1 A.C. 251................................................................................................................................... 1.102
B.H.P. Petroleum v. British Steel [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 583 ................................................................................... 21.40
BMA Special Opportunity Hub Finance Ltd and others v. African Minerals Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 416 .1.107
B.O.C.M. v. Moor Line (1935) 41 Com. Cas. 53; rev’g 40 Com. Cas. 210.............................................................. 14.58
BP Oil International Ltd v. Target Shipping Ltd (The Target) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 245 ............................13.17, 13.18
BP Refinery (Westernport) v. Hastings (1978) 52 A.L.J.R. 20 (P.C.) ....................................................................... 1.123
B.S. & N. v. Micado Shipping (The Seaflower) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 341 (C.A.); rev’g [2000]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 ....................................................................................................... 3.31, 11.27, 21.9, 48.3, 84A.15
Babanaft International Co. v. Avant Petroleum Inc. (The Oltenia) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 448,
affirmed [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 99 (C.A.) ...........................................................................................................16.21
Bacon v. Cooper (Metals) [1982] 1 All E.R. 397....................................................................................................... 21.59
Badagry, The [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 395 ....................................................................................................................... 3.9
Baerselman v. Bailey [1895] 2 Q.B. 301 .................................................................................................................. 85.264
Baghlaf Al Zafer Factory Co. v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp. (The Sibi) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 229 (C.A.); [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (C.A.) ................................. 85.28, 85.29, 85.30, 85.191, 85.228, 85.241
Baird Textiles Ltd v. Marks & Spencer plc [2001] EWCA Civ 274 .......................................................................18.112
Balder London, The [1908] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 489 ........................................................................................................ 26.37
Baleares, The (Geogas v. Trammo Gas) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 215 (C.A.); [1990] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 130.............................................................................................................. 4.5, 4.11, 4.18, 21.32, 21.121, 52.11
Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) v. Scottish Power, 1994 S.L.T. 807 (H.L.);
1994 S.C. 20 .................................................................................................................................. 21.32, 21.38, 21.39
Balian v. Joly (1890) 6 T.L.R. 345 ............................................................................................................................... 12.1
Ball (B.J.) New Zealand v. Federal Steam Navigation [1950] N.Z.L.R. 954 ............................................................ 85.86
Ballantyne v. Paton, 1912 S.C. 246 ................................................................................................................. 14.53, 14.55
Balli Trading v. Afalona Shipping Co. (The Coral) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 158; [1993]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .......................................................................................................................... 14.39, 85.86, 85.112
Baltic Surveyor, The (Voaden v. Champion) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 623 ...................................................... 21.57, 21.59
Bamfield v. Goole & Sheffield Transport [1910] 2 K.B. 94 .................................................................. 6.49, 6.53, 85.434
xlviii
Banco de Portugal v. Waterlow [1932] A.C. 452....................................................................................................... 21.52

Bank Line Ltd. v. Arthur Capel & Co. [1919] A.C. 435 (H.L.).......................................... 19.1, 22.7, 22.9, 22.11, 22.20
Bank of Nova Scotia v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd [1990] 1 Q.B. ......................818 21.42
Bannister v. Breslauer (1867) L.R. 2 C.P. 497 ............................................................................................................. 17.7
Barber v. Meyerstein (1870) L.R. 4 H.L. 317 .......................................................................................................... 18.149
Barbour v. South Eastern Railway (1876) 34 L.T. 67................................................................................. 85.333, 85.337
Barclays Bank v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 ....................... 10.24, 18.149, 18.162
Barclays Bank v. Fairclough Building [1995] Q.B. 214 ...................................................................... 21.64, 21.70, 21.72
Barclays Bank plc v. UniCredit Bank AG [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ................................................................1.120, 27.7
Barcore, The [1896] P. 294 ......................................................................................................................................... 13.71
Barito, The (Golden Ocean Group Ltd v. Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK Ltd) [2013]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 421 ...................................................................................................................................................2.2
Barker v. Windle (1856) 6 E. & B. 675; (1856) 18 C.B.(N.S.) 759 ................................................................... 3.19, 4.17
Barkworth v. Young (1856) Drew. 1 ............................................................................................................................ 7.23
Barton v. Armstrong [1976] A.C. 104 .......................................................................................................................... 1.87
Basma v. Weeks [1950] A.C. 441................................................................................................................................... 2.4
Batis, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 345 .......................................................................................................................... 55.7
Baumwoll v. Gilchrest [1893] A.C. 8; [1892] 1 Q.B. 253 ......................................................................................... 18.67
Bayoil S.A., Re [1999] 1 W.L.R. 144 ......................................................................................................................... 13.69
Bayoil S.A. v. Seawind Tankers Corp. (The Leonidas) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 533...................... 1.115, 9.6, 52.5, 85.17
Bayview Motors v. Mitsui Marine & Fire Insurance [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 131 ................................................... 85.307
Beaverford, The v. The Kafirstan [1938] A.C. 136 ...................................................................................................... 73.5
Becher (Kurt A.) v. Roplak Enterprises (The World Navigator) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 23 (C.A.) ............. 15.35, 15.47,
21.5, 21.11, 21.19, 21.21, 21.23, 21.25
Becker, Gray & Co. v. London Assurance Corp. [1918] A.C. 101 ......................................................................... 85.295
Bedford SS. Co. v. Navico (The Ionian Skipper) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 273............................................................. 54.8
Behn v. Burness (1863) 3 B. & S. 751.................................................................................................... 3.3, 3.30, 4.2, 4.3
Bekol v. Terracona Shipping (unreported, 13 July 1988) ........................................................................... 85.374, 85.410
Bela Krajina, The [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 139 .............................................................................................................. 6.52
Bellina Maritime v. Menorah Insurance [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 575 (Israel Sup. Ct.) ............................................ 85.210
Belships v. President of India [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 12 ............................................................................................. 14.9
Beltana, The (Automatic Tube Co. v. Adelaide SS.) [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 531 ............................. 10.23, 85.81, 85.200
Bem Dis A Turk v. International Agri Trade (The Selda) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 729 ........................................... 85.385
Ben Shipping v. An Bord Bainne (The C. Joyce) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285 ....................... 1.71, 1.117, 17.41, 18.202,
18.205, 18.223, 18.227, 18.228, 21.138, 37.5, 37.7, 72.3, 85.21
Benarty, The (Lister v. Thomson Shipping) [1985] Q.B. 325................................ 85.26, 85.29, 85.191, 85.227, 85.241,
85.367, 85.420, 85.501
Benlawers, The [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 51....................................................................................................... 11.33, 85.96
Benson v. Schneider (1817) 7 Taunt. 272 ...................................................................................................................... 6.7
Bentsen v. Taylor (1893) 2 Q.B. 274 (C.A.) ........................................................................................................... 4.2, 4.3
Beoco v. Alfa Laval Co. [1995] Q.B. 137 21.42
Berge Sisar, The (Borealis A.B. v. Stargas Ltd.) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 663 (H.L.); [1998]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 475 (C.A.) ...................................................... 13.37, 18.1, 18.8, 18.78, 18.79, 18.80, 18.95, 18.100,
18.102, 18.103, 18.104, 18.105, 18.155, 85.199
Berge Sund, The [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 453 (C.A.) .................................................................................................... 6.52
Bergen, The (No. 2) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 710 ........................................................................................................ 85.29
Berghoefer v. ASA [1985] E.C.R. I–2699.................................................................................................................. 85.27
Berkshire, The [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 185 ............................................. 18.178, 18.179, 18.189, 18.203, 18.204, 18.205
Bernina, The (1886) 12 P.D. 36 .................................................................................................................................... 3.16
Bernuth Lines v. High Seas Shipping (The Eastern Navigator) [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 537 ......................... 5.15, 85.196
Bewise Motors Co. v. Hoi Kong Container Services Ltd. [1998] 4 H.K.C. 377..................................................... 18.135
Biggin & Co. v. Permanite [1951] 2 K.B. 314 ............................................................ 21.79, 21.83, 21.85, 21.86, 85.164
Bijela, The (Marida v. Oswal Steel) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 636.................................................. 20.13, 20.14, 74.4, 74.5
Bim Kemi AB v. Blackburn Chemicals [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 93 ........................................................................... 13.63
Birmingham & District Land Co. v. London and N.W. Rly. Ltd. (1886) 34 Ch. D. 261 ....................................... 18.223
Bishop & Baxter v. Anglo-Eastern [1944] K.B.12......................................................................................................... 1.7
Biz, The (Easybiz Investments v. Sinograin) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 688 ...............................................................85.196
Blackburn v. Liverpool, Brazil and River Plate Steam Navigation Co. [1902] 1 K.B. 290.................................... 85.291
Blackgold Trading v. Almare S.p.A. (The Almare Seconda) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 433 ................................... 4.6, 4.14
Blanchet v. Powell’s Llantivit Collieries Co. (1874) L.R. 9 Ex. 74 .......................................................................... 13.21
Blandy Bros. v. Nello Simon [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 393................................................................................... 23.3, 23.5
Blane Wright & Co. v. Thoressen, Lloyd’s List 10th June 1918 ...............................................................................21.19
xlix
Blankenstein, The (Damon v. Hapag Lloyd) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 93; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 522 ............... 1.14, 83.3
Blue Anchor Line v. Alfred C. Toepfer International G.m.b.H. (The Union Amsterdam) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 432 .............................................................................................. 11.67, 15.8, 15.72, 26.28, 57.26, 58.4, 85.173
Blue Wave, The [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 151.................................................................................................... 1.31, 85.191
Board of Trade v. Hain SS. Co. [1929] A.C. 534 ...................................................................................................... 26.22
Boliden Ore v. Dawn Maritime [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 247 ...................................................................................... 18.78
Bolivia (Republic of) v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co. [1909] 1 K.B. 785 ............................... 26.15, 85.329
Bolton v. Lancs. & Yorks. Ry (1886) L.R. 1 C.P. 431 ............................................................................................ 18.159
Bond, Connolly & Co. v. Federal Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1906) 22 T.L.R. 685; aff’g (1905) 21 T.L.R. 438 . 11.31
Bonde, The [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 136 ...................................................................................................................... 16.14
Bonython v. Commonwealth of Australia [1951] A.C. 201 (P.C.) ............................................................................ 13.52
Booth SS. Co. v. Cargo Fleet Iron Co. [1916] 2 K.B. 570 (C.A.) .............................................................. 18.159, 18.160
Boral Gas, The (Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers v. Huddart Parker Industries) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 342 ........................................................................ 15.9, 15.46, 16.15, 16.16, 17.36, 17.37, 21.101, 26.28, 79.3
Borealis v. Geogas Trading [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 482 .................................................................................21.30, 21.42
Borealis A.B. v. Stargas Ltd. (The Berge Sisar) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 663 (H.L.); [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 475
(C.A.) ............................................................ 13.37, 18.1, 18.8, 18.78, 18.79, 18.80, 18.95, 18.100, 18.102, 18.103,
18.104, 18.105, 18.155, 85.199
Borgship Tankers v. Product Transport (The Casco) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 565............................... 85.7, 85.15, 85.180
Borrowman Phillips v. Free & Hollis (1878) 4 Q.B.D. 500......................................................................................... 6.47
Borvigilant, The, and the Romina G [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 520........................ 2.2, 2.10, 2.14, 2.24, 2.33, 2.38, 85.471
Botnica, The (Oceanografia S.A. de C.V. v. DSND Subsea A.S.) (2006) 695 L.M.L.N. 1 ........................................ 82.1
Boukadoura, The (Boukadoura Maritime Corp. v. S.A. Marocaine de l’Industrie et du Raffinage)
[1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 393............................................... 18.24, 18.181, 18.233, 18.239, 37.5, 37.6, 85.140, 85.161
Boukadoura Maritime Corp. v. S.A. Marocaine de l’Industrie et du Raffinage (The Boukadoura)
[1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 393............................................... 18.24, 18.181, 18.233, 18.239, 37.5, 37.6, 85.140, 85.161
Bournemouth University Corp. v. Buckland [2011] Q.B. 323 ..........................................................................21.7, 21.14
Bow Valley Huskey (Bermuda) v. St. John Shipbuilding [1997] 2 S.C.R. ............................................................... 21.61
Bowmakers v. Barnet Instruments [1945] K.B. 65....................................................................................................... 1.63
Brabant, The (Gesellschaft Bürgerlichen Rechts v. Stockholms Rederiaktiebolag Svea) [1965] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 546................................................................................................................... 1.115, 11.33, 11.52, 11.77, 11.78
Bradbury, Re [1943] Ch. 35 .......................................................................................................................................... 21.9
Bradley (F.C.) & Sons Ltd. v. Federal Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1927) 27 Ll. L. Rep. 395 .................... 11.18, 11.19,
11.20, 85.95, 85.124, 85.130
Bradley v. Dunipace (1862) 1 H. & C. 521................................................................................................................ 10.11
Bradley v. Goddard (1863) 3 F. & F. 638 .................................................................................................................. 23.10
Bradley v. Newsom [1919] A.C. 16............................................................................................................................ 13.27
Brandt v. Liverpool Steam Navigation Co. [1924] 1 K.B. 575 ................................. 12.8, 18.16, 18.112, 18.114, 85.467
Brandt v. Morris [1917] 2 K.B. 784 ...................................................................................................................... 2.2, 2.10
Brankelow SS. Co. v. Canton Insurance [1901] A.C. 462 (H.L.); [1899] 2 Q.B. 178 (C.A.)................................. 18.197
Brass v. Maitland (1856) 6 E. & B. 470 ................................................................. 6.49, 6.53, 6.54, 6.57, 85.434, 85.438
Brauer v. James Clark [1952] 2 All E.R. 497............................................................................................................... 1.26
Bravo Maritime (Chartering) Est. v. Baroom (The Athinoula) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 481...................................... 17.36
Brede, The (Henriksens Rederi A/S v. T.H.Z. Rolimpex) [1974] Q.B. 233.............................................................. 13.66
Breffka & Hehnke GmbH & Co. KG v. Navire Shipping Co. Ltd. (The Saga Explorer) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 401 .......................................................................................................................18.17, 85.142, 85.219, 85A.17
Bremen Max, The (Farenco Shipping Co. Ltd v. Daebo Shipping Co. Ltd) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 81 .........................................................................................................................................10.4, 18.172, 21.139
Bremer Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v. Vanden Avenne-Izegen P.V.B.A. [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 15.53, 26.45, 57.6
Bremer Oeltransport v. Drewry [1933] K.B. 753 ....................................................................................................... 21.82
Bremer v. Vanden Avenne [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109.............................................................................................. 15.53
Brenda SS. Co. v. Green [1900] 1 Q.B. 518 .............................................................................................................. 14.18
Brightman v. Bunge y Born [1924] 2 K.B. 619 (C.A.); aff’d sub nom. Bunge y Born v. Brightman [1925]
A.C. 799 (H.L.)........................................................................... 7.10, 7.15, 7.17, 7.18, 7.22, 7.23, 7.28, 15.27, 58.7
Bristol and West of England Bank v. Midland Ry. [1891] 2 Q.B. 653 ................................................................... 18.149
Britain SS. Co v. The King [1921] 1 A.C. 99 ............................................................................................................ 26.20
Britain SS. Co. v. Dreyfus (1935) 51 Ll. L. Rep. 196 .................................................................................... 14.30, 14.34
Britannia Distribution v. Factor Pace [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 420 ............................................................................... 13.1
British and Beningtons v. North West Cachar Tea [1923] A.C. 48........................................................................... 21.14
British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co. v. Samuel Sanday & Co. [1916] 1 A.C. 650 (H.L.) ............... 85.302, 85.309
British and Mexican Shipping Co. v. Lockett Brothers & Co. [1911] 1 K.B. 264.................................................... 15.55
British Columbia Co. v. Nettleship (1868) L.R. 3 C.P. 499 .......................................................... 21.120, 21.123, 21.125
l
British Crane Hire Corp. v. Ipswich Plant Hire [1975] Q.B. 803 ............................................................................ 18.110
British Electrical v. Patley Pressings [1953] 1 W.L.R. 280 ........................................................................................... 1.7
British Imex Industries v. Midland Bank [1958] 1 Q.B. 542......................................................... 85.220, 85.233, 85.243
British Oil & Cake Mills v. Compania Petrolifera Hispano American (1927) 28 Ll. L. Rep. 50............................... 68.5
British Shipowners v. Grimond (1876) 3 Rett. 968............................................................................................. 10.2, 10.5
British Sugar v. N.E.I. (1987) 87 B.L.R. 42.................................................................................................. 21.40, 85.248
British Westinghouse v. Underground Electric Railways [1912] A.C. 673 .......................... 21.1, 21.47, 21.106, 21A.29
Broadhead v. Yule (1871) 9 S.C. (3rd) 921................................................................................................................ 23.10
Broere (Gebr.) v. Saras Chimica [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 436..................................................................................... 15.16
Broken Hill v. P. & O. [1917] 1 K.B. 688.................................................................................................................. 12.26
Brostrom (Axel) & Son v. Louis Dreyfus & Co. (1932) 38 Com. Cas. 79...................................... 5.64, 5.71, 5.72, 5.85
Brown Boveri (Australia) Pty v. Baltic Shipping [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 518 (N.S.W.C.A.) ................................. 85.371
Brown v. Byrne (1854) 3 E. & B. 703........................................................................................................................ 13.61
Brown v. Innovators One [2012] EWHC 1321 (Comm) 18.112
Brown v. K.M.R. Services [1995] 4 All E.R. 598...................................................................................................... 21.38
Brown v. Powell (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 562.................................................................................................................. 18.28
Brown, Jenkinson v. Percy Dalton [1957] 2 Q.B. 621 (C.A.) .................................. 1.54, 18.24, 18.181, 18.222, 18.238,
18.241, 18.243, 85.145
Browner International v. Monarch Shipping Co. (The European Enterprise) [1989] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 185.......................................................................................................................... 85.44, 85.66, 85.422, 85.436
Bruce, Marriott v. Houlder [1917] 1 K.B. 72 ............................................................................................................. 14.29
Brunner v. Webster (1900) 5 Com. Cas. 167 .............................................................................................. 85.314, 85.317
Brys & Gylsen v. Drysdale (1920) 4 Ll. L. Rep. 24 ....................................................................................... 14.54, 14.55
Bua International v. Hai Hing (The Hai Hing) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 300 ...................................... 18.48, 18.59, 85.186
Buckle v. Knoop (1867) L.R. 2 Exch. 125, 333.................................................................................................. 13.5, 13.9
Bucknall v. Tatem (1900) 83 L.T. 121 ........................................................................................................ 21.140, 21.142
Budgett v. Binnington [1891] 1 Q.B. 35....................................................................................................................... 15.7
Bukhta Russkaya, The (Lauritzen Reefers v. Ocean Reef Transport Ltd. S.A.) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 744 ............. 85.4
Bulgaris (N.T.) v. Bunge (1933) 38 Com. Cas. 103................................................................................................. 85.271
Bulk Chile, The (Dry Bulk Handy Holding Inc. v. Fayette International Holdings Ltd) [2013]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 47..................................................................................................................................................13.45
Bulk & Metal Transport v. Voc Bulk Ultra Handymax (The Voc Gallant) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 418 ..................85.195
Bulk Ship Union S.A. v. Clipper Bulk Shipping Ltd (The Pearl C) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 533............................9.5, 9.8
Bulk Shipping v. Ipco Trading (The Jasmine B.) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 39 ............................................ 5.20, 55.2, 55.7
Bulkhaul v. Rhodia Organique Fine Ltd [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 353........................................................................85.393
Bulman & Dickson v. Fenwick & Co. [1894] 1 Q.B. 179 ....................................................................................... 85.326
Bunga Melati Dua, The (Masefield AG v. Amlin Corporate Mmember) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 630 .....................85.306
Bunga Seroja, The (Great China Metal Industries v. Malaysian International Shipping Corp.) [1999]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 512 (High Ct. Aust.)................................................................ 85.6, 85.267, 85.285, 85.288, 85A.28
Bunge v. Tradax [1981] 1 W.L.R. 711 ........................................................................................................................... 4.3
Bunge Corp. v. Vegetable Vitamin Foods (Private) Ltd [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 613 ................................................ 21.17
Bunge S.A. v. ADM Do Brasil Ltda (The Darya Radhe) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 175..............................6.52, 6.59, 6.62,
85.431, 85.433, 85.434
Bunge y Born v. Brightman. See Brightman v. Bunge y Born
Burnett v. Bouch (1840) 9 C. & P. 620 ........................................................................................................................ 24.1
Burnett & Co. v. Danube and Black Sea Shipping Agencies [1933] 2 K.B. 438........................................................ 15.5
Burnett SS. Co. v. Olivier & Co. (1934) 48 Ll. L. Rep. 238 ............................................................................ 15.30, 57.6
Burton v. English (1883) 12 Q.B.D. 218.................................................................................................. 6.35, 6.40, 20.51
Busiris, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 569 ..................................................................................................................... 52.23
Bwllfa and Merthyr Dawr Steam Collieries 1891 Ltd. v. Pontypridd Water Works Co. [1903] A.C. 426 ................ 21.9
Byrne v. Schiller (1871) L.R. 6 Ex. 319..................................................................................................................... 13.90
C. & P. Haulage v. Middleton [1983] 3 All E.R. 98 .................................................................................................... 21.3
C. Joyce, The (Ben Shipping v. An Bord Bainne) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285 ...................... 1.71, 1.117, 17.41, 18.202,
18.205, 18.223, 18.227, 18.228, 21.138, 37.5, 37.7, 72.3, 85.21
C.C.C. Films v. Impact Quadrant Films [1985] Q.B. 16..................................................................................... 21.3, 21.4
CHS Inc. Iberia SL v. Far East Marine S.A. (The Devon) [2012] EWHC 3747 (Comm) 9.5, 21.124
C.H.Z. Rolimpex v. Eftavrysses Compania Naviera (The Panaghia Tinnou) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 586 .............. 14.42,
14.54, 85.262, 85.461
CMA CGM v. Classica Shipping [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 460 (C.A.) ................................................................. 76.3, 85.9
CMA CGM v. KG MS Northern Pioneer (The Northern Pioneer) [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 212..................... 25.12, 26.76
C.P.C. Gallia, The (C.P.C. v. C.T.M.) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68.............................................................. 1.13, 1.18, 1.20
C.P.C. v. C.T.M. (The C.P.C. Gallia) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68............................................................... 1.13, 1.18, 1.20
li
CTN Cash & Carry v. Gallaher [1994] 4 All E.R. 714 ................................................................................................ 1.87
CV Sheepvaartonderneming Ankergracht v. Stemcor (Australasia) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68 ........11.18, 85.98, 85.338
C V Scheepvaartonderneming Flintermar v Sea Malta Company Ltd (The Flintermar) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 409 ................................................................................................................................................................14.36
Cadogan Petroleum Holdings v. Global Process Systems [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 26 21.132
Caffin v. Aldridge [1895] 2 Q.B. 366 ........................................................................................................................... 6.20
Caltex Singapore v. B.P. Shipping [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 286 ................................................................................... 1.50
Camelia, The, and the Magnolia [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 182.......................................................................... 15.17, 15.58
Canada, The (1897) 13 T.L.R. 238....................................................................... 18.197, 18.198, 18.204, 18.210, 18.215
Canada Rice Mills v. Union Marine & General Insurance [1941] A.C. 55................................................ 85.292, 85.297
Canada Shipping Co. v. British Shipowners’ Mutual Protection Association (1889) 23 Q.B.D. 242 .................... 85.273
Canada Steamship Lines v. The King [1952] A.C. 192 ............................................................................................. 1.112
Canada Trust v. Stolzenberg (No. 2) [2002] 1 A.C. 1.............................................................................................. 85.187
Canadian and Dominion Sugar Co. v. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships [1947]
A.C. 46 (P.C.).......................................................................... 18.17, 18.18, 85.133, 85.135, 85.142, 85.219, 85.489
Canadian Pacific v. Belships (1996) 111 F.T.R. 11 (Fed. Ct. Can.) .......................................................................... 1.113
Canadian Pacific (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Lagon Maritime Overseas (The Fort Kipp) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 168 .................................................................................................................................................... 13.78, 17.34
Canadian Transport v. Court Line [1940] A.C. 934 ................... 14.22, 14.36, 14.37, 14.40, 14.42, 14.43, 14.54, 85.112
Cance v. L.&N.W. Ry. (1864) 3 H. & C. 343.......................................................................................................... 85.417
Cantiere Navale Triestina v. Russian Soviet Naphtha Export Agency (The Dora) [1925] 2 K.B. 172 (C.A.) ......... 15.71
Cape Equinox, The (Frontier International Shipping Corp.v. Swissmarine Corporation Inc.) [2005]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 390................................................................................................................................................. 25.5
Capper v. Forster ((1837) 3 Bing NC 938 ..................................................................................................................21.19
Capper v. Wallace (1880) 5 Q.B.D. 163....................................................................................................................... 5.77
Capricorn, The (Aquator Shipping v. Kleimar IV) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 379 ........................................................ 21.82
Captain v. Far Eastern SS. [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 595 (B.C. Sup. Ct.)..................................................................... 85.53
Captain Gregos, The (No. 1) (Compania Portorafti Commerciale S.A. v. UItramar Panama Inc.) [1990]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 310 (C.A.) .................................................................. 12.32, 85.84, 85.116, 85.119, 85.174, 85.188,
85.205, 85.467, 85.469, 85.471
Captain Gregos, The (No. 2) (Compania Portorafti Commerciale S.A. v. UItramar
Panama Inc.) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 395 ............................................................................................. 18.112, 85.468
Carboex v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 379 .............................................7.10, 7.14, 15.26, 25.6
Caresse Navigation v. L’Office National de l’Électricité (The Channel Ranger) [2013]
EWHC 3081 (Comm) ..........................................................................................................................................18.54
Cargill v. Marpro (The Aegis Progress) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 570 ......................................................................... 15.12
Cargill International v. C.P.N. Tankers (The Ot Sonja) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 435 (C.A.) ......................... 1.37, 85.174,
85.177, 85.178, 85.180, 85.201, 85.249, 85.260
Cargo ex Argos, The (1873) L.R. 5 P.C. 134.................................................................................................... 1.57, 17.28
Cargo ex Galam (1863) 2 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) ............................................................................................................... 13.25
Cargo ex Laertes, The (1887) 12 P.D. 187 ................................................................................................................... 73.5
Cargo Ships “El Yam” v. “Invotra” [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 39 ................................................................... 3.2, 3.19, 3.24
Caribbean Sea, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 338 ....................................................................................................... 85.347
Carlsberg v. Wemyss (1915) S.C. 616...................................................................................................................... 18.162
Carlton SS. Co. v. Castle Mail Co. [1898] A.C. 486; (1897) 3 Com. Cas. 207; 2 Com. Cas. 286, 173 .......... 5.85, 6.10,
6.16
Carmichael v. Liverpool Sailing Ship Owners’ Mutual Indemnity Association (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 242 (C.A.)...... 85.273
Caroline P., The (Telfair Shipping Corp. v. Inersea Carriers S.A.) [1985] 1 W.L.R. 553; [1984]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 466 ........................................................................................ 13.118, 18.225, 18.244, 18.246, 85.212
Carbopego-Abastecimento v. AMCI Export Corp. [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 736 ..........................................................21.7
Carr v. Jackson (1852) 7 Exch. 382.............................................................................................................................. 2.18
Carras v. London & Scottish Assurance [1936] 1 K.B. 291 ...................................................................................... 22.18
Carras v. President of India (The Argobeam) [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 282 ..................................................... 14.33, 14.35
Carron Park, The (1890) 15 P.D. 203............................................................................................................ 20.40, 85.270
Carslogie v. Royal Norwegian Government [1952] A.C. 292 ................................................................................. 21.108
Casco, The (Borgship Tankers v. Product Transport) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 565.............................. 85.7, 85.15, 85.180
Caspian Sea, The (Montedison S.p.A. v. Icroma S.p.A.) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 91........................... 13.84, 13.85, 13.86
Castle Alpha, The [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 383..................................................................................................... 1.36, 1.38
Castle Insurance v. Hong Kong Shipping [1984] A.C. 226 (P.C.)..................... 20.46, 20.49, 20.50, 20.52, 20.53, 20.54
Catherine Chalmers, The (1875) 32 L.T. 847.................................................................................................. 14.54, 14.55
Cator v. Great Western Insurance Corp. of New York (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 552 ...................................................... 85.296
Cehave v. Bremer Handels (The Hansa Nord) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445; [1976] 1 Q.B. 44 (C.A.)...................... 1.133
lii
Celtic King, The [1894] P. 175 ..................................................................................................................................... 2.37

Cemp Properties v. Dentsply [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 197 ................................................................................................... 1.83
Cendor Mopu, The (Global Process Systems Inc. v. Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 560 85.285, 85.333
Cenk Kaptanoglu, The (Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd v. Tube City IMS LLC) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 501 ...................3.5
Center Optical (Hong Kong) v. Jardine Transport Services [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 678 (H.K. High
Court) .................................................................................................................................................... 18.169, 18.170
Central Argentine Railway v. Marwood [1915] A.C. 981 .........................................................................................15.26
Central Insurance v. Seacalf Shipping (The Aiolos) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 25 ...................................................... 85.184
Cerberus Software v. Rowley [2001] I.C.R. 376........................................................................................................ 21.54
Cero Navigation Corp. v. Jean Lion (The Solon) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 292 ...................................... 1.112, 15.24, 69.2
Ceval v. Cefetra [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 464............................................................................................................... 14.60
Ceval Alimentos v. Agrimpex Trading (The Northern Progress) (No. 2) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 319 ..................... 18.55
Chanda, The (Wibau Maschinenfabrik Hartman S.A. v. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co.) [1989] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 494 ......................................................................... 6.31, 12.45, 85.71, 85.119, 85.232, 85.368, 85.401, 85.423
Chandris v. Argo [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 65 .................................................................................................... 20.49, 20.53
Chandris v. Dreyfus (1934) 50 Ll. L. Rep. 141................................................................................................... 1.78, 6.18
Chandris v. Union of India (The Eugenia Chandris) [1956] 1 W.L.R. 147; [1956] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 11 (C.A.) .................................................................................................................... 14.32, 14.33, 14.35, 26.70
Chandris v. Isbrandtsen-Moller [1951] 1 K.B. 240 .................................... 1.109, 1.110, 6.46, 6.47, 6.64, 16.13, 85.433,
85.436, 85.447
Channel Island Ferries v. Cenargo Navigation (The Rozel) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 161 .......................................... 21.57
Channel Island Ferries v. Sealink [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 323 ................................................................................. 85.315
Channel Ranger, The (Caresse Navigation v. L’Office National de l’Electricite) [2013] EWHC 3081 (Comm) ....18.54
Chaplin v. Boys [1971] A.C. 356 ............................................................................................................................... 21.70
Chaplin v. Hicks [1911] 2 K.B. 786 ...........................................................................................................................21.43
Charles Goodfellow Lumber Sales v. Verreault, Hovington and Verreault Navigation Inc. [1971]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 185 (Can. Sup. Ct.) ................................................................................................................... 85.293
Charlotte, The (1921) 9 Ll. L. Rep. 341 ..................................................................................................................... 11.54
Charter v. Sullivan [1957] 2 Q.B. 117........................................................................................................... 21.12, 85.393
Charter Reinsurance v. Fagan [1997] A.C. 313.......................................................................................................... 1.106
Charter Shipping v. Bowring (1930) 36 Ll. L. Rep. 272 ........................................................................................... 20.22
Chartered Bank of India v. British India S.N. Co. Ltd. [1909] A.C. 369 (P.C.) ............................... 10.2, 18.167, 18.168
Chartered Mercantile Bank of London, India and China v. Netherlands India Steam Navigation
Co. (1883) 10 Q.B.D. 521 .................................................................................................................... 85.265, 85.297
Chasca, The (1875) L.R. 4 A. & E. 446 ...................................................................................................... 85.267, 85.291
Chatenay v. Brazilian Submarine Telegraph [1891] 1 Q.B. 79.................................................................................... 1.42
Cheall v. Association of Professional Executive Clerical and Computer Staff [1983] 12 A.C. 180......................... 1.118
Cheikh Boutros Selim El-Khoury and Others v. Ceylon Shipping Lines Ltd. (The Madeleine) [1967]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 224 ............................................................................................................... 11.40, 19.8, 19.21, 19.28
Chellaram (P.S.) v. China Ocean Shipping Co. (The Zhi Jiang Kou) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 493
(Aust. Ct.) ................................................................................................................................ 85.205, 85.243, 85.245
Chellew v. Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply [1922] 1 K.B. 12; aff’g [1921] 2 K.B. 627 ............................ 20.38
Chemical Venture, The (Pearl Carriers v. Japan Line) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 528 ......................................... 5.48, 5.112
Cherry, The (Glencore International AG v. Owners of the Cherry, the Epic and the Addax) [2003]
1 S.L.R. 471 .......................................................................................................................................................18.165
Chief Controller of Chartering of the Government of India v. Central Gulf SS. Corp. (The Mosfield)
[1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 173................................................................................................................................... 15.18
Chiemgauer Membran und Zeltbau GmbH v. The New Millennium Experience Co. Ltd (unreported
15 December 2000) ..............................................................................................................................................21.14
Chikuma, The (A/S Awilco v. Fulvia S.p.A. di Navigazioni) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 371 ............................ 13.58, 13.59
Child, Re, Ex parte Nyholm (1873) 29 L.T. 634...................................................................................................... 13.106
Chimimport v. D’Alesio SAS (The Paola d’Alesio) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 366 ........................................................ 82.1
China Ocean Shipping Co. v. Owners of M.V. Andros (The Andros) [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1213 (P.C.) ....... 85.210, 85.211
China Pacific v. Food Corporation of India (The Winson) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 117; [1982] A.C. 939 .............. 17.38,
18.123, 22.36
Chios Breeze, The (Pteroti v. National Coal Board) [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 245; [1958] 1 Q.B. 469............. 15.56, 57.1
Cho Yang Shipping v. Coral (U.K.) Ltd. [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 641 ....................... 13.33, 13.34, 13.118, 18.78, 18.213
Choil Trading v. Sahara Energy Resources [2010] EWHC 374 (Comm) ..................................................................15.72
Christie & Vesey Ltd. v. Maatschappij tot Exploitatie Van Schepen en Andere Zaken (The Helvetia S.)
[1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 540 ................................................................................................... 4.15, 19.31, 19.34, 24.20
Christofferson v. Hansen (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 709........................................................................................................ 17.7
liii
Christos, The (E.G. Cornelius & Co. v. Christos Maritime) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 106................................... 3.12, 3.16
Christy v. Row (1808) 1 Taunt. 300..................................................................................................... 13.28, 13.40, 13.78
Chrysalis, The (Finelvet A.G. v. Vinava Shipping Co.) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 503 ..................................... 22.13, 26.31
Chrysovalandou Dyo, The (Santiren Shipping Ltd. v. Unimarine S.A.) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 159 ............. 17.1, 17.25,
17.27, 17.28, 35.2
Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com [2005] 1 S.L.R. 502 ............................................................................ 1.67, 1.72
Chyebassa, The (Leesh River Tea Co. v. British India Steam Navigation Co.) [1966] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 193; [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 450 .............................................. 85.113, 85.280, 85.291, 85.297, 85.322, 85.350
Cia. See Compania
Ciampa v. British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1915] 2 K.B. 774 ..................... 5.66, 11.18, 11.65, 85.315, 85.317
Cie. See Compagnie
Ciechocinek, The (Ismail v. Polish Ocean Lines) [1976] Q.B. 893 (C.A.)...................... 6.5, 11.64, 14.25, 68.4, 85.120,
85.239, 85.319, 85.320
Citi Group Inc. v. Transclear SA (The Mary Nour) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 526 ...........................................................7.7
Citi-March v. Neptune Orient Lines [1996] 1 W.L.R. 1367 .................................................................................... 85.191
Cito, The (1881) 7 P.D. 5............................................................................................................................................ 13.27
City of Athens, The [1995] L.M.C.L.Q. 23 (Malta C.A.) ........................................................................... 85.227, 85.244
City of Baroda, The (1926) 25 Ll. L. Rep. 437 ........................................................................................................ 85.349
City of Colombo, The (Ellerman Lines v. Gibbs) (1986) 26 D.L.R. 161; 1986 A.M.C. 2217
(Can. Fed. Ct. App. 1986) ........................................................................................................................ 20.31, 20.76
City of Peking, The (1890) 15 App. Cas. 438 .......................................................................................................... 21.104
Clan Gordon, The (Standard Oil Company of New York v. Clan Line Steamers Ltd.) [1924]
A.C. 100 (H.L.)......................................................................................................................................... 11.35, 11.63
Clan Line Steamers v. Liverpool and London War Risks Assurance Association [1943] K.B. 209 ........................ 26.20
Clark v. B.E.T. [1997] I.R.L.R. 348 ........................................................................................................................... 21.18
Clarkson Booker v. Andjel [1964] 2 Q.B. 775 ............................................................................................................. 2.21
Classic Maritime v. Lion Diversified Holdings [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 69 ................................................................21.30
Cleobulos Shipping v. Intertanker (The Cleon) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 586.............................................................. 13.67
Cleon, The (Cleobulos Shipping v. Intertanker) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 586............................................................. 13.67
Clerco Compania Naviera v. Food Corporation of India (The Savvas) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 22........................... 15.43
Clink v. Radford [1891] 1 Q.B. 625 ............................................................................................................................. 17.7
Clippens Oil v. Edinburgh and District Water Trustees [1907] A.C. 291 ................................................................. 21.35
Clipper San Luis, The [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 645 .......................................................................................... 11.12, 20.45
Coast Lines v. Hudig Chartering [1972] 2 Q.B. 34............................................................................................. 1.34, 1.38
Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v Swissmarine Services SA (The Lowlands Orchid) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 317 .......11.77
Cobelfret N.V. v. Cyclades Shipping Co. Ltd. (The Linardos) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 28 .......... 15.31, 15.39, 33.7, 33.8
Cockburn v. Alexander (1848) 6 C.B. 791.......................................................................................................... 6.7, 21.19
Coggs v. Bernard (1703) Ld. Raym. 909.................................................................................................................. 18.120
Cohn v. Davidson (1877) 2 Q.B.D. 455 ..................................................................................................................... 11.46
Coker v. Limerick SS. Co. (1918) 87 L.J.K.B. 767 ................................................................................................. 13.105
Cole v. Meek (1864) 15 C.B.(N.S.) 795 ......................................................................................................................... 6.5
Collier, The (1866) L.R. 1 A. & E. 83.......................................................................................................................... 78.7
Colonial Bank v. European Grain & Shipping (The Dominique) [1989] 2 W.L.R. 440; [1989] A.C.
1056 (H.L.) ...................................................... 2.36, 13.65, 13.66, 13.67, 13.69, 13.87, 13.107, 13.112, 26.65, 31.2
Comalco Aluminium v. Nogal Freight Services, 113 A.L.R. 677 ............................................................................. 85.36
Commercial SS. Co v. Boulton (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B. 346.......................................................................................... 16.16
Commissioner for New Towns v. Cooper (G.B.) [1995] Ch. 259 ............................................................................... 1.76
Commonwealth & Dominion Line v. Laery Beveridge [1928] N.Z.L.R. 141 ......................................................... 85.333
Commonwealth of Australia v. Amaan Aviation (1991) 66 A.L.J.R. 123................................................................. 21.16
Commonwealth Smelting v. Guardian Royal Exchange Insurance [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 121; aff’g
[1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 608..................................................................................................................................... 58.5
Compagnie Algerienne v. Katana Soc. (The Nizeti) [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 132 (C.A.); [1958] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 325................................................................................................................... 1.123, 11.41, 11.45, 11.46, 11.47
Compagnie Commerciale Sucres et Denrées v. Czarnikow (The Naxos) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 29............................ 7.2
Compagnie Continentale d’Importation v. U.S.S.R. Handelsvertretung in Deutschland (1928) 30 Ll. L.
Rep. 140 ............................................................................................................................................................... 15.53
Compagnie Tunisienne de Navigation v. Compagnie d’Armement [1971] A.C. 572 (H.L.)............................. 1.30, 1.36
Compania Argentina de Pesca v. Eagle Oil (1939) 65 Ll. L. Rep. 158 ....................................................................... 60.3
Compania Colombiana de Seguros v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co. [1965] 1 Q.B. 101 ....................................... 85.185
Compania Crystal de Vapores v. Herman & Mohatta (The Maria G.) [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 616.... 15.17, 15.19, 15.71
Compania de Naviera Nedelka S.A. v. Tradax International (The Tres Flores) [1973] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 247; [1974] Q.B. 264......................................................................... 15.39, 15.41, 15.42, 15.127, 19.16, 19.18
liv
Compania Importadora de Arroces Collette y Kamp v. P.& O. Steam Navigation (1927) 28 Ll. L. Rep. 63........ 85.137
Compania Maritima Basilio v. Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (The Eurysthenes) [1976]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171............................................................................................................................................. 85.425
Compania Naviera Azuero v. British Oil and Cake Mills [1957] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 312.............................................. 15.17
Compania Naviera General v. Kerametal (The Lorna I) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 373 (C.A.); [1981] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 559...................................................................................................... 13.56, 13.88, 13.107, 13.115, 26.65, 31.3
Compania Naviera Maropan v. Bowaters Lloyd Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. (The Stork) [1955]
2 Q.B. 68 ................................................................................................... 5.2, 5.33, 5.41, 5.98, 5.113, 5.114, 21.136
Compania Naviera Termar v. Tradax Export S.A. (The Ante Topic) [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 566 ................ 15.68, 57.23
Compania Naviera Vasconzada v. Churchill & Sim [1906] 1 K.B. 237 (C.A.)............................... 13.118, 18.16, 18.24,
18.181, 18.188, 18.236
Compania Portorafti Commerciale S.A. v. UItramar Panama Inc. (The Captain Gregos) (No. 1) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
310 (C.A.) ................................................... 85.84, 85.116, 85.119, 85.174, 85.188, 85.205, 85.467, 85.469, 85.471
Compania Portorafti Commerciale S.A. v. UItramar Panama Inc. (The Captain Gregos) (No. 2)
[1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 395.................................................................................................................... 18.112, 85.468
Compania Primera v. Compania Arrendataria [1940] 1 K.B. 362 ............................................................................. 12.36
Compania Sud American Vapores S.A. v. ER Hamburg Schiffs. [2006] E.W.H.C. 483 (Comm); [2006]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 66 ................................................................ 6.35, 11.10, 11.11, 11.17, 11.31, 85.16, 85.100, 85.277
Compania Sud American Vapores S.A. v. Sinochem Tianjin Import and Export Corporation
(The Aconcagua) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 upheld [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 683 .................6.53, 11.18, 11.28, 11.31,
11.34, 85.98, 85.276, 85.277, 85.431, 85.446, 85.458, 85.459
Comyn Ching v. Oriental Tube [1979] B.L.R. 56 ...................................................................................................... 21.83
Concordia C., The (Rheinoel v. Huron Liberian) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 55............................................................. 21.97
Connolly Shaw v. Nordenfjeldske (1934) 49 Ll. L. Rep. 183 ........................................................................ 12.25, 12.26
Constantine Steamship Co. v. Imperial Smelting Corp. [1942] A.C. 154 ............................................................... 85.130
Constanza M., The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 505 ............................................................................................... 13.32, 13.35
Continental Fertilizer v. Pionier Shipping (The Pionier) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 223 ................... 85.183, 85.190, 85.193
Continental Grain v. Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (The Iran Bohonar) [1983]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 620............................................................................................................................................. 21.143
Cooke v. Wilson (1856) 1 C.B.(N.S.) 153........................................................................................................... 2.10, 2.12
Cooper Ewing & Co. v. Hamel & Horley (1923) 13 Ll. L. Rep. 590 21.14
Coral, The (Balli Trading v. Afalona Shipping Co.) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; [1992] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 158 ....................................................................................................................................... 14.39, 85.86, 85.112
Coral Rose, The [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 563 ..................................................................................... 2.23, 2.39, 2.40, 2.43
Corcoran v. Gurney (1853) 1 E. & B. 456 ............................................................................................................... 85.294
Coreck Maritime v. Handelsveem [2000] E.C.R. I–9337 .......................................................................................... 85.27
Corkling v. Massey (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 395 ................................................................................................................... 4.6
Cornelius (E.G.) & Co. v. Christos Maritime (The Christos) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 106 ................................. 3.12, 3.16
Corrado Societa Anonima di Navigazione v. Exporthleb (1932) 43 Ll. L. Rep. 509................................................ 15.18
Corrie v. Coulthard (1877) 3 Asp. M.L.C. 546n ........................................................................................................ 20.21
Cory v. Burr (1893) 8 App. Cas. 393 ....................................................................................................................... 85.307
Cory Bros. v. Baldan [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 58........................................................................................................... 23.9
Cosemar v. Marimarna Shipping Co. (The Mathew) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 323 .......................................... 13.39, 13.40
Cosmar Compania Naviera S.A. v. Total Transport Corp. (The Isabelle) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 366; aff’g [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 ........................................................... 5.6, 5.10, 5.85, 23.1, 57.11, 85.355
Cosmos Bulk Transport v. China National Foreign Trade Transportation (The Apollonius)
[1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 53 ......................................................................................... 3.4, 3.26, 3.27, 3.35, 3.36, 11.80
Coulthurst v. Sweet (1866) L.R. 1 C.P. 649 ................................................................................................................. 13.9
Count, The (Independent Petroleum Group Ltd v. Seacarriers Count Pte. Ltd) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 72.................5.93
Courtney v. Tolaini [1975] 1 W.L.R. 297 .................................................................................................................... 1.10
Couturier v. Hastie (1856) 5 H.L.C. 673 ...................................................................................................................... 1.65
Coventry Sheppard & Co. v. Larrinaga SS. Co. (1942) 73 Ll. L. Rep. 256............................................................ 85.250
Cox v. Bruce (1886) 18 Q.B.D. 147 (C.A.) ......................................................................................... 18.31, 18.37, 18.38
Coxwold, The [1942] A.C. 691................................................................................................................................... 26.33
Craig v. Blackater [1923] S.C. 472................................................................................................................................. 2.5
Crawford & Law v. Allen [1912] A.C. 150................................................................................................................ 18.21
Cremer v. General Carriers [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 366 ................................................................................ 18.17, 18.109
Crippen (G.E.) & Associates v. Vancouver Tug Boat Co. [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 207 ............................. 85.337, 85.341
Crookewit v. Fletcher (1857) 1 H. & N. 893.................................................................................................................. 4.4
Crooks v. Allen (1879) 5 Q.B.D. 38..................................................................................................... 18.45, 20.48, 20.49
Crossfield v. Kyle [1916] 2 K.B. 885 ......................................................................................................................... 18.33
Croudace v. Cawood [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 55 ............................................................................................ 21.40, 85.248
lv
Crudesky, The (Great Elephant Corp. v. Trafigura Beheer BV) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 503; [2013]
EWCA Civ 905 ...........................................................................................................1.112, 6.59, 7.14, 15.28, 21.42
Crusader, The [1907] P. 196 ......................................................................................................................................... 1.91
Cullen v. Butler (1816) 5 M. & S. 461 ..................................................................................................................... 85.286
Cullinane v. British Rema Manufacturing [1954] 1 Q.B. 292 ..................................................................................... 21.4
Cummins v. Shell International Manning Services. See Anderton v. Clwyd CC
Cunard v. Hyde (1859) 29 L.J.Q.B. 6........................................................................................................................... 1.55
Cunard SS. Co. v. Buerger [1927] A.C. 1 .................................................................................................................. 12.25
Cunningham v. Dunn (1878) 3 C.P.D. 443 ......................................................................................................... 7.8, 11.41
Curfew, The [1891] P. 131............................................................................................................................................ 6.12
Curtis v. Wild [1991] 4 All E.R. 172........................................................................................................................ 85.273
Cuthbert v. Cumming (1855) L.R. 11 Ex. 405 ............................................................................................................... 6.6
Czarnikow v. Koufos (The Heron II) [1969] 1 A.C. 350 (H.L.) ............................................ 21.32, 21.33, 21.39, 21.123
DC Merwestone, The (Versloot Dredging BV v. HDI-Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG)
[2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 131 .................................................................85.98, 85.285, 85.286, 85.287, 85.288, 85.291
DGM Commodities Corp.oration v. Sea Metropolitan S.A. (The Andra) [2012] Lloyd’s Rep. 587 ........................14.37
Daewoo Heavy Industries v. Klipriver Shipping (The Kapitan Petko Voivoda) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 1 .................................................................................... 6.31, 12.32, 12.40, 12.45, 85.9, 85.71, 85.119, 85.174,
85.175, 85.207, 85.364, 85.368, 85.380, 85.401, 85.423
Daffodil B., The (Danae Shipping Co. v. T.P.A.O. and Guven Turkish Insurance Co.) [1983]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 498 ................................................................................................................................. 12.15, 85.360
Dagmar, The (Tage Berglund v. Montoro Shipping Corp.) [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 563........................... 5.83, 5.84, 5.97
Dahl v. Nelson (1880) 6 App. Cas. 38; rev’g Nelson v. Dahl (1879) 12 Ch. D. 568 .............................. 5.26, 5.28, 5.90,
5.91, 5.92, 5.102, 10.8, 14.5
Dairy Containers v. Tasman Orient Line (The Tasman Discoverer) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 528 (N.Z.C.A.); [2003] 3 N.Z.L.R. 353; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 647...................... 1.112, 85.2, 85.86, 85.223,
85.226, 85.238, 85.371
Dakin v. Oxley (1864) 15 C.B.(N.S.) 646.......................................................................... 13.2, 13.5, 13.27, 13.63, 13.82
Dalwood Marine v. Nordana Line A/S (The Elbrus) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 315 ..............................................21.1, 21.7
Damon v. Hapag Lloyd (The Blankenstein) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 93; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 522 ................ 1.14, 83.3
Dampsk. S/S Svendborg v. L.M.S. Railway [1930] 1 K.B. 83 .................................................................................. 10.10
Dampskib. “Norden” v. Andre [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 287 ...................................................... 21.7, 21.12, 21.56, 85.393
Danae Shipping Co. v. T.P.A.O. and Guven Turkish Insurance Co. (The Daffodil B.) [1983]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 498 ................................................................................................................................. 12.15, 85.360
Danah, The (Kuwait Maritime Transport v. Rickmers Line) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 351.................................. 6.34, 6.35
Daneborg v. White Sea Timber (1935) 51 Ll. L. Rep. 338.......................................................................................... 27.5
Daniel (H.E.) v. Carmel [1953] 2 Q.B. 242.................................................................................................................. 82.1
Daniels v. Harris (1874) L.R. 10 C.P. 1 ....................................................................................................................... 6.33
Daniolos v. Bunge (1938) 62 Ll. L. Rep. 65; aff’g (1937) 59 Ll. L. Rep. 175 ......................................................... 20.22
Darfur, The [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 469 ........................................................................................................................ 76.3
Darling v. Raeburn [1907] 1 K.B. 846 (C.A.); [1906] 1 K.B. 572 .............................................................................. 6.10
Darrah, The (Aldebaran Compania Maritima v. Aussenhandel A.G.) [1977] A.C. 157 ....................... 15.57, 15.58, 33.2
Darya Radhe, The (Bunge S.A. v. ADM Do Brasil Ltda) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 175 ............................6.52, 6.59, 6.62,
85.431, 85.433, 85.434
Darya Tara, The (L.D. Seals v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 42............................................... 6.36, 6.40
Data Card Corporation v. Air Express International Corporation [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 ....................85.404, 85.405
Datec Electronic Holdings v. UPS [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 279................................................................................ 85.236
Daval Aciers d’Usinor v. Armare s.r.l. (The Nerano) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1.................................... 18.54, 18.56, 46.4
Daventry D.C. v. Daventry Housing [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1333 ........................................................................................1.74
David Agmashenebeli, The [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 92........... 5.10, 18.22, 18.23, 18.97, 85.144, 18.179, 18.181, 85.338
Davies v. Taylor [1974] A.C. 297 ...............................................................................................................................21.43
Davis v. Capel [1959] N.Z.L.R. 825 .............................................................................................................................2.16
Davis v. Garrett (1830) 6 Bing. 716 ....................................................................................................... 12.1, 12.30, 12.42
Davis Contractors v. Fareham U.D.C. [1956] A.C. 696 ........................................................................ 22.1, 22.14, 26.80
Dawson Line v. Adler [1932] 1 K.B. 433 ......................................................................... 18.201, 18.207, 18.219, 18.232
De Mattos v. Gibson (1858) 4 De G. & J. 276 .................................................................................. 2.36, 21.141, 21.144
De Meza v. Apple [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 498 (C.A.); [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 508................................................... 21.69
Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemicals v. I.C.I. [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 38 ..................................................... 21.40, 85.248
Delfini, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 252; [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 599.................................................. 1.38, 18.94, 18.150
Delian Spirit, The (Shipping Developments Corp. v. V/O Sojuzneftexport) [1972] 1 Q.B. 103.................... 5.69, 15.45,
16.13, 16.15, 19.16, 21.26, 59.3
Delos, The [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 703 .......................................................................................... 18.51, 18.56, 46.4, 82.1
lvi
Democritos, The (Marbienes Compania Naviera S.A. v. Ferrostaal A.G.) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 149 ............ 4.12, 19.2
Demosthenes V, The (Gerani Compania Naviera v. General Organisation for Supply Goods) [1982]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 275 ................................................................................................................................... 15.43, 16.18
Den Norske Afrika Linie v. Port Said Salt Association (1924) 20 Ll. L. Rep. 184 ......................................... 19.7, 19.29
Den Norske Bank v. Acemex Management (The Tropical Reefer) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ..................................... 2.36
Den of Airlie v. Mitsui (1912) 17 Co. Cas. 116 ....................................................................................................... 21.126
Dene SS. Co. Ltd. v. Mann, George & Co. (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 846 ..................................................................... 13.93
Denfleet International v. TNT Global SpA [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 504 ...................................................................85.422
Dennis v. Cork SS. Co. [1913] 2 K.B. 393 ..................................................................................................... 10.19, 13.74
Denny, Mott v. Fraser [1944] A.C. 265...................................................................................................................... 22.11
Denny, Mott & Dickson v. Lynn Shipping Co. [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 339 ................................................ 85.89, 85.199
Dent v. Glen Line (1940) 45 Com. Cas. 244................................................................................................. 18.18, 85.142
Derby, The (Alfred C. Toepfer Schiffahrtsgesellschaft G.m.b.H. v. Tossa Marine Co. Ltd.) [1985]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325; [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 635.............................................................. 11.34, 11.40, 11.66, 21.113
Derby Resources A.G. v. Blue Corinth Marine Co. (The Athenian Harmony) [1998]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 410.............................................................. 21.110, 21.113, 21.124, 85.120, 85.386, 85.389, 85.392
Despina R., The. See Folias, The
Deutsche Schachtbau v. S.I.T. [1990] 1 A.C. 295, 312–316 (CA); rev’d on another ground 323 ............................. 1.29
Deverill v. Burnell (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 475 .................................................................................................................21.22
Devon, The (CHS Inc. Iberia SL v. Far East Marine S.A.) [2012] EWHC 3747 (Comm) ..............................9.5, 21.124
Diamond, The [1906] P. 282........................................................................................................................ 85.263, 85.282
Diamond Alkali v. Bourgeois [1921] 3 K.B. 443..................................................................................................... 18.147
Diana Prosperity, The (Reardon Smith Line v. Hansen Tangen) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 621 (H.L.);
[1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 60 (C.A.)............................................................................................. 1.95, 1.96, 3.2, 3.5, 4.3
Dias, The (Dias Compania Naviera v. Louis Dreyfus) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 325 .................................................... 16.3
Dias Compania Naviera v. Louis Dreyfus (The Dias) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 325 ..................................................... 16.3
Dickenson v. Lano (1860) 2 F. & F. 188 ........................................................................................................ 13.33, 13.35
Didymi v. Atlantic Lines [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 108 ......................................................................................... 1.10, 1.11
Didymi, The, and the Leon [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 583 ............................................................................................... 4.19
Die Elbinger A.G. v. Armstrong (1874) L.R. 9 Q.B. 473 .......................................................................................... 21.80
Dimech v. Corlett (1858) 12 Moo. P.C. 199 ........................................................................................ 21.92, 21.134, 83.2
Dimitris L, The (Global Maritime Investments Ltd v. STX Pan Ocean Co. Ltd) [2012]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 354 40.1, 62.2
Dimond v. Lovell [2002] 1 A.C. 384.......................................................................................................................... 21.46
Dimskal Shipping v. International Transport Workers’ Federation (The Evia Luck) [1992] 2 A.C. 152 ................. 1.87,
1.89, 1.93
Dixon v. Sadler (1839) 5 M. & W. 305...................................................................................................................... 11.48
Dobell v. Rossmore [1895] 2 Q.B. 408 ........................................................................................................................ 72.2
Dollar v. Blood, Holman (1920) 4 Ll. L. Rep. 343 ...................................................................................................... 58.7
Dolphin Hellas v. Itemslot (The Aegean Dolphin) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 178........................................................... 3.38
Dolphin Tanker SRL v. Westport Petroleum Inc. (The Savina Caylyn) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 550 .........................3.29
Dolphina, The [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 304 .............................................1.27, 18.50, 18.83, 18.97, 18.169, 85.27, 85.190
Domett v. Beckford (1883) 5 B. & Ad. 521 ............................................................................................................... 13.33
Dominator, The (Louis Dreyfus v. Parnaso Compania Naviera S.A.) [1960] 2 Q.B. 49; [1959] 1 Q.B. 498;
[1959] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 125 ................................................................................. 1.106, 3.25, 6.18, 11.2, 11.15, 11.69
Dominion Coal v. Roberts (1920) 4 Ll. L. Rep. 434.................................................................................................. 22.32
Dominion Mosaics v. Trafalgar Trucking [1990] 2 All E.R. 246................................................................... 21.57, 21.58
Dominique, The (Colonial Bank v. European Grain & Shipping) [1989] 2 W.L.R. 440; [1989] A.C.
1056 (H.L.).................................................................... 2.36, 13.65, 13.66, 13.67, 13.69, 13.87, 13.112, 26.65, 31.2
Dora, The (Cantiere Navale Triestina v. Russian Soviet Naphtha Export Agency) [1925] 2 K.B. 172 (C.A.) ........ 15.71
Double Happiness, The (Front Carriers v. Atlantic & Orient Shipping Corp.) [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 131 .................2.3
Dow Chemical (Nederland) v. B.P. Tanker Co. (The Vorras) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 579 (C.A.) ........................... 15.16
Dow Europe S.A. v. Novoklav Inc. [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 306........................................................................... 5.9, 5.47
Dresser U.K. v. Falcongate Freight Management [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 557 ........................................................ 85.187
Dreyfus (Louis) v. Parnaso Compania Naviera S.A. (The Dominator) [1960] 2 Q.B. 49 (C.A.);
rev’g [1959] 1 Q.B. 498; [1959] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 125 ....................................... 1.106, 3.25, 6.18, 11.2, 11.15, 11.69
Dreyfus v. Lauro (1938) 60 Ll. L. Rep. 984 .............................................................................. 4.9, 4.10, 4.13, 4.14, 4.18
Dreyfus v. Tempus Shipping [1931] A.C. 762..................................................................................... 11.17, 20.41, 20.42
Drughorn v. Red. Transatlantic [1919] A.C. 203 ......................................................................................................... 2.17
Dry Bulk Handy Holding Inc. v. Fayette International Holdings Ltd (The Bulk Chile) [2013]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 47 .................................................................................................................................................13.45
Du Pont de Nemours (E.I.) v. Agnew [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 585............................................................................... 1.31
lvii
Duden, The (Sotrade Denizcilik v. Amadou Lo) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 145 ................................................18.60, 18.67
Dugdale v. Lovering (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 196 ......................................................................................................... 18.223
Dumford Trading A.G. v. OAO Atlantrybflot [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 289.................................................................... 2.3
Duncan v. Koster (The Teutonia) (1871) L.R. 4 P.C. 171 ................... 5.51, 5.54, 5.55, 5.65, 5.67, 5.103, 12.12, 85.358
Dunelmia, The (President of India v. Metcalfe Shipping Co.) [1970] 1 Q.B. 289; [1969] 2 Q.B. 123................... 17.45,
17.47, 18.2, 18.208, 70.4, 85.67, 85.482
Dunlop v. Lambert (1839) 6 Cl. & F. 600................................................................................................................ 21.127
Dunlop v. New Garage & Motor Co. [1915] A.C. 79 .............................................................................................. 21.132
Dunn v. Bucknall Bros. [1902] 2 K.B. 614 ................................................................................................. 21.123, 85.316
Dupont de Nemours v. SS. Mormacvega [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 296 ..................................................................... 85.358
Durham Tees Valley Airport Ltd v. bmibaby Ltd [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68 .........21.1, 21.5, 21.19, 21.22, 21.23, 21.25
Duthie v. Hilton (1868) L.R. 4 C.P. 138 (Ex. Ch.) .............................................................................. 13.75, 13.82, 13.83
E.D.& F. Man Sugar Ltd. v. Unicargo Transport GmbH [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 660 ......................................15.28, 58.8
ENE Kos 1 Ltd v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (No. 2) [2012] 2 A.C. 164 ..........................................................17.37, 17.38
Eagle Valencia, The (AET v. Arcadia Petroleum Ltd.) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 257 (C.A.) ...........................15.45, 16.21
Ease Faith Ltd v. Leonis Marine Management Ltd (The Kent Reliant) [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 673 ............................9.5
East West Corp v. DKBS 1912 [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 182; [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 239.................... 1.47, 18.78, 18.80,
18.83, 18.85, 18.89, 18.92, 18.115, 18.118, 18.136, 18.146, 18.170
Eastern City, The (Leeds Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Société Française Bunge) [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127
(C.A.); aff’g [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 153........................................................ 5.58, 5.61, 5.71, 5.124, 21.135, 21.137
Eastern Navigator, The (Bernuth Lines v. High Seas Shipping) [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 537 ........................ 5.15, 85.196
Easybiz Investments v. Sinograin (The Biz) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 688 ................................................................85.196
Edler v. Auerbach [1950] 1 K.B. 359 ........................................................................................................................... 1.56
Edmond, The (1860) Lush. 57 .................................................................................................................................... 13.54
Eeems Solar, The (Yuzhny Zavod Metall Profil LLC v. Eems Beheerder B.V.) Queen’s Bench Division,
Admiralty Court, 5 June 2013 ................................................................................................................14.39, 85.100
Effort Shipping v. Linden Management (The Giannis N.K.) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 337 (H.L.); [1998]
A.C. 605; [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 577 (C.A.); [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 ............... 5.66, 6.49, 6.52, 18.79, 18.100,
18.105, 85.9, 85.158, 85.354, 85.355, 85.431, 85.433, 85.434, 85.439, 85.443, 85.447, 85.449, 85A.56
Efploia Shipping Corp. v. Canadian Transport (The Pantanassa) [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449............................. 4.8, 33.8
Egon Oldendorff v. Libera Corporation [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 380 ........................................ 1.28,1.30, 1.35, 1.36, 1.47
El Ajou v. Dollar Land Holdings [1994] 2 All E.R. 685 .............................................................................. 11.55, 85.283
El Amria, The [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 119.................................................................................................................. 85.25
El Greco (Australia) v. Mediterranean Shipping Co. [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 537 (F.C. Aust) ..................... 21.124, 85.9,
85.36, 85.139, 85.237, 85.377, 85.378, 85.379, 85.381, 85.385, 85.395, 85.402, 85.408, 85.409, 85.411
Elbe Maru, The (Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. International Import and Export Co.) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 206 ..... 18.137,
85.472
Elbrus, The (Dalwood Marine v. Nordana Line A/S) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 315 ......................................................21.1
Elder Dempster v. Dunn (1909) 15 Com. Cas. 49 (H.L.) ................................................. 18.201, 18.219, 18.231, 85.138
Elder Dempster v. Paterson Zochonis [1924] A.C. 522 ................................................................... 85.62, 85.224, 85.468
Elder Dempster & Co. Ltd. v. Paterson Zochonis & Co. Ltd. See Paterson Zochonis & Co. Ltd. v.
Elder Dempster & Co. Ltd.
Elderslie SS. Co. v. Borthwick [1905] A.C. 93 .......................................................................... 1.114, 68.6, 69.2, 85.261
Electrosteel Castings v. Scan-Trans Shipping and Chartering [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 190.................................... 2.2, 2.7
Elena, The (Elena Shipping v. Aidenfield Ltd.) [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 425................. 13.21, 13.23, 13.63, 13.64, 13.67
Elena d’Amico, The (Koch Marine v. D’Amico Soc. di Nav.) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 75........... 21.5, 21.7, 21.9, 21.12,
21.41, 21.53, 21.98, 21.113
Elena Shipping v. Aidenfield Ltd. (The Elena) [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 425.................. 13.21, 13.23, 13.63, 13.64, 13.67
Elexalde, The (Armada Lines v. Naviera Maropan S.A.) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 485 .............................................. 25.16
Elikon, The (Internaut Shipping v. Fercometal Sarl) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 430 .........................................2.3, 2.9, 2.10
Ellawood v. Ford & Co. (1922) 12 Ll. L. Rep. 347 ........................................................................................ 13.51, 13.97
Ellerman v. Lancaster (The Lancaster) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 497.................................................................... 17.1, 79.3
Ellerman Lines v. Gibbs (The City of Colombo) (1986) 26 D.L.R. 161; 1986 A.M.C. 2217
(Can. Fed. Ct. App. 1986) ........................................................................................................................ 20.31, 20.76
Elli and the Frixos, The (Golden Fleece Maritime v. ST Shipping & Transport) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 262, upheld [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 119 ...........................................................................................11.27, 11.40
Elli 2, The [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 107 ........................................................................................... 18.109, 18.110, 18.112
Ellis Shipping Corp. v. Voest Alpine Intertrading (The Lefthero) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 (C.A.); [1991]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 599 ................................................................ 13.29, 13.79, 13.113, 15.24, 15.38, 15.72, 57.27, 69.2
Elpidoforos v. Furness Withy (The Oinoussian Friendship) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 258 ...... 15.72, 15.73, 21.48, 21.108
Elpis v. Marti [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 311....................................................................................................................... 2.5
Elvin & Powell v. Plummer Roddis (1933) 33 T.L.R. 158...................................................................................... 18.122
lviii
Embiricos v. Tradax [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 464 ........................................................................................................ 14.50

Emeraldian Ltd Partnership v. Wellmix Shipping Ltd (The Vine) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301; [2011]
L.M.C.L.Q. 23 ..............................................................................5.15, 5.64, 5.93, 5.116, 15.14, 15.28, 15.30, 15.49
Emilien Marie, The (1875) 44 L.J. Adm. 9 .................................................................................................................. 1.71
Emmanuel C., The [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 310........................................................................................................... 1.112
Empresa Cubana Importada de Alimentos v. Iasmos Shipping Co. (The Good Friend) [1984]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 586........................................................................ 11.18, 11.23, 11.30, 11.33, 21.124, 85.96, 85.335
Empresa Exportadora De Azucar v. Industria Azucarera Nacional (The Playa Larga) [1983]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171................................................................................................................................................. 22.1
Encounter Express, The (Sellers Fabrics Pty. v. Hapag-Lloyd) (1998) N.S.W.S.C. 646; [1999]
L.M.C.L.Q. 412..................................................................................................................................... 85.106, 85.423
Energy Progress, The [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 355 ...................................................................................................... 24.16
Epaphus, The (Eurico S.p.A. v. Philipp Bros.) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 215; [1986] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 387 ............................................................................................................................................. 5.25, 6.11, 15.44
Epsilon Rosa, The [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 .................................................................................................. 18.61, 18.64
Epsilon Rosa, The (No. 2) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 701; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509 ................................................... 1.47
Erechthion, The (Newa Line v. Erechthion Shipping) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 180 .............................................. 5.6, 5.10
Eridania v. Rudolf A. Oetker (The Fjord Wind) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 191; [1999] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 307 ............................................................................. 11.25, 11.29, 52.5, 85.95, 85.97, 85.102, 85.109, 85.254
Eriksen v. Barkworth (1858) 3 H. & N. 601 .............................................................................................................. 10.19
Erin Schulte, The (Standard Chartered Bank v. Dorchester LNG (2)) [2013] EWHC 808 (Comm) ...........18.97, 18.164
Ert Stefanie, The (Société Anonyme des Minerais v. Grant Trading Inc.) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349................... 11.55,
11.56, 11.58, 11.61
Esmail v. J. Rosenthal & Sons [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 447........................................................................................ 21.14
Esmeralda I, The (Ace Imports v. Lloyd Brasileiro) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 206 (Aust. Ct.) ......... 18.26, 85.112, 85.139
Esso Petroleum v. Mardon [1976] Q.B. 801................................................................................................................. 4.19
Estasis Salotti v. RUWA [1976] E.C.R. I–1831 ......................................................................................................... 85.27
Et. Biret v. Yukiteru Kaiun K.K. (The Sun Happiness) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 381.......................................... 2.11, 2.12
Eternity, The (Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v. FR8 Singapore Pte Ltd)
[2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 107 ......................................................................................................................68.10, 85.276
Ethel Radcliffe SS. Co. v. Barnett (1926) 23 Ll. L. Rep. 279 ....................................................................................... 9.3
Ethiopian Oilseeds v. Rio del Mar [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 86...................................................................................... 82.1
Ethniki, The (AIG Europe v. Anonymous Greek Co. of General Insurance) [2000] 2 All E.R. 566 ..................... 85.190
Ets. Georges et Paul Levy v. Adderley Navigation (The Olympic Pride) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 67 ......................... 1.74
Ettrick, The (1881) 6 P.D. 127.................................................................................................................................... 20.41
Eugenia, The [1964] 2 Q.B. 226 (C.A.) ................................................................ 22.3, 22.14, 22.21, 22.27, 22.28, 22.35
Eugenia Chandris, The (Chandris v. Union of India) [1956] 1 W.L.R. 147; [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 11
(C.A.) .................................................................................................................................. 14.32, 14.33, 14.35, 26.70
Eurasian Dream, The (Papera Traders v. Hyundai Merchant Marine) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 719; [2002]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 692 .............................................. 11.25, 11.26, 11.33, 21.77, 21.78, 85.93, 85.94. 85.95, 85.98, 85.
109, 85.121, 85.254, 85.265, 85.282
Eurico S.p.A. v. Philipp Bros. (The Epaphus) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 215; [1986]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 387 ............................................................................................................................ 5.25, 6.11, 15.44
EuroStem Maritime Ltd [1987] B.C.C. 190.................................................................................................................. 2.45
Europa, The [1908] P. 84 ............................................................................................................................... 12.11, 85.254
European Enterprise, The (Browner International v. Monarch Shipping Co.) [1989] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 185.......................................................................................................................... 85.44, 85.66, 85.422, 85.436
Eurus, The (Total Transport v. Arcadia Petroleum) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 351 (C.A.); aff’g [1996]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 408........... 5.12, 5.18, 11.6, 11.64, 18.245, 21.37, 21.80, 21.119, 57.11, 59.4, 64.8, 85.448, 85.461
Eurymedon, The (New Zealand Shipping Co. v. A.M. Satterthwaite & Co.) [1975] A.C. 154; [1974]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 534 (P.C.) .................................................................. 18.137, 85.63, 85.224, 85.225, 85.471, 85.472
Eurysthenes, The (Compania Maritima Basilio v. Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association)
[1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171................................................................................................................................. 85.425
Evaggelos Th., The (Vardinoyannis v. The Egyptian General Petroleum Corp.) [1971]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 200 ..................................................................................................................... 5.40, 5.54, 5.68, 5.74
Evans v. Cunard (1902) 18 T.L.R. 374................................................................................................................ 12.6, 12.7
Evans v. Webster (1928) 34 Com. Cas. 172.................................................................................................... 18.13, 18.34
Evans & Son (Southampton) v. Andrea Merzario [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 165; [1976] 1 W.L.R. 1078 ........... 6.26, 6.31,
85.71
Evera S.A. Comercial v. North Shipping [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 367 ................... 4.4, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.17, 4.35,
4.36, 4.39, 11.74, 28.1
Evergreen v. Aldgate Warehouse [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 597 ........................................................................ 13.34, 18.78
lix
Evia, The (No. 2) (Kodros Shipping Corp. v. Empresa Cubana de Fletes) [1983] 1 A.C. 736 (H.L.);
[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 334; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 613 ............. 5.50, 5.51, 5.53, 5.55, 5.58, 5.66, 5.81, 5.87, 5.94,
5.95, 5.115, 21.109, 22.13, 22.15, 26.1, 26.32, 26.60, 26.78, 26.79, 27.19
Evia Luck, The (Dimskal Shipping v. International Transport Workers’ Federation) [1992] 2 A.C. 152 ........ 1.87, 1.89
Evje, The [1975] A.C. 797 ............................................................................................................................................ 82.1
Evje, The (Aaby’s Rederi v. Union of India) (No. 2) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 714; [1978] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 351 (C.A.)........................................................................................................................................... 11.37, 73.3
Evpo Agnic, The [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 411 ............................................................................................................... 2.46
Evryalos Maritime Ltd v. China Pacific Insurance Co. Ltd.( The Michael S) Q.B.D. (Com. Ct.), 20
December 2001, L.M.L.N. 579............................................................................................................................ 18.51
Exercise Shipping v. Bay Maritime Lines (The Fantasy) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 235.... 6.35, 29.2, 85.75, 85.79, 85.106
Exfin Shipping v. Tolaini Shipping [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 389 ....................................................................... 13.64, 82.2
Eximenco Handels A.G. v. Partrederiert Oro Chief (The Oro Chief) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509............................ 19.40
Exmar BV v. National Iranian Tanker Co. (The Trade Fortitude) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 169................................. 13.64
Express, The (1872) L.R. 3 A & E. 597 .......................................................................................................... 12.12, 12.15
Exxonmobil Sales & Supply Corp v. Texaco (The Helene Knutsen) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 686................................. 68
Faghirzadeh v. Wolff [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 630 ........................................................................................................ 82.1
Falck v. Williams [1900] A.C. 176 (P.C.) .................................................................................................................... 1.69
Falconbridge Nickel Mines v. Chimo Shipping (The Tindefjell) [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277; [1973]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 253 (Can. Ct.) ............................................................................................................. 85.374, 85A.36
Famosa Shipping v. Armada Bulk Carriers (The Fanis) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 633 ................................................ 21.49
Fanis, The (Famosa Shipping v. Armada Bulk Carriers ) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 633.............................................. 21.49
Fantasy, The (Exercise Shipping v. Bay Maritime Lines) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 235............... 6.35, 29.2, 85.75, 85.79,
85.106
Farenco Shipping Co. Ltd v. Daebo Shipping Co. Ltd (The Bremen Max) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 .....................10.4,
18.172, 21.139
Fearns (t/a Autopaint International) v. Anglo-Dutch Paint & Chemical Co. Ltd [2011] 1 W.L.R. 366 ...................13.63
Featherston v. Wilkinson (1873) L.R. 8 Ex. 122......................................................................................... 21.112, 21.121
Federal Bulk Carriers v. C. Itoh (The Federal Bulker) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 103 .......................... 18.49, 18.51, 18.129
Federal Bulker, The (Federal Bulk Carriers v. C. Itoh) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 103 ......................... 18.49, 18.51, 18.129
Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Molena Alpha (The Nanfri) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201;
[1979] A.C. 757; [1978] Q.B. 927 ................. 13.116, 13.117, 13.118, 18.61, 18.201, 18.203, 18.204, 18.215, 35.2
Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Tradax Export S.A. (The Maratha Envoy) [1978] A.C. 1;
[1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 301; [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 217 ............................................................... 1.123, 15.37, 15.57
Federal Huron, The [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 189 ....................................................................................................... 21.130
Federazione Italiana v. Federal Commerce (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 717........................................................................ 1.78
Felix, The (1868) L.R. 2 A. & E. 273 ............................................................................................................................ 5.5
Fercometal SARL v. Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A. (The Simona) [1989] A.C. 788 .................. 19.29, 19.30, 19.32,
21.16, 21.54
Ferdinand Retzlaff, The [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 120 ..................................................................................... 21.48, 21.108
Fergus Harris v. China Mutual SN [1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 500 ............................................................................... 85.335
Ferro, The [1893] P. 329 ........................................................................................................................................... 85.265
Ferruzzi France v. Oceania Maritime (The Palmea) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 261 ................................ 21.15, 21.18, 21.24
Ferryways v. Associated British Ports [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 639 ............................................................2.14, 2.15, 2.16
Fetim B.V. v. Oceanspeed Shipping (The Flecha) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 612.............................................. 18.69, 18.74
Fibrosa v. Fairbairn [1943] A.C. 32................................................................................................................... 22.8, 22.34
Fidelitas Shipping Co. Ltd. v. V/O Exportchleb [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 113.............................. 17.2, 17.7, 17.12, 17.14,
17.16, 17.45, 18.52, 18.64
Field v. Metropolitan Police Receiver [1907] 2 K.B. 853........................................................................................ 85.329
Filiatra Legacy, The (Anonima Petroli Italiana v. Marlucidez Armadora S.A.) [1991]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 337 (C.A.); rev’g [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 354........................................................ 60.5, 60.6, 85.127
Filikos, The (Filikos Shipping Corp. v. Shipmair B.V.) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 9........ 14.3, 14.54, 85.81, 85.89, 85.115
Filikos Shipping Corp. v. Shipmair B.V. (The Filikos) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 9......... 14.3, 14.54, 85.81, 85.89, 85.115
Fina Samco, The (International Fina Services v. Katrina Shipping) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 344 .................... 1.106, 52.2
Finelvet A.G. v. Vinava Shipping Co. (The Chrysalis) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 503 ...................................... 22.13, 26.31
Finix, The [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 415 ........................................................................................................................ 15.34
Finlay v. Liverpool and Great Western SS. Co. (1870) 23 L.T. 251 ....................................................................... 85.307
Finlay (James) & Co. v. Kwik Hoo Tong [1929]1 K.B. 400; aff’g [1928] 2 K.B. 604 ...................... 18.39, 18.43, 21.52
Finmoon Ltd v. Baltic Reefers Management Ltd [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 388 .........................2.7, 2.9, 2.10, 18.2, 18.45,
18.60, 18.81, 18.82, 18.83, 85.195
Finnrose, The (Fort Sterling v. South Atlantic Cargo Shipping) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 559 ................... 85.186, 85.187,
85.190, 85.191, 85.194
lx
Fiona, The (Mediterranean Freight Services v. B.P. Oil International) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 506 (C.A.);
aff’g [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 257 ................ 6.56, 6.60, 11.30, 85.94, 85.95, 85.96, 85.173, 85.254, 85.258, 85.355,
85.424, 85.431, 85.438, 85.448, 85.449, 85.454, 85.457, 85.460, 85.461
Fiona Trust & Holding Corp. v. Privalov [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 254 12.35, 46.5, 82.1
First Energy v. Hungarian International Bank [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 194......................................................... 2.28, 2.31
Fisher v. Val de Travers Asphalte (1876) 45 L.J.C.P. 479 ........................................................................................ 21.83
Fitzgerald v. Lona (Owners) (1932) 44 Ll. L. Rep. 212 ............................................................................................ 14.62
Fjord Wind, The (Eridania v. Rudolf A. Oetker) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 191; [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 307............. 11.25,
11.29, 52.5, 85.95, 85.97, 85.102, 85.109, 85.254
Fjordaas, The (K/S Arnt J. Moerland v. Kuwait Petroleum Corp.) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 336.................................................................................................................................. 57.9, 57.10, 59.3, 59.21
Flame S.A. v. Glory Wealth Shipping Pte. Ltd [2013] EWHC 3153 (Comm) 1.2, 21.1, 21.14
Flecha, The (Fetim B.V. v. Oceanspeed Shipping) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 612............................................. 18.69, 18.74
Fletcher v. Alexander (1868) L.R. 3 C.P. 375............................................................................................................ 20.35
Fletcher v. Sigurd Haavik (The Vikfrost) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 560 .................... 18.178, 18.203, 18.204, 18.205, 83.1
Flintermar, The (C V Scheepvaartonderneming Flintermar v Sea Malta Company Ltd) [2005]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 409 14.36
Florida, The [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ........................................................................................................................... 5.29
Flowergate, The (John v. Turnbull Scott Shipping Co.) [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1............. 85.98, 85.130, 85.333, 85.335
Foley v. Classique Coaches [1934] 2 K.B. 1................................................................................................................ 1.10
Folias, The, and the Despina R. (Services Europe Atlantique Sud v. Stockholms Rederiaktiebolaget)
[1979] A.C. 685 .................................................................................................................................... 21.128, 85.413
Fontevivo, The (Gem Shipping v. Babanaft) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 339 ...................................................... 15.72, 26.30
Food Corporation of India v. Achilles Halcoussis (The Petros Hadjikyriakos) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 56 .............. 15.43
Foreman and Ellams v. Federal Steam Navigation Co. [1928] 2 K.B. 424...................... 85.264, 85.277, 85.358, 85.360
Fornyade Red. Commercial v. Blake & Co. (The Varing) [1931] P. 79 ........................................................ 5.103, 14.62
Forsikringsaktieselskapet Vesta v. Butcher [1989] A.C. 852 (C.A.); [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 179........................... 5.100,
21.62, 21.63, 21.64, 21.66, 21.67, 21.69, 85.463
Fort Kipp, The (Canadian Pacific (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Lagon Maritime Overseas) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 168 13.78,
17.34
Fort Shipping v. Pederson (1924) 19 Ll. L. Rep. 26 ..................................................................................... 18.53, 85.151
Fort Sterling v. South Atlantic Cargo Shipping (The Finnrose) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 559 ................................. 85.186,
85.187, 85.191, 85.194
Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLC v. Blue Sky Special Opportunities Fund LP [2013]
EWCA Civ 367 .........................................................................................................................................2.38, 18.141
Forum Craftsman, The (Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Ierax Shipping Co.) [1991]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81................................................................................ 15.4, 15.14, 15.21, 15.23, 16.5, 18.130, 21.38
Forward v. Pittard (1785) 1 T.R. 2 ........................................................................................................................... 85.298
Foster v. Driscoll [1929] 1 K.B. 47 .............................................................................................................................. 1.58
Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines [1981] A.C. 251 ...................................................................................................... 85.426
Foy & Gibson Pty. v. Holyman & Sons Pty. (1946) 79 Ll. L. Rep. 339................................................................. 85.236
Fragano v. Long (1825) 4 B. & C. 219 ...................................................................................................................... 13.33
Frank Hammond v. Huddart Parker [1956] V.L.R. 496........................................................................................... 85.429
Fratelli Sorrentino v. Buerger [1915] 3 K.B. 367 (C.A.) ............................................................................................. 3.13
Frayes v. Worms (1865) 19 C.B.(N.S.) 159 ............................................................................................................... 20.33
Freedom General Shipping v. Tokai Shipping (The Khian Zephyr) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 73 ......... 85.15, 85.22, 85.59
Freedom Marine Corp. v. International Bulk Carriers (The Khian Captain) (No. 2) [1986] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 429 .................................................................................................................................................... 13.65, 13.68
Freeman v. Taylor (1831) 8 Bing. 124 ....................................................................................................................... 12.46
Freights Queen [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 140 ................................................................................................................. 1. 37
Freijo, The (Logs & Timber Products (Singapore) v. Keeley Granite Pty.) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1...................... 15.45
French v. Leeston Shipping [1922] 1 A.C. 451.................................................................................... 1.123, 24.16, 24.19
French v. Newgass (1878) 3 C.P.D. 163 .................................................................................................. 3.26, 3.27, 11.27
Frenkel v. MacAndrews [1929] A.C. 545 ................................................................................................ 12.6, 12.7, 12.18
Fresno City, The (Minister of Food v. Reardon Smith) [1951] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 265..................... 85.129, 85.254, 85.266
Frio Chile, The [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 182 .............................................................................................................. 85.398
Front Carriers v. Atlantic & Orient Shipping Corp. (The Double Happiness) [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 131 ..................2.3
Front Commander, The (Tidebrook Maritime Corp. v. Vitol) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 251 ................... 9.5, 15.32, 15.52,
15.56, 56.2, 57.1, 57.2
Frontier International Shipping Corp. v. Swissmarine Corporation Inc. (The Cape Equinox) [2005]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 390................................................................................................................................................. 25.5
Frost Express, The (Seatrade Groeningen v. Geest Industries) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 375 .............. 2.7, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13
lxi
Fry v. Chartered Mercantile Bank of India (1866) L.R. 1 C.P. 689 ............................................................... 17.21, 18.58
Furness v. Forwood (1897) 2 Com. Cas. 223 ............................................................................................................... 7.12
Furness Bridge, The (Seabridge v. Antco) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 367 ............................................................ 7.20, 15.27
Furness Withy v. Black Sea Shipping (The Roman Karmen) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 644 .................................. 6.9, 6.13
Furness Withy & Co. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Banco [1917] 2 K.B. 873.......................................................... 1.57, 85.311
Future Express, The [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 542 (C.A.); [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 279................................. 18.150, 18.155
Fyffes Group v. Reefer Express Lines (The Kriti Rex) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171....................... 1.2, 1.112, 9.4, 11.18,
11.19, 11.29, 21.32, 21.39, 21.47, 21.110, 21.116, 85.95, 85.102, 85.109, 85.392
Gadd v. Houghton (1876) L.R. 1 Ex. D. 357 ............................................................................................................... 2.10
Gadsden (J.) v. Australian Coastal Shipping Commission [1977] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 575............................................. 85.171
Galatia, The (Golodetz & Co. v. Czarnikow-Rionda Inc.) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 453; [1979] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 450 ................................................................................................................................................ 13.109, 85.142
Galaxy Energy International v. Bayoil (The Ama Ulgen) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 512 (C.A.) ................................ 85.476
Galaxy Energy International v. Novorossiysk Shipping (The Petr Schmidt) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1;
aff’g [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 284 .......................................................................................................................... 15.54
Galaxy Special Maritime Enterprise v. Prima Ceylon Ltd. (The Olympic Galaxy) (C.A.) [2006]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 27 ......................................................................................................................................... 20.2, 20.3
Galeries Segoura v. Bonakdarian [1976] E.C.R. I–1851............................................................................................ 85.27
Galileo, The [1914] P. 9................................................................................................................................................ 6.34
Galoo Ltd v. Bright Grahame Murray [1994] 1 W.L..R. 1360 21.42
Gamac v. Faure & Fairclough [1968] A.C. 1130 ......................................................................................................... 2.23
Garbis Maritime v. Philippine National Oil (The Garbis) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 283 ............................... 18.53, 18.186,
18.187, 18.191, 18.201, 18.239, 70.3, 85.140
Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v. China National Chartering Co. Ltd (The Ocean Victory) [2013]
EWHC 2199 ......................................................................................................................5.58, 5.82, 5.94, 5.98, 5.99
Garden City, The [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 382....................................................................................... 11.56, 11.62, 11.63
Gardner & Sons v. Trechmann (1884) 15 Q.B.D. 154.................................................................................... 17.20, 18.58
Gardner v. Marsh & Parsons [1996] 1 W.L.R. 489.................................................................................................... 21.49
Garnac Grain Co. v. Faure & Fairclough [1968] A.C. 1130; [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 495 ............................... 2.23, 21.53
Garnat Trading & Shipping v. Baominh Insurance [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 589 ................................11.25, 11.50, 85.109
Garston. See Sailing Ship Garston Company v. Hickie, Borman & Co.
Gatewhite v. Iberia Lineas Aereas de España [1990] 1 Q.B. 326.............................................................................. 18.92
Gatliffe v. Bourne (1838) 4 Bing. N.C. 314; (1841) 3 M. & G. 643; (1844) 7 M. & G. 850, 11 Cl. & F. 45........... 10.4
Gatoil International v. Tradex Petroleum (The Rio Sun) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 350......................... 5.14, 52.24, 85.336
Geipel v. Smith (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 404........................................................................................................ 22.13, 85.312
Geldof Metaalconstructie v. Simon Carves [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 517 ....................................................................13.63
Gem Shipping v. Babanaft (The Fontevivo) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 339 ....................................................... 15.72, 26.30
General Capinpin, The (President of India v. Jebsens (U.K.)) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; [1989]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 232 ................................................................................................................................... 15.12, 15.43
General Feeds v. Burnham Shipping (The Amphion) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101 .................. 6.48, 6.60, 18.222, 85.436
General Feeds Inc. v. Slobodna Plovidba (The Krapan J.) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 688 ................................. 21.85, 21.86
General Steam Navigation Co. v. Guillou (1843) 11 M. & W. 877 .......................................................................... 11.54
General Trading Co. v. Richmond Corp. [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 475 ......................................................................21.132
Geofizika DD v. MMB International Ltd Greenshields Cowie & Co. Ltd (The Green Island) [2010]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .........................................................................................................................................6.25, 85.72
Geogas v. Trammo Gas (The Baleares) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 215 (C.A.); [1990] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 130.............................................................................................................. 4.5, 4.11, 4.18, 21.32, 21.121, 52.11
George S., The (Amoco v. Parpada Shipping) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 369 (C.A.); rev’g [1987]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 69 ............................................................................................................................ 60.5, 60.6, 85.127
Georges C. Lemos, The [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 107................................................................................................. 18.222
Georgian Maritime Corp. v. Sealand Industries (Bermuda) (The North Sea) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 21
(C.A.); [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 324............................................................................ 19.8, 19.19, 19.25, 19.26, 19.32
Gerani Compania Naviera v. General Organisation for Supply Goods (The Demosthenes V) [1982]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 275 ................................................................................................................................... 15.43, 16.18
Gesellschaft Bürgerlichen Rechts v. Stockholms Rederiaktiebolag Svea (The Brabant) [1965]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 546 .................................................................................................. 1.115, 11.33, 11.52, 11.77, 11.78
Gevalia, The (Aktiebolaget Nordiska Lloyd v. J. Brownlie & Co.) (1925) 30 Com. Cas. 307 ..................... 19.11, 19.15
Gewa Chartering B.V. v. Remco Shipping Lines Ltd (The Remco) [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 205 ............................... 2.20
Giannis N.K., The (Effort Shipping v. Linden Management) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 337 (H.L.); [1998]
A.C. 605; [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 577 (C.A.); [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 ............... 5.66, 6.49, 6.52, 18.79, 18.100,
18.105, 85.9, 85.158, 85.354, 85.355, 85.431, 85.433, 85.434, 85.439, 85.443, 85A.56
Gibaud v. Great Eastern Railway [1921] 2 K.B. 426 ................................................................................................. 12.44
lxii
Gibraltar (Government of) v. Kenney [1956] 2 Q.B. 410 ............................................................................................ 82.1

Gibson v. Crick (1862) 1 H. & C. 142 ......................................................................................................................... 24.1
Gibson v. Sturge (1855) 10 Exch. 622.......................................................................................................................... 13.5
Gilford Motor Company Limited v. Horne [1933] 1 Ch. 935...................................................................................... 2.43
Gill & Duffus S.A. v. Rionda Futures Ltd [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 67 .......................................................................15.46
Gill & Duffus S.A. v. Scruttons [1953] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 545...................................................................................... 10.16
Giovanna, The (Gulf Interstate Oil v. Ant Trade & Transport) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 867 ..................................... 18.87
Glaholm v. Hays (1841) 2 M. & G. 257......................................................................................................................... 4.4
Glasgow Navigation v. Howard (1910) 15 Com. Cas. 88.......................................................................................... 14.18
Gledstanes v. Allen (1852) 12 C.B. 202 ................................................................................................................... 18.208
Glencore Grain Ltd. v. Agros Trading Co. [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 410........................................................ 13.63, 85.414
Glencore Grain Ltd. v. Flacker Shipping Ltd. (The Happy Day) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 754; [2002]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 487 ............................................................................................................. 15.31, 15.49, 15.52, 15.56
Glencore Grain Ltd. v. Goldbeam Shipping Inc. (The Mass Glory) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 244 ................. 15.31, 15.62,
21.34, 21.78, 21.82
Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. v. Lebanese Organisation for International Commerce [1997]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 386............................................................................................................................................. 13.116
Glencore International AG v. Owners of the Cherry, the Epic and the Addax (The Cherry) [2003]
1 S.L.R. 471 .......................................................................................................................................................18.165
Glendarroch, The [1894] P. 226 ........................................................................... 85.113, 85.131, 85.261, 85.262, 85.290
Glenfruin, The (1885) 10 P.D. 103 ............................................................................................................................... 73.5
Glenochil, The [1896] P. 10......................................................................................................................... 85.264, 85.270
Glory Wealth Shipping v. Korea Line Corp. (The Wren) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 370 ................................................21.7
Glyn Mills Currie & Co. v. East and West India Dock Co. (1882) 7 App. Cas. 591 ................... 18.142, 18.149, 18.162
Glynn v. Margetson [1893] A.C. 351 (H.L.) ............................................ 1.116, 6.26, 12.7, 12.17, 12.18, 12.19, 18.168,
26.53, 26.54, 26.55, 78.2, 85.230, 85.359
Global Maritime Investments Ltd v. STX Pan Ocean Co. Ltd (The Dimitris L) [2012]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 354 .......................................................................................................................................40.1, 62.2
Global Process Systems Inc. v. Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad (The Cendor Mopu) [2011]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 560 ...............................................................................................................................85.285, 85.333
Global Santosh, The (NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v. Cargill International S.A.) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 455 ......15.49
Godard v. Gray (1870) 6 Q.B.D. 139 ....................................................................................................................... 21.134
Golden Fleece Maritime v. ST Shipping & Transport (The Elli and the Frixos) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 262, upheld [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 119 ...........................................................................................11.27, 11.40
Golden Ocean Group Ltd v. Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK Ltd (The Barito) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 421 ...................................................................................................................................................................2.2
Golden Ocean Group v. Salgaocar Mining Industries [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 542 ......................................................1.39
Golden Strait Corp. v. Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
443; [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 747; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 533 ..... 21.1, 21.5, 21.6, 21.7, 21.9, 21.10, 21.11, 21.12, 85.312
Golden Victory, The (Golden Strait Corp. v. Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 443; [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 747; [2006] 1 W.L.R. 533.......................................... 21.1, 21.5, 21.6, 21.7, 21.9,
21.10, 21.11, 21.12, 85.312
Goldman v. Thai Airways [1983] 1 W.L.R. 1186....................................................................................... 85.424, 85.429
Golodetz & Co. v. Czarnikow-Rionda Inc. (The Galatia) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 453; [1979]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 450 ............................................................................................................................... 13.109, 85.142
Good v. London SS. Owners’ Mutual Protecting Association (The Severn) (1871) L.R. 6 C.P. 563 .................... 85.273
Good Friend, The (Empresa Cubana Importada de Alimentos v. Iasmos Shipping Co.) [1984]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 586........................................................................ 11.18, 11.23, 11.30, 11.33, 21.124, 85.96, 85.335
Goodwin, Ferreira v. Lamport & Holt (1929) 34 Ll. L. Rep. 192 ...... 10.6, 85.77, 85.80, 85.89, 85.337, 85.341, 85.399
Gorris v. Scott (1874) L.R. 9 Ex. 125......................................................................................................................... 11.67
Gosse Millerd v. Canadian Government Merchant Marine [1929] A.C. 223 (H.L.); [1928] 1 K.B. 717 (C.A.);
[1927] 2 K.B. 432 ................................................................ 85.89, 85.113, 85.124, 85.125, 85.130, 85.261, 85.275,
85.276, 85.277, 85.278
Goulandris Bros. v. B. Goldman & Sons [1958] 1 Q.B. 74 ....................... 20.39, 20.59, 85.173, 85.177, 85.249, 85.484
Gould v. Oliver (1840) 2 M. & G. 208................................................................................................................ 6.27, 6.33
Gould v. South Eastern & Chatham Railway [1920] 2 K.B. 186 .................................................. 85.336, 85.337, 85.338
Government of Ceylon v. Chandris [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 204 ........................ 8.2, 14.53, 14.54, 14.55, 85.262, 85.461
Government of Ceylon v. Société Franco-Tunisienne d’Armement-Tunis (The Massalia) [1962] 2 Q.B. 416........ 15.40
Government of India v. India SS. Co. (The Indian Grace) (No. 2) [1998] A.C. 878; [1998]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ................................................................................................................................... 85.171, 85.253
Government of Sierra Leone v. Marmaro Shipping Co. (The Amazona and the Yayamaria) [1989]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 130 .................................................................................................................. 85.185, 85.186, 85.228
lxiii
Grace (G.W.) v. General Steam Navigation Co. (The Sussex Oak) [1950] 2 K.B. 383 .......................... 5.72, 5.74, 5.89,
26.39, 27.18, 27.19, 27.20
Grace Shipping v. Sharp [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 207 .......................................................................................... 1.13, 23.5
Gran Gelato v. Richcliffe (Group) [1992] Ch. 560 ...................................................................................................... 1.83
Grand Champion Tankers Ltd. v. Norpipe A/S (The Marion) [1984] A.C. 563 ...................... 11.39, 11.56, 11.58, 11.63
Grand Met v. William Hill [1997] 1 B.C.L.C. 390 ...................................................................................................... 1.75
Grange v. Taylor (1904) 9 Com. Cas. 223 ................................................................................................................. 10.17
Granger [2013] L.M.C.L.Q. 418 ...................................................................................................................................1.10
Granit v. Benship [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 526 .............................................................................................................. 1.15
Grant v. Coverdale (1884) 9 App. Cas. 470 ........................................................................................................ 7.10, 7.11
Grant v. Norway (1851) 10 C.B. 665 ................... 18.27, 18.28, 18.30, 18.31, 18.32, 18.38, 18.42, 48.4, 85.152, 85.156
Granvias Oceanicas Armadora S.A. v. Jibsen Trading Co. (The Kavo Peiratis) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 344 ......................................................................................................................................... 17.12, 17.13, 17.22
Gratitudine, The (1801) 3 C. Rob. 244 ....................................................................................................................... 20.20
Gray v. Carr (1871) L.R. 6 Q.B. 522.......................................................................................................................... 17.17
Great China Metal Industries v. Malaysian International Shipping Corp. (The Bunga Seroja) [1999]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 512 (High Ct. Aust.)................................................................ 85.6, 85.267, 85.285, 85.288, 85A.28
Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd v. Far East Chartering Ltd (The Jag Ravi) [2012]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 637 .........................................................................................................10.4, 18.161, 17.172, 17.173
Great Elephant Corp. v. Trafigura Beheer BV (The Crudesky) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 503; [2013]
EWCA Civ 905 ...........................................................................................................1.112, 6.59, 7.14, 15.28, 21.42
Great Northern Railway v. L.E.P. Transport [1922] 2 K.B. 742 ........................................................................ 6.49, 6.57
Great Peace Shipping v. Tsavliris (International) [2003] Q.B. 679........................................................... 1.65, 1.69, 1.72
Grebert-Borgnis v. J. & W. Nugent (1885) 15 Q.B.D. 85 ......................................................................................... 21.80
Greek Fighter, The (Ullises Shipping Corporation v. Fal Shipping Co. Ltd) [2006] 2 C.L.C. 497 ...........................5.31,
5.46, 5.48, 5.67, 6.59
Green Island, The (Geofizika DD v. MMB International Ltd Greenshields Cowie & Co. Ltd) [2010]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .........................................................................................................................................6.25, 85.72
Green Star Shipping v. London Assurance [1933] 1 K.B. 378 .................................................................................. 20.38
Greenmast Shipping v. Jean Lion & Cie. (The Saronikos) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277............................................ 13.30
Greenock Corp. v. Caledonian Railway [1917] A.C. 556 ........................................................................................ 85.299
Greenshields, Cowie v. Stephens & Sons [1908] A.C. 431 ................................................................... 6.57, 20.43, 20.51
Greenwich Marine v. Federal Commerce & Navigation Co. (The Mavro Vetranic) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 580 ........................................................................................................................................................ 3.6, 21.47
Gregos, The (Torvald Klaveness v. Arni Maritime Corp.) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ............................ 1.108, 5.111, 6.47
Greta Holme, The [1897] A.C. 596 .......................................................................................................................... 21.104
Grey v. Butler’s Wharf Ltd. (1898) 3 Com. Cas. 67........................................................................................... 5.3, 14.61
Greystoke Castle, The [1947] A.C. 265......................................................................................................... 20.45, 85.455
Grieve v. Konig (1880) 17 Sc. L.R. 325..................................................................................................................... 18.42
Griffith v. Brymer (1903) 19 T.L.R. 434 ...................................................................................................................... 1.66
Grimaldi Compania di Navigazione S.p.A. v. Sekihyo Lines (The Seki Rolette) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 638..................................................................................................................... 85.2, 85.8, 85.13, 85.16, 85.180
Gripaios v. Kahl, Wallis & Co. (1928) 32 Ll. L. Rep. 328.......................................................................................... 14.6
Gudermes, The (Mitsui v. Novorossiysk Shipping) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 311; rev’g in part [1991]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 456 .......................................................... 11.20, 11.23, 18.114, 52.22, 52.24, 85.96, 85.240, 85.335
Gulf Interstate Oil v. Ant Trade & Transport (The Giovanna) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 867 ...................................... 18.87
Gulf Steel v. Al Khalifa Shipping (The Anwar Al Sabar) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 261...... 13.47, 18.189, 18.190, 18.201
Gulf Venture, The [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445 ............................................................................................................. 23.6
Gullischen v. Stewart (1882) 11 Q.B.D. 186; 13 Q.B.D. 317 .................................................. 17.17, 17.45, 18.52, 18.57
Gumm v. Tyrie (1865) 6 B. & S. 299......................................................................................................................... 13.17
Gunda Brovig, The (A/S Brovigtank v. Transcredit) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 39; aff’g [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 43 ..... 62.2
Gurtner v. Beaton [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 369 .......................................................................................................... 85.424
H.R. Macmillan, The [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 27; [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 331 ........................................................... 57.16
Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihal Endustrisi v. Sometal SAL [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm) 18.50
Hadji v. Anglo-Arabian (1906) 11 Com. Cas. 219.......................................................................................... 12.24, 12.26
Hadjitsakos, The (State Trading Corp. of India v. Pilgrim Shipping) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 356 .................... 5.18, 5.21
Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341 ......................... 21.28, 21.30, 21.39, 21.40, 21.125, 21A.13, 21A.14, 21A.15,
21A.23, 85.248, 85.385
Hai Hing, The (Bua International v. Hai Hing) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 300 ..................................... 18.48, 18.59, 85.186
Hain Steamship Co. v. Herdman & McDougal (1922) 11 Ll. L. Rep. 58 ............................................................... 85.148
Hain Steamship Co. v. S.A. Comercial de Exportacion e Importacion (The Trevarrack) (1934) 49
Ll. L. Rep. 86 ....................................................................................................................................................... 15.19
lxiv
Hain Steamship Co. v. Tate & Lyle (1936) 41 Com. Cas. 350 (H.L.); aff’g in part 39 Com.
Cas. 259 ........................ 12.3, 12.28, 12.30, 12.33, 12.38, 12.39, 12.40, 12.42, 18.84, 20.46, 20.47, 85.175, 85.206
Halcyon SS. Co. v. Continental Grain (1943) 75 Ll. L. Rep. 57..................................................... 18.39, 18.204, 18.207
Hale Bros. SS. Co. v. Paul (1914) 19 Com. Cas. 384 .................................................................................................. 5.60
Halki Shipping v. Sopex Oils [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 465 (C.A.); [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 49.......................... 13.64, 82.2
Hall v. Johnson (1855) 4 E. & B. 500 ........................................................................................................................ 13.91
Hall v. Pim (1927) 33 Com. Cas. 324......................................................................................................................... 21.39
Hall Bros. SS. Co. Ltd. v. R. & W. Paul (1914) 19 Com. Cas. 384............................................................ 5.3, 5.73, 5.78
Hamilton v. Mackie (1889) 5 T.L.R. 677............................................................................................. 18.51, 18.54, 85.10
Hamilton Fraser & Co. v. Pandorf & Co. (1887) 12 App. Cas. 518 (H.L.) ............................................... 85.286, 85.287
Hanak v. Green [1958] 2 Q.B. 9 ................................................................................................................................. 13.63
Handelsbanken Svenska v. Dandridge (The Aliza Glacial) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 421 ............................ 85.307, 85.316
Hang Fung Shipping Co. v. Mullion [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 511 ................................................................... 14.47, 14.49
Hanjin Marseilles, The (Trane v. Hanjin Shipping) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 735 (H.K.) ........................................... 85.42
Hanjin Shipping v. Zenith Chartering (The Mercedes Envoy) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 559 ...................... 1.20, 1.25, 2.31
Hannah Blumenthal, The (Paal Wilson v. Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal) [1983] 1 A.C. 854........................... 22.2
Hanno (Heinrich) & Co. B.V. v. Fairlight Shipping Co. (The Kostas K.) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 231 .............. 5.9, 5.16,
26.57, 55.5
Hansa Nord, The (Cehave v. Bremer Handels) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445; [1976] 1 Q.B. 44 (C.A.)..................... 1.133
Hansen v. Dunn (1906) 11 Com. Cas. 100 ................................................................................................................... 3.17
Hansen v. Harrold Brothers [1894] 1 Q.B. 612 (C.A.) ............................................ 17.2, 18.198, 18.208, 18.210, 18.212
Happy Day, The (Glencore Grain Ltd. v. Flacker Shipping) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 754; [2002]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 487 ............................................................................................................. 15.23, 15.49, 15.52, 15.56
Happy Ranger, The (Parsons Corporation v. CV Scheep.) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 357......................... 6.31, 18.43, 72.3,
85.12, 85.36, 85.40, 85.42, 85.66, 85.105, 85.119, 85.133, , 85.137,
85.344, 85.368, 85.401, 85.423, 85.401, 85.423
Harbour Assurance Co. v. Kansa General International Insurance Co. Ltd. [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 455 (C.A.)........ 82.1
Hare v. Nicol [1966] 2 Q.B. 132................................................................................................................................... 19.6
Harland & Wolff v. Burns & Laird Lines (1931) 40 Ll. L. Rep. 286 (Ct. Sess.)....................................... 85.490, 85.493
Harlow & Jones v. Walker [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 141.................................................................................................. 8.2
Harper v. Vigers [1909] 2 K.B. 549 ........................................................................................................... 1.68, 2.16, 2.19
Hariette N., The (Statoil v. Louis Dreyfus Energy Services) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 685 .........................................16.21
Harris v. Best, Ryley & Co. (1892) 68 L.T. 76 ................................................................... 14.1, 14.31, 14.53, 15.6, 15.7
Harris v. Dreesman (1854) 23 L.J. (Ex.) 210 ................................................................................................................. 7.3
Harrison v. Bank of Australasia (1872) L.R. 7 Ex. 39 ............................................................................................... 20.12
Harrison v. Garthorne (1872) 26 L.T.(N.S.) 508 .......................................................................................................... 4.17
Harrison v. Huddersfield SS. Co. (1903) 19 T.L.R. 386 ............................................................................................ 18.73
Harrower v. Hutchinson (1869) L.R. 5 Q.B. 584 ........................................................................................................... 5.3
Harrowing SS. Co. v. Thomas. See Thomas v. Harrowing SS. Co.
Hartbridge, The (Government of the Republic of Spain v. North of England SS. Co.) (1938)
61 Ll. L. Rep. 44 ........................................................................................................... 26.6, 26.8, 26.30, 26.44, 27.7
Hartog v. Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All E.R. 566 ........................................................................................................ 1.67
Hassan v. Runciman (1904) 10 Com. Cas. 19.............................................................................................................. 1.94
Hassel, The [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 139 .................................................................................................................... 21.108
Hassneh Insurance v. Mew [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243 ............................................................................................. 21.82
Hastie & Jenkinson v. McMahon [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1575........................................................................................... 26.45
Haversham Grange, The [1905] P. 307..................................................................................................................... 21.108
Havhelt, The [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 523 .................................................................................................................. 85.190
Hawk, The (Oceanfocus Shipping v. Hyundai Merchant Marine) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 176 .................. 18.42, 18.181,
18.182, 85.144
Hayn, Roman & Co. v. Culliford (1879) C.P.D. 182..................................................................... 85.265, 85.269, 85.273
Hayton v. Irwin (1879) 5 C.P.D. 130............................................................................................................................ 5.78
Heath Steele Mines v. The Erwin Schroder [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 370 ................................................................. 85.438
Heather Bell, The [1901] P. 143 ................................................................................................................................... 2.36
Hector, The (International Packers London v. Ocean SS. Co.) [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 218 ..................... 85.108, 85.113,
85.279, 85.322
Hector, The (Sunrise Maritime v. Uvisco) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 287..................................... 18.9, 18.42, 18.66, 18.71,
18.72, 18.74, 18.75, 18.182
Hedley v. Pinkney [1894] A.C. 222 ............................................................................................................................11.28
Hedley Byrne v. Heller [1964] A.C. 465 ...................................................................................................................... 23.4
Heidberg, The [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 287............................................................................................ 13.44, 18.61, 18.64
Heimdal v. Questier (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 452 ............................................................................. 21.110, 21.115, 21.116
lxv
Heinrich, The (1871) L.R. 3 A. & E. 424................................................................................................................... 12.12

Helen, The (1865) 1 A. & E. 1 ............................................................................................................................ 26.3, 26.7
Helen Miller, The [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 95................................................................................................. 21.109, 27.18
Helene, The (1865) B. & L. 415 ................................................................................................................................. 14.53
Helene Knutsen, The (Exxonmobil Sales & Supply Corp v. Texaco) 2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 686 .............................. 68.2
Helle Skou, The (Sofial v. Ove Skou) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 205...................................................... 15.20, 15.49, 15.50
Hellenic Steel Co. v. Svolamar Shipping Co. (The Komninos S.) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 370 .............. 1.36, 1.38, 85.47
Helvetia S., The (Christie & Vesey Ltd. v. Maatschappij tot Exploitatie Van Schepen en Andere Zaken)
[1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 540 ................................................................................................... 4.15, 19.31, 19.34, 24.20
Henderson v. Bilton (1856) 6 E. & B. 565 ............................................................................................................... 13.104
Henderson v. Comptoir d’Escompte (1873) L.R. 5 P.C. 253 (P.C.) ........................................................................ 18.143
Henderson v. Merrett Syndicates [1995] 2 A.C. 145 (H.L.) ......................................................................... 18.126, 21.68
Henriksens Rederi A/S v. T.H.Z. Rolimpex (The Brede) [1974] Q.B. 233............................................................... 13.66
Henry Smith & Co. v. Bedouin Steam Navigation Co. [1896] A.C. 70. ................................................................. 85.148
Herald of Free Enterprise, The (R. v. Coroner for South-East Kent, Ex parte Spooner) (1987) 88 Cr. App.
Rep. 10 ............................................................................................................................................................... 85.429
Herceg Novi, The [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 454 (C.A.)................................................................................................... 1.50
Hermine, The (Unitramp v. Garnac Grain Co. Inc.) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 212 (H.L.).......................... 5.74, 5.89, 5.90,
5.91, 5.92, 5.93, 5.112, 27.4
Herne Bay Steamboat Co. v. Hutton [1903] 2 K.B. 683 ............................................................................................ 22.10
Heron II, The (Czarnikow v. Koufos) [1969] 1 A.C. 350 (H.L.) ........................................... 21.32, 21.33, 21.39, 21.123
Herroe, The, and the Askoe (Red. Gustav Erikson v. Ismail) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 281 ............... 13.12, 18.35, 85.151
Heskell v. Continental Express [1950] 83 Ll. L. Rep. 438; [1950] 1 All E.R. 1033 .................................... 18.12, 18.29,
18.45, 18.176, 21.41, 21.119, 23.4, 85.89
Heyman v. Darwins [1942] A.C. 356............................................................................. 12.35, 12.38, 12.40, 82.1, 85.175
Heyn v. Ocean SS. Co. (1927) 137 L.T. 158............................................................................................................ 85.350
Hibbert v. Owen (1859) 2 F. & F. 502 ....................................................................................................................... 23.10
Hick v. Raymond [1893] A.C. 22 ............................................................................................................................... 15.13
Hick v. Rodocanachi [1891] 2 Q.B. 626..................................................................................................................... 10.19
Hicks v. Shield (1857) 7 E. & B. 633......................................................................................................................... 13.90
Higgins v. Senior (1841) 8 M. & W. 834.............................................................................................................. 2.4, 2.15
Hill v. Kitching (1846) 3 C.B. 299 ............................................................................................................................... 24.1
Hill Harmony, The (Whistler International v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 147; [2000]
3 W.L.R. 1954 (H.L.)............ 9.5, 9.7, 12.1, 12.5, 85.261, 85.269, 85.270, 85.271, 85.272, 85.273, 85.359, 85.360
Hillas v. Arcos (1932) 43 Ll. L. Rep. 359 ...................................................................................................................... 1.6
Hillas v. Red. A/B Aeolus (1926) 32 Com. Cas. 69 (H.L.); aff’g 31 Com. Cas. 59; aff’g 30 Com.
Cas. 271..................................................................................................................................................... 14.12, 14.14
Hillstrom v. Gibson (1870) 8 S.C. (3rd) 463................................................................................................................ 5.77
Himalaya, The (Adler v. Dickson) [1955] 1 Q.B 158 (C.A.) ........................................................ 18.137, 85.224, 85.471
Hiort v. Bott (1874) L.R. 9 Ex. 86............................................................................................................................ 18.122
Hirji Mulji v. Cheong Yue [1926] A.C. 497............................................................................................................... 12.38
Hispanica de Petroleos S.A. v. Vencedora Oceanica Navegación (The Kapetan Markos) [1986]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 211 (C.A.) .................................................................................................................... 85.185, 85.205
Hofflinghouse v. C-Trade (The Intra Transporter) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132; [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 158.............. 1.13
Hogarth v. Walker [1899] 1 Q.B. 401; [1900] 1 Q.B. 283 ............................................................................................ 8.2
Hogarth Shipping v. Blythe, Green, Jourdain & Co. Ltd. [1917] 2 K.B. 534 .............................................. 18.52, 85.151
Holland Colombo Trading Society Ltd. v. Alwadeen [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 45 (P.C.) ................. 85.15, 85.230, 85.243
Hollandia, The [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; [1983] 1 A.C. 565 (H.L.) ............................ 85.9, 85.25, 85.26, 85.27, 85.191,
85.227, 85.236, 85.244, 85A.1
Hollins v. Fowler (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 616................................................................................................................ 18.119
Holman v. Dasnières (1886) 2 T.L.R. 607.................................................................................................................... 6.43
Homburg Houtimport v. Agrosin (The Starsin) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 437; rev’g [2000] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 85; [2004] A.C. 715 ................................... 1.115, 18.8, 18.9, 18.28, 18.30, 18.42, 18.69, 18.70, 18.72, 18.74,
18.76, 18.77, 18.115, 18.174, 21.128, 85.24, 85.61, 85.62, 85.171, 85.174, 85.224,
85.225, 85.226, 85.229, 85.466, 85.468, 85.471
Hongkong Fir Shipping v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha [1962] 2 Q.B. 26; [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 478............. 1.133, 1.134,
3.2, 3.37, 11.27, 11.34
Hopper v. Burness (1876) 1 C.P.C. 137 ..................................................................................................................... 13.27
Horlock v. Beal [1916] A.C. 486 .................................................................................................................................. 22.1
Horn Line v. Panamericana Formas e Impresos [2006] EWHC 373 ........................................................................... 1.30
Hornal v. Neuberger Products [1957] 1 Q.B. 247 .................................................................................................... 85.127
Horsley v. Price (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 244 ........................................................................................................................ 5.90
lxvi
Horst (E. Clemens) v. Norfolk Steam Navigation Co. (1906) 11 Com. Cas. 141 ....................................................... 10.9
Hosanger, The (A/S Westfal-Larsen v. Russo-Norwegian Transport) (1931) 40 Ll. L. Rep. 259 ............................ 15.18
Hotel Services v. Hilton International Hotels [2000] B.L.R. 235 .............................................................................. 21.40
Houda, The (Kuwait Petroleum Corp. v. I. & D. Oil Carriers) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 541 ........................... 5.17, 5.108,
18.119, 18.162, 18.164, 18.165, 18.172
Houghland v. R.R. Low (Luxury Coaches) [1962] 1 Q.B. 694 ............................................................................... 18.120
Houlder v. General Steam Navigation Co. (1862) 3 F. & F. 170 ................................................................................ 10.8
Houlder v. Weir [1905] 2 K.B. 267 ............................................................................................................................ 15.72
Hourani v. T. & J. Harrison (1927) 32 Com. Cas. 305..................................................... 85.253, 85.276, 85.348, 85.350
Houston City, The (Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Australian Wheat Board) [1956] A.C. 226 (P.C.); [1954]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 148 (H.C. Aust.)............................................................................ 5.33, 5.35, 5.38, 5.60, 5.80, 21.42
Howard v. Knight [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 364.............................................................................................................. 1.24
Howard v. Pickford Tool [1951] 1 K.B. 417.............................................................................................................. 21.15
Howard Houlder v. Manx Isles Steamship Co. [1923] 1 K.B. 110............................................................................ 24.16
Howard Houlder & Partners v. Marine General Transporters (The Panaghia P.) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 653......................................................................................................................... 24.2, 24.5, 24.9, 24.12, 24.13
Howard Marine v. Ogden [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 334.................................................................................................. 1.16
Howell v. Coupland (1876) 1 Q.B.D. 258 ...................................................................................................................... 7.8
Hubbersty v. Ward (1853) 8 Ex. 331.................................................................................................. 18.32, 18.82, 18.142
Hudson v. Ede (1868) L.R. 3 Q.B. 412; aff’g (1867) L.R. 2 Q.B. 566 ............................................ 7.11, 7.12, 7.13, 14.4
Hudson v. Hill (1874) 43 L.J.C.P. 273 ......................................................................................................................... 4.17
Hudson Bay, The (1997) 131 F.T.R. 241 ................................................................................................................... 85.61
Hudson’s Bay Co. v. Domingo Mumbru S.A. (1922) 10 Ll. L. Rep. 476...................................................... 19.14, 19.25
Hugh Mack & Co. v. Burns & Laird Lines (No. 2) (C.A. (N.I.)) (1944) 77 Ll. L. Rep. 377.................... 85.489, 85.496
Humble v. Hunter (1848) 12 Q.B. 310................................................................................................ 2.7, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17
Hunter v. Fry (1819) 2 B. & Ald. 421................................................................................................................. 3.19, 6.13
Hunter Grain v. Hyundai Merchant Marine (1997) 117 A.L.R. 507 ......................................................................... 85.86
Hurst v. Usborne (1856) 18 C.B. 144.................................................................................................................. 3.26, 3.27
Hussey v. Eels [1990] 2 Q.B. 227............................................................................................................................... 21.49
Hussey v. Horne-Payne (1879) 4 App. Cas. 311.......................................................................................................... 1.13
Huth v. Lamport (1866) 16 Q.B.D. 735...................................................................................................................... 20.47
Huyton v. Dipasa [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 780............................................................................................................... 1.84
Huyton v. Inter Operators (The Stainless Emperor) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 298....................................................... 15.60
Huyton v. Peter Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 620 ........................................................................................... 1.87, 1.90
Hydraulic Engineering v. McHaffie (1878) 4 Q.B.D. 670 ........................................................................................... 21.4
Hydrodan (Corby) Ltd, Re [1994] B.C.C. 161 ............................................................................................................. 2.45
Hyundai v. Karander Maritime (The Nizuru) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 66..................................................................... 4.19
I.C.S. Ltd v. West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 W.L.R. 896 ........................................................... 1.102, 1.107
I.F.P. & C. Insurance v. Silversea Cruises [2004] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 696 .................................................. 85.301, 85.303
ISS Machinery Services v. Aeolian Shipping (The Aeolian) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 641; [2001]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 641 ..................................................................................................................................... 1.35, 13.63
Ignatio Messina v. Polish Ocean Lines [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 566............................................................................. 1.18
Ikariada, The (Orinoco Navigation v. Ecotrade) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 365; [1999] All E.R.
(D.) 727...................................................................................................................................... 18.61, 18.187, 18.229
Ikerigi Compania Naviera v. Palmer (The Wondrous) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 400................................................. 85.310
Imvros, The (Transocean Liners v. Euxine Shipping) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 848 ..................... 1.113, 6.35, 6.36, 11.10,
11.17, 11.31, 14.43, 14.44
IMT Shipping & Chartering v. Chansung Shipping (The Zenovia) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 139 4.19
Inca Compania Naviera v. Monofil Inc. (The President Brand) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 338......... 16.15, 59.2, 59.3, 59.4
Inchmaree, The (Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co. v. Hamilton Fraser & Co.) (1887)
12 App. Cas. 484 .................................................................................................................................. 85.281, 85.286
Independent Petroleum Group Ltd v. Seacarriers Count Pte. Ltd (The Count) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 72 .................5.93
India (Government of) v. India SS. Co. (The Indian Grace) (No. 2) [1998] A.C. 878; [1998]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ................................................................................................................................... 85.171, 85.253
India SS. Co. v. Louis Dreyfus Sugar Ltd. (The Indian Reliance) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 52 ...................... 13.41, 13.42,
13.119, 18.62, 18.193, 18.213
Indian Grace, The (No. 2) (Government of India v. India SS. Co.) [1998] A.C. 878; [1998]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ................................................................................................................................... 85.171, 85.253
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Greenstone Shipping S.A. (The Ypatianna) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 286;
[1988] 1 Q.B. 345 ....................................................................................................................................... 10.18, 84.3
Indian Reliance, The (India SS. Co. v. Louis Dreyfus Sugar Ltd.) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 52 ................................ 13.41,
13.42, 13.119, 18.62, 18.193, 18.213
lxvii
Induna v. British Phosphate Commissioners [1949] 2 K.B. 430 .................................................................. 15.19, 85.315
Industrie, The [1894] P. 58 ........................................................................................................................................... 1.38
Industrie Chimiche Italia Centrale S.p.A. v. Nea Ninemia Shipping Co. [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 310.................... 85.274
Ines, The (M.B. Pyramid Sound N.V. v. Briese Schiffahrts G.m.b.H.) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 144.......................... 10.4,
18.71, 18.72, 18.74, 18.169
Ingram & Royle v. Services Maritimes du Treport [1914] 1 K.B. 541 ..................................................................... 11.17
Innisboffin, The (Limerick SS. v. Stott) [1921] 2 K.B. 613 ...................................................................... 5.60, 5.86, 27.5
Interbulk v. Ponte dei Sospiri Shipping Co. (The Standard Ardour) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 159............................ 85.13,
85.16, 85.179, 85.195
International Air and Sea Cargo G.m.b.H. v. “Chitral” (Owners) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 529 ............................... 18.143
International Fina Services v. Katrina Shipping (The Fina Samco) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 344 ..................... 1.106, 52.2
International Ore & Fertilizer v. East Coast Fertilizer [1987] 1 N.Z.L.R. 9.............................................................. 85.86
International Packers London v. Ocean SS. Co. (The Hector) [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 218 ................................... 85.108,
85.113, 85.279, 85.322
Internationale Guano en Superphosphaatwerken v. Robert MacAndrew & Co. [1909] 2 K.B. 360 ............ 12.30, 12.38,
85.334
Internaut Shipping v. Fercometal Sarl (The Elikon) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 430 ..........................................2.3, 2.9, 2.10
Intra Transporter, The (Hofflinghouse v. C-Trade) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132; [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 158............. 1.13
Inverkip SS. Co. v. Bunge [1917] 2 K.B. 193 (C.A.) .......................................................................... 13.30, 16.12, 16.13
Investec Bank (UK) Ltd v. Zulman [2010] EWCA Civ 536 ........................................................................................1.16
Investors Compensation Scheme v. West Bromwich Building Society 171.............................................................. 1.102
Ion, The (Unicoopjapan and Marubeni-Iida Co. v. Shipping Co.) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 541 ................. 85.228, 85.243
Ionian Navigation v. Atlantic Shipping (The Loucas N.) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 215 (C.A.) ..................... 15.57, 15A.90
Ionian Skipper, The (Bedford SS. Co. v. Navico) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 273............................................................ 54.8
Iran Bohonar, The (Continental Grain v. Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 620 .. 21.143
Iran Vojdan, The [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 380 ............................................................................................................... 1.31
Irbenskiy Proliv, The (Mitsubishi v. East Wind) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 383 ................................................ 1.112, 1.113
Irini M., The [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 253 ...................................................................................................................... 60.6
Iron Gippsland, The [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 335 (Aust. Ct.)............................................... 68.10, 85.117, 85.275, 85.279
Irving v. Clegg (1834) 1 Bing. N.C. 53 .......................................................................................................................... 6.4
Isaacs v. McAllum (1921) 6 Ll. L. Rep. 289......................................................................................................... 3.4, 3.29
Isabelle, The (Cosmar Compania Naviera S.A. v. Total Transport Corp.) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 366;
aff’g [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 ............................................................................ 5.6, 5.10, 5.85, 23.1, 57.11, 85.355
Ishag v. Allied Bank [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 92........................................................................................................ 18.147
Isis SS. Co. v. Bahr [1900] A.C 340; aff’g [1899] 2 Q.B. 365 ...................................................................................... 6.8
Isla Fernandina, The (Rey Banano del Pacifico C.A. v. Transportes Navieros Ecuatorianos) [2000]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 15 ....................................... 85.95, 85.254, 85.263, 82.262, 85.269, 85.277, 85.360, 85.362, 85.363
Islamic Investment v. Transorient Shipping (The Nour) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ..................... 6.20, 6.48, 12.17, 12.34,
12.43, 85.436
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Ierax Shipping Co. (The Forum Craftsman) [1991]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81................................................................................ 15.4, 15.14, 15.21, 15.23, 16.5, 18.130, 21.38
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Royal Bank of Scotland (The Anna Ch.) [1987]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 266 ............................................................................................................... 5.29, 5.103, 26.59, 26.71
Island Archon, The [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 227 ...................................................................... 18.222, 18.223, 21.80, 37.8
Islander Shipping Enterprises S.A. v. Empresa Maritima Del Estado (The Khian Sea) [1979]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 535................................................................................................................................................. 5.82
Ismail v. Polish Ocean Lines (The Ciechocinek) [1976] Q.B. 893 (C.A.) ............................................. 6.5, 11.64, 14.25,
68.4, 85.120, 85.239, 85.319, 85.320
Israel (Jack L.) v. Ocean Dynamic Lines (The Ocean Dynamic) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 88...................... 21.31, 21.117,
21.123, 21.124
Istros v. Dahlstrom [1931] 1 K.B. 247 ................................................................................................................ 9.7, 11.78
Itoh (C.) v. Cia. de Nav. Lloyd Brasileiro (The Rio Assu) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201............................................ 85.61
Jackson v. Mumford (1902) 8 Com. Cas. 61............................................................................................................ 85.347
Jackson v. Union Marine Insurance (1874) L.R. 10 C.P. 125 (Ex. Ch.) ........................................................ 22.19, 22.20
Jaederen, The [1892] P. 351.......................................................................................................................................... 10.2
Jag Ravi, The (Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd v. Far East Chartering Ltd) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 637 .................10.4,
18.161, 18.172, 18.173
Jalamohan, The [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 443 ......................................................................................... 18.45, 18.205, 83.1
Jamal v. Moolla Dawood [1916] 1 A.C. 175 (P.C.) ................................................................................................... 21.56
James v. Chinecrest [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 126......................................................................................................... 13.67
James Buchanan v. Babco Forwarding and Shipping [1978] A.C. 141 (H.L.)........................................... 85.386, 85.398
Janentzky v. Langridge (1895) 1 Com. Cas. 90 ....................................................................................................... 18.215
lxviii
Japy Frères v. Sutherland (1921) 26 Com. Cas. 227 .................................................................................................... 3.40

Jardine Matheson v. Clyde Shipping (1910) 15 Com. Cas. 193 .................................................................. 6.3, 6.16, 6.19
Jascon 5, The (Talbot Underwriting v. Nausch, Hogan & Murray) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.195 ..................................2.14
Jasmine B., The (Bulk Shipping v. Ipco Trading) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 39 ........................................... 5.20, 55.2, 55.7
Jay (William A.) & Sons v. Veevers [1946] 1 All E.R. 646...................................................................................... 21.77
Jay Ganesh, The (United Nations/Food and Agriculture Organisation-World Food Programme v.
Caspian Navigation Inc.) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 358 ................................................................................ 15.39, 33.8
Jebsen v. East India Dock (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 300 ................................................................................................. 21.106
Jenkins v. Hutchinson (1839) 13 Q.B. 744............................................................................................................ 2.8, 2.18
Jennensen v. Secretary of State for India [1916] 2 K.B. 702............................................................................ 17.3, 17.14
Jindal Iron and Steel v. Islamic Solidarity Shipping (The Jordan II) [2005] 1 W.L.R. 1363; [2005]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 57; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 87 (C.A.)..................................... 11.8, 11.11, 11.15, 14.3, 14.37, 14.38,
14.52, 14.54, 14.55, 85.9, 85.79, 85.86, 85.100, 85.111, 85.112, 85.224, 85.230, 85.322
Jocelyne, The [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 121..................................................................................................................... 17.8
Jogoo, The [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 513 ....................................................................................................................... 22.36
Johanna Oldendorff, The (E.L. Oldendorff & Co. v. Tradax Export) [1974] A.C. 479 (H.L.); [1973]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285 ................................................................ 15.36, 15.37, 15A.39, 15A.40, 15A.41, 15A.42, 19.14
John v. Turnbull Scott Shipping Co. (The Flowergate) [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1.............. 85.98, 85.130, 85.333, 85.335
John F. Hunt Demolition v. Asma Engineering Ltd [2008] 1 All E.R. 180, [2007] EWHC 1507 (TCC) .................21.83
John Grimes Partnership Ltd v. Gubbins [2013] EWCA Civ. 37 ..............................................................................21.30
John Michalos, The (President of India v. N.G. Livanos Maritime) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 188 ............................... 16.4
John S. Darbyshire, The (Albion Sugar v. William Tankers) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 457................................. 1.23, 1.24
Johnson v. Agnew [1980] A.C. 367.............................................................................................................................. 21.7
Johnson v. Chapman (1865) 19 C.B.(N.S.) 563 ........................................................................................................... 6.39
Johs Stove, The (Sametiet M/T Johs Stove v. Istanbul Petrol Rafinerisi) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 38... 15.24, 57.27, 69.2
Joint Danube & Black Sea Shipping Agencies v. Rederi A/B Iris (1932) 43 Ll. L. Rep. 97 ..................................... 1.78
Joint Frost, The [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 311.............................................................................................................. 85.398
Jolley v. Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1082 ............................................................................ 21.38
Jones v. Hough (1879) L.R. 5 Ex. D. 115 ................................................................................................................ 18.189
Jones v. Lipman [1962] 1 W.L.R. 832.......................................................................................................................... 2.43
Jones (A. Meredith) & Co. v. Vangemar Shipping (The Apostolis) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 241 ................. 11.24, 85.95,
85.256, 85.282, 85.284
Jones (A. Meredith) & Co. v. Vangemar Shipping (The Apostolis) (No. 2) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 292................. 21.57
Jones Ltd. v. Green & Co. [1904] 2 K.B. 275......................................................................................................... 7.3, 7.4
Jordan II, The (Jindal Iron and Steel v. Islamic Solidarity Shipping) [2005] 1 W.L.R. 1363; [2005]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 57; [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 87 (C.A.) ................................................ 11.8, 11.11, 11.15, 14.3, 14.37,
14.38, 14.52, 14.54, 14.55, 85.9, 85.79, 85.86, 85.100, 85.111, 85.112, 85.224, 85.230, 85.322
Joseph Constantine SS. Co. v. Imperial Smelting Co. [1942] A.C. 154 (H.L.) ...................................... 7.6, 22.4, 85.130
Joyner v. Weeks [1892] 2 Q.B. 31.............................................................................................................................. 21.47
Juffrow Maria Schroeder, The (1801) 3 C. Rob. 154................................................................................................... 26.3
Junior K, The (Star SS. Society v. Beogradska Plovidba) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 583 ...................................... 1.17, 1.19
K.H. Enterprise, The. See Pioneer Container, The
K.K.K.K. v. Belships (1939) 63 Ll. L. Rep. 175............................................................................................. 26.37, 26.76
K/S Arnt J. Moerland v. Kuwait Petroleum Corp. (The Fjordaas) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 336... 57.9, 57.10, 59.3, 59.21
K/S Penta Shipping v. Ethiopian Shipping Lines Corp. (The Saga Cob) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 545 ............. 5.48, 5.51,
5.65, 5.66, 5.87
Kadel Chajkin v. Mitchell Cotts (1947) 81 Ll. L. Rep. 124......................................................................................... 1.37
Kaliningrad, The [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 35.............................................................................................................. 21.112
Kallang Shipping S.A. v. AXA Assurances Senegal (The Kallang (No.2)) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 124 ...................18.60
Kalliopi A., The (Marc Rich v. Tourloti Compania Naviera) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101 ................... 15.24, 16.4, 85.18
Kanchenjunga, The (Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries v. Shipping Corp. of India) [1990]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 391 (H.L.); [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 354 (C.A.); [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509................. 1.135, 5.109,
5.112, 5.114, 26.77, 70.6, 77.5, 85.136
Kanoria v. Guinness [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 701 .......................................................................................................... 82.7
Kapetan Markos, The (Hispanica de Petroleos S.A. v. Vencedora Oceanica Navegacion) [1986]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 211 (C.A.) .................................................................................................................... 85.185, 85.205
Kapitan Petko Voivoda, The (Daewoo Heavy Industries v. Klipriver Shipping)) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ............. 6.31,
12.32, 12.40, 12.45, 85.9, 85.71, 85.119, 85.174, 85.175, 85.207, 85.364,
85.368, 85.380, 85.401, 85.423
Kapitan Sakharov, The (Northern Shipping v. Deutsche Seereederei) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 255 (C.A.);
aff’g unreported, 20 February 1998 ........................................................ 6.53, 11.31, 85.95, 85.100, 85.120, 85.258,
85.262, 85.449, 85.458, 85.460, 85.461
lxix
Karen Oltman, The [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 708............................................................................................................ 1.98

Karin Vatis, The (Vagres Compania Maritima v. Nissho-Iwai American Corp.) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 330 (C.A.); rev’g [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 361 .................................................. 13.8, 13.20, 13.56, 13.112, 31.2
Kaufman v. Gerson [1904] 1 K.B. 591......................................................................................................................... 1.93
Kavo Peiratis, The (Granvias Oceanicas Armadora S.A. v. Jibsen Trading Co.) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 344 ......................................................................................................................................... 17.12, 17.13, 17.22
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha v. Bantham SS. Co. Ltd. (The Nailsea Meadow) [1939] 2 K.B. 544 (C.A.) ...................... 26.8,
26.12, 85.301
Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Sardoil S.p.A. (The Zuiho Maru) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 552 ................................ 21.94, 22.25
Kay v. Wheeler (1867) L.R. 2 C.P. 302 ................................................................................................................... 85.287
Kaye Steam Navigation Co. v. Barnett (1931) 41 Ll. L. Rep. 231...................................................... 21.18, 21.21, 21.97
Keane v. Australian SS. (1929) 41 C.L.R. 484 .................................................................................... 10.22, 10.23, 10.25
Keighley, Maxsted v. Durant [1901] A.C. 240............................................................................................................. 2.33
Kelo, The [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 85............................................................................................................ 18.112, 18.114
Kendall v. Hamilton (1879) 4 App. Cas. 504 ............................................................................................................... 2.21
Kensington v. Congo [2005] E.W.H.C. 2684 ............................................................................................................... 2.43
Kent Reliant, The (Ease Faith Ltd v. Leonis Marine Management Ltd) [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 673 ...........................9.5
Kenya Railways v. Antares Co. Pte. (The Antares) (Nos. 1 and 2) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 424 (C.A.) .................... 6.31,
12.32, 12.40, 85.24, 85.71, 85.174, 85.175, 85.197, 85.207, 85.401
Keppel Tatlee Bank v. Bandung Shipping [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 616 (C.A. Singapore)......................................... 18.83
Khian Captain, The (No. 2) (Freedom Marine Corp. v. International Bulk Carriers) [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 429.. 13.65,
13.68
Khian Sea, The (Islander Shipping Enterprises S.A. v. Empresa Maritima Del Estado) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 535 ................................................................................................................................................................. 5.82
Khian Zephyr, The (Freedom General Shipping v. Tokai Shipping) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 73 ........ 85.15, 85.22, 85.59
Kildare, The (Zodiac Maritime Agencies v. Fortescue Metals Group) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 360 .................21.7, 21.9,
21.12, 21.13, 85.393
Kimber Coal Co. v. Stone & Rolfe [1926] A.C. 414 ..................................................................................................... 2.8
Kinetics Technology International v. Cross Seas Shipping (The Mosconici) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 30........................................................................................................... 85.385, 85.389, 85.400, 85.402, 85.414
King v. Parker (1876) 34 L.T. 887 ............................................................................................................................... 25.4
King Theras, The (Mosvolds Rederi v. Food Corporation of India) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ................................. 15.43
Kirchner v. Venus (1859) 12 Moo. P.C. 361............................................................................................................ 18.195
Kish v. Cory (1875) L.R. 10 Q.B. 553 ......................................................................................................................... 17.7
Kish v. Taylor [1912] A.C. 604 ......................................... 12.11, 12.33, 13.47, 17.7, 18.52, 21.93, 54.1, 85.258, 85.360
Kiukiang Carrier, The, 18 May 2000, L.M.L.N. 541 (Fed. Ct. Aust.)......................................................................... 68.4
Kleovoulos of Rhodes, The [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 ................................................................................... 1.95, 1.105
Knight v. Fleming (1898) 25 Rett. 1070.............................................................................................................. 10.2, 10.5
Knutsford v. Tillmanns [1908] A.C. 406 (H.L.); aff’g sub nom. Tillmanns v. Knutsford [1908] 2 K.B.
385 (C.A.); [1908] 1 K.B. 185 ..................................... 1.110, 5.92, 18.67, 18.178, 18.204, 27.3, 27.4, 27.7, 85.269
Koch Marine v. D’Amico Soc. di Nav. (The Elena d’Amico) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 75 ....................... 21.5, 21.7, 21.9,
21.12, 21.41, 21.53, 21.98, 21.113
Kodros Shipping Corp. v. Empresa Cubana de Fletes (The Evia) (No. 2) [1983] 1 A.C. 736 (H.L.);
[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 334; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 613 ....................................... 5.50, 5.51, 5.53,, 5.55, 5.58, 5.66,
5.81, 5.87, , 5.94, 5.95, 5.115, 21.109, 22.13, 22.15, 26.1, 26.32, 26.60, 26.78, 26.79, 27.19
Kokusai Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha v. Johnson (1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 434 ............................................................. 1.23, 1.26
Komercni Bank v. Stone & Rolls [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 383 ................................................................................... 21.47
Komninos S, The (Hellenic Steel v. Svolamar Shipping Co.) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 370..................... 1.36, 1.38, 85.47
Kopitoff v. Wilson (1876) 1 Q.B.D. 377 .................................................................................................................... 11.19
Kostas K., The (Heinrich Hanno & Co. v. Fairlight Shipping Co.) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 231 ..... 5.9, 5.16, 26.57, 55.5
Krapan J., The (General Feeds Inc. v. Slobodna Plovidba) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 688 ................................ 21.85, 21.86
Krell v. Henry [1903] 2 K.B. 740 ............................................................................................................................... 22.10
Kribi, The [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 76 ........................................................................................................................ 85.191
Kristiansands Tankrederi A/S v. Standard Tankers (Bahamas) Ltd. (The Polyglory) [1977]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 353 .................................................................................................................. 5.59, 5.62, 5.64, 5.194
Kriti Rex, The (Fyffes Group v. Reefer Express) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 ........................................... 1.2, 9.4, 11.18,
11.19, 11.29, 21.32, 21.39, 21.47, 21.110, 21.116, 85.95,
85.102, 85.109, 85.392
Kruger v. Moel Tryvan [1907] A.C. 272 (H.L.); aff’g [1907] 1 K.B. 809 (C.A.); aff’g [1906]
2 K.B. 792................................................. 18.179, 18.200, 18.201, 18.202, 18.208, 18.218, 18.219, 18.222, 18.225
Kulukundis v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance [1937] 1 K.B. 1 ........................................................................ 3.15, 22.18
Kum v. Wah Tat Bank [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 439 ..................................................................................... 18.145, 85.218
lxx
Kuo International Oil v. Daisy Shipping Co. (The Yamatogawa) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 39.................................. 11.29,
85.102, 85.109, 85.257, 85.335,
85.346, 85.347
Kuwait Airways v. Kuwait Insurance[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 803 ............................................................................ 85.307
Kuwait Maritime Transport v. Rickmers Line (The Danah) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 351................................... 6.34, 6.35
Kuwait Petroleum Corp. v. I. & D. Oil Carriers (The Houda) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 541 ............................ 5.17, 5.108,
18.119, 18.162, 18.164, 18.165, 18.172
Kuwait Supply Co. v. Oyster Marine Management (The Safeer) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 637........................ 22.9, 26.40,
26.63, 26.79
Kwai Tek Chow. See Kwei Tek Chao
Kwei Tek Chao v. British Traders and Shippers [1954] 2 Q.B. 459 ................................................. 18.43, 21.12, 85.393
Kyzikos, The (Seacrystal Shipping v. Bulk Transport) [1989] A.C. 1264 (H.L.); [1987] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 122 (C.A.); [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 48 ........................................................................... 15.62, 15.65, 33.4, 59.3
La Pintada, The (La Pintada Cia Navegacion S.A. v. President of India) [1985] A.C. 104; rev’g
[1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 37........................................................................................................................ 21.31, 85.213
La Pintada Cia Navegacion S.A. v. President of India (The La Pintada) [1985] A.C. 104; rev’g
[1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 37........................................................................................................................ 21.31, 85.213
Labrador, The (Newcastle Protection & Indemnity Association v. Assuranceforeningen Gard)
[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 387........................................................................................................................ 21.85, 21.88
Laconia, The (Mardorf Peach & Co. Ltd. v. Attica Sea Carriers Corp. of Liberia) [1977]
A.C. 850; [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 315 ............................................................................................. 13.57, 19.40, 34.3
Lady Gwendolen, The [1965] P. 294 (C.A.)................................................... 11.55, 11.56, 11.62, 11.63, 85.283, 85.423
Laemthong International Lines v. Artis (The Laemthong Glory) (No. 2) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 688;
[2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 632 ............................................................................ 2.4, 2.38, 18.73, 18.173 21.139, 85.225
Laertis, The [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 613........................................................................................................................ 1.30
Lagden v. O’Connor [2004] 1 A.C. 1067 ................................................................................................................... 21.35
Lage v. Siemens (1932) 42 Ll. L. Rep. 252 ................................................................................................................. 23.4
Laiterie Dupont Morin Flechard v. Anangel Endeavour Compania Naviera (unreported,
17 March 1989) .......................................................................................................... 85.385, 85.386, 85.389, 85.398
Lake v. Simmons [1927] A.C. 487 ............................................................................................................................... 1.96
Lake Michigan, The (Lantic Sugar Ltd. v. Baffin Investments) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 141 ........85.187, 85.192, 85.197
Lakeport Navigation Co. v. Anonima Petroli Italiana (The Olympic Brilliance) [1982]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 205; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 176 ......................................................................................... 13.70 53.9
Lancaster, The (Ellerman v. Lancaster) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 497................................................................... 17.1, 79.3
Landauer v. Smits (1921) 6 Ll. L. Rep. 577................................................................................................................. 23.9
Langdale v. Mason (1780) 2 Park on Insurance 965 ............................................................................................... 85.330
Lansat v. Glencore Grain (The Paragon) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 688 ......................................................................21.132
Lantic Sugar Ltd. v. Baffin Investments (The Lake Michigan) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 141 .........85.187, 85.192, 85.197
Larrinaga & Co. Ltd. v. Société Franco-Americaine des Phosphates (1923) 14 Ll. L. Rep. 457 (H.L.)....... 22.14, 22.31
Larrinaga SS. Co. v. The Crown (1945) 78 Ll. L. Rep.167 ......................................................................................... 23.1
Lash Atlantico, The [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 114; [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 464 ............................................ 21.130, 85.413
Laura Prima, The (Nereide S.p.A. de Navigazione v. Bulk Oil International) [1982] A.C. 1; [1982]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (H.L.); [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 24 (C.A.); [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 466......................... 1.106, 57.8,
57A.44, 59.2, 59.3, 59A.10, 59A.11, 59A.12, 59A.17, 59A.18
Lauritzen (J.) v. Wijsmuller (The Super Servant Two) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; aff’g [1989]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 148 ..................................................................................................................................... 22.4, 22.17
Lauritzen Reefers v. Ocean Reef Transport Ltd. S.A. (The Bukhta Russkaya) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 744 .............. 85.4
Lauritzencool v. Lady Navigation [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 63 ..................................................................... 21.140, 21.144
Lavabre v. Wilson, 1 Doug. 284 ................................................................................................................................... 12.3
Laverack v. Woods of Colchester [1967] 1 Q.B. 278 ..................................................................................... 21.17, 21.19
Law Guarantee Society v. Russian Bank [1905] 1 K.B. 815 ....................................................................................... 2.36
Leduc v. Ward (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 475.............................................................. 6.26, 12.4, 12.6, 12.7, 12.17, 13.44, 18.46
Lee (Paula) v. Robert Zehil [1983] 1 All E.R. 390 .............................................................................. 21.20, 21.21, 21.23
Leeds Shipping Co. v. Duncan Fox & Co. (1932) 37 Com. Cas. 213 .............................. 15.7, 16.2, 16.9, 85.18, 85.355
Leeds Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Société Française Bunge (The Eastern City) [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127
(C.A.); aff’g [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 153........................................................ 5.58, 5.61, 5.71, 5.124, 21.135, 21.137
Leesh River Tea Co. v. British India Steam Navigation Co. (The Chyebassa) [1966] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 193;
[1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 450 ............................................................... 85.113, 85.280, 85.291, 85.297, 85.322, 85.350
Lefthero, The (Ellis Shipping Corp. v. Voest Alpine Intertrading) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 109 (C.A.); [1991]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 599 ................................................................ 13.29, 13.79, 13.113, 15.24, 15.38, 15.72, 57.27, 69.2
Lehmann Timber, The (Metall Market OOO v. Vitorio Shipping Co. Ltd) [2013] EWCA Civ 650
10.19, 17.38, 20.47, 20.48
lxxi
Leigh and Sillavan v. Aliakmon Shipping (The Aliakmon) [1986] A.C. 785; [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 203............. 18.91,
18.92, 18.114, 18.115, 21.128
Leila, The [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 172 ........................................................................................................................ 18.99
Leitrim, The [1902] P. 256.......................................................................................................................................... 20.29
Lemenda Trading v. African Middle East Petroleum [1988] Q.B. 448 ....................................................................... 1.60
Lendoudis Evangelos II, The [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 404 ............................................................................................ 3.40
Leni, The (Transworld Oil (U.S.A.) v. Minos Compania Naviera) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 48 .................. 85.185, 85.192
Lennards Carrying Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Co. [1915] A.C. 705; [1914] 1 K.B. 419 ................. 11.55, 85.283, 85.423
Leolga v. Glynn [1953] 2 Q.B. 374 .............................................................................................................................. 6.45
Leonidas, The (Bayoil v. Seawind Tankers Corp.) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 533............................. 1.115, 9.6, 52.5, 85.17
Leonis SS. Co. v. Joseph Rank (No. 2) (1908) 13 Com. Cas. 295 (C.A.); aff’g (1908) 13 Com.
Cas. 161 ......................................................................................................................................... 15.26, 25.6, 85.328
Leonis SS. Co. v. Rank [1908] 1 K.B. 499................................................................................................ 15A.39, 15A.41
Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. Impregilo SpA [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 497.................................... 85.387
Levy v. Assicurazione Generali [1940] A.C. 791 ......................................................................................... 26.25, 85.330
Levy v. Goldhill [1917] 2 Ch. 297.............................................................................................................................. 24.19
Lewis v. Dreyfus (1926) 24 Ll. L. Rep. 333 ..............................................................................................................15.27
Lickbarrow v. Mason (1794) 5 Term 683.................................. 18.145, 18.147, 18.148, 18.151, 18.152, 18.154, 18.159
Lidgett v. Williams (1845) 4 Hare 456........................................................................................................................... 1.3
Liepaya, The (U.B.C. Chartering v. Liepaya Shipping Co.) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 649 .......... 4.19, 11.19, 21.52, 85.96
Lignell v. Samuelson (1921) 9 Ll. L. Rep. 361 .......................................................................................................... 18.61
Lilley v. Doubleday (1881) 7 Q.B.D. 510............................................................................... 6.31, 12.44, 85.207, 85.335
Lilly, Wilson v. Smales, Eeles [1892] 1 Q.B. 456 ....................................................................................................... 2.35
Limerick v. Coker (1916) 33 T.L.R. 103.................................................................................................................... 18.67
Limerick SS. v. Stott (The Innisboffin) [1921] 2 K.B. 613 ....................................................................... 5.60, 5.86, 27.5
Limerick SS. Co. Ltd. v. W.H. Stott & Co. Ltd [1921] 1 K.B. 568 .......................................................... 5.72, 5.86, 27.5
Limnos, The (Serena Navigation v. Dera Commercial Est.) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 166 .............................85.9, 85.402,
85.404, 85.405, 85.406
Linardos, The (Cobelfret N.V. v. Cyclades Shipping Co. Ltd.) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 28 ......... 15.31, 15.39, 33.7, 33.8
Lindsay v. Klein [1911] A.C. 194 .............................................................................................................................85.109
Lindsay Blee Depots v. Motor Union Insurance Co. (1930) 37 Ll. L. Rep. 220....................................................... 85.80
Linea Naviera Paramaconi v. Abnormal Load Engineering (The Sophie J.) [2001] All E.R. (D.) 306 ................ 85.101,
85.178, 85.180
Linsen International v. Humpuss Sea Transport [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 663 ...............................................................2.43
Lipa, The [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 17 .................................................................................................................... 3.35, 3.40
Lips, The (President of India v. Lips Maritime Corp.) [1985] A.C. 395 ........................................................ 21.31, 26.71
Lishman v. Christie (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 333 (C.A.) .......................................................................................... 18.33, 18.34
Lister v. Thomson Shipping (The Benarty) [1985] Q.B. 325................................................................................... 85.191
Little v. Courage Limited (1994) 70 P.&C.R. 469 ..................................................................................................... 1.118
Little v. Stevenson [1896] A.C. 108 (H.L.) ............................................................................................................. 7.3, 7.4
Littlewoods v. Inland Revenue [1969] 1 W.L.R. 1241 ................................................................................................ 2.42
Livanita, The (STX Pan Ocean Co. Ltd v. Ugland Bulk Transport A.S.) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 86 ................5.31, 5.49
Liver Alkali Co. v. Johnson (1875) L.R. 9 Ex. 338 ................................................................................................. 85.298
Liverpool C.C. v. Irwin [1977] A.C. 239 ........................................................................................................ 1.124, 1.125
Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. (1880) 5 App. Cas. 25 ..........................................................................................21.1
Lloyd v. Guibert (1865) L.R. 1 Q.B. 115 ............................................................................................................ 20.2, 20.3
Lloyd Pacifico, The [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 54 ......................................................................................................... 85.102
Lloyde v. West Midlands Gas Board [1971] 1 W.L.R. 749..................................................................................... 85.121
Lloydiana, The [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 313 .................................................................................................................. 1.75
Lloyds & Scottish Finance v. Modern Cars and Caravans (Kingston) [1966] 1 Q.B. 764 ....................................... 21.50
Lloyds Bank Limited v. Marcan [1973] 1 W.L.R. 1387 .............................................................................................. 2.43
Lodza Compania de Navigacione S.A. v. Government of Ceylon (The Theraios) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 209 ....... 15.12
Logs & Timber Products (Singapore) v. Keeley Granite Pty. (The Freijo) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1....................... 15.45
Lo-Line Electric Motors, Re [1988] Ch. 477................................................................................................................ 2.45
London & Lancashire Fire Insurance v. Bolands [1924] A.C. 836 .............................................................. 26.26, 85.329
London & Manchester Plate Glass v. Heath [1913] 3 K.B. 411 (C.A.)................................................................... 85.330
London and Northern SS Co. v.. Central Argentine Railway (19130 108 L.T. 527 .................................................15.26
London Explorer, The [1972] A.C. 1.......................................................................................................................... 1.117
London Joint Stock Bank v. British Amsterdam Maritime Agency (1910) 16 Com. Cas. 102 ................. 18.150, 18.163
London Transport Co. v. Trechmann (1904) 90 L.T. 132 (C.A.) ................................................................... 13.79, 13.80
Lonrho v. Fayed [1992] A.C. 448................................................................................................................................. 2.45
Lord (SS.) (Owners) v. Newsum, Son & Co. [1920] 1 K.B. 846 ............................................................................ 85.270
lxxii
Lord Strathcona v. Dominion Coal (The Lord Strathcona) (No. 2) [1926] A.C. 108 .................................... 2.37, 21.141
Lord Strathcona, The (No. 2) (Lord Strathcona v. Dominion Coal) [1926] A.C. 108 ................................... 2.37, 21.141
Lordsvale Finance plc v. Bank of Zambia [1996] Q.B. 752 ....................................................................................21.132
Lorentzen v. White (1942) 74 Ll. L. Rep. 161 .................................................................................................... 3.26, 3.35
Lorna I, The (Compania Naviera General v. Kerametal) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 373 (C.A.); [1981]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 559..................................................................................... 13.56, 13.88, 13.107, 13.115, 26.65, 31.3
Loucas N., The (Ionian Navigation v. Atlantic Shipping) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 215 (C.A.) .................... 15.57, 15A.90
Louis Dreyfus. See Dreyfus
Love & Stewart v. Instone (1917) 33 T.L.R. 475........................................................................................................... 1.7
Love & Stewart v. Rowtor SS. [1916] 2 A.C. 527..................................................................................................... 15.19
Lovelock v. Exportles [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 163 ....................................................................................... 1.9, 51.3, 82.3
Lowlands Orchid, The (Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v Swissmarine Services SA) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 317 .......11.77
Lucille, The (Uni-Ocean Lines v. C-Trade) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 244 (C.A.)...................................... 5.87, 5.95, 21.38
Lucy, The (Atlantic Lines v. Hallam) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 188............................................................................... 1.84
Lupofresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444 .......1.27, 1.30, 1.33, 1.35, 1.36, 1.38, 1.39, 1.90, 1.93
Lycaon, The [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 548 ........................................................................... 18.142, 18.143, 18.147, 18.163
Lyle Shipping Co. v. Cardiff Corporation (1899) 5 Com. Cas. 87, 397 (C.A.) ......................... 16.7, 17.25, 17.26, 17.37
Lynch v. D.P.P. of Northern Ireland [1975] A.C. 653 ................................................................................................. 1.87
Lyric Shipping Inc. v. Intermetals Ltd. (The Al Taha) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 117 ................................................ 85.360
M&J Polymers v. Imerys Minerals [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 541 ...............................................................................21.132
M.B. Pyramid Sound N.V. v. Briese Schiffahrts G.m.b.H. (The Ines) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 144........................... 10.4,
18.71, 18.72, 18.74, 18.169
M.C. Pearl, The (Mahavir Minerals v. Cho Yang Shipping) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 566............................ 85.25, 85.191
M.D.C. Ltd. v. N.V. Zeevaart Maatschappij “Beursstraat” (The Westerdok) [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 180 ............... 11.19
MRI Trading AG v. Erdenet Mining Corp. LLC [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 638 .............................................................1.10
MSC Amsterdam, The (Trafigura Beheer BV v. Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A.) [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 622 ...10.20,
18.164, 18.166, 21.36, 85.4, 85.24, 85.31, 85.42, 85.88, 85.115, 85.230
MSC Napoli, The (Metvale Ltd v. Monsanto International Sarl) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 246 ....................................76.2
Mabanaft v. Erg Petroli (The Yellow Star) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 637 ....................................................................16.21
MacAndrew v. Chapple (1866) L.R. 1 C.P. 643 ........................................................................................................ 12.46
McCall v. Houlder (1897) 2 Com. Cas. 129.................................................................................................... 20.21, 20.27
McCarren v. Humber International Transport (The Vechscroon) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301.............. 85.6, 85.24, 85.44
McClean v. Fleming (1871) L.R. 2 Sc. & Div. 128 ........................................................................................ 13.10, 21.93
Maceo Shipping v. Clipper Shipping Lines [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 645.................................................................. 85.455
McFadden v. Blue Star Line [1905] 1 K.B. 697 ........................................................................................... 11.43, 85.292
Maciej Rataj, The [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 302 .......................................................................................................... 85.171
Mackay v. Dick (1881) 6 App. Cas. 251 ...................................................................................................................... 15.5
Mackay v. Scott Packing [1966] 2 F.C. 36 (Can. Fed. Ct. App.) .............................................................................. 1.113
Mackender v. Feldia [1967] 2 Q.B. 590 .............................................................................................................. 1.61, 82.1
McKew v. Holland & Hannen and Cubitts [1969] 3 All E.R. 1621 (H.L.) ............................................................. 85.453
MacKill v. Wright (1888) 14 App. Cas. 106 ....................................................................................................... 3.20, 3.21
McLean v. Fleming (1871) L.R. 2 Sc. & Div. 128 ......................................................................................... 13.10, 21.93
McRae v. Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 C.L.R. 377................................................................... 1.65
MacWilliam (J.I.) v. Mediterranean Shipping Co. (The Rafaela S) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127 (C.A.);
[2005] 2 A.C. 423; [2005] 2 A.C. 605 ...................................... 18.81, 18.82, 18.144, 18.145, 18.160, 18.163, 85.9,
85.23, 85.36, 85.37, 85.43, 85.50, 85.64, 85.66, 85.134, 85.489
Madeleine, The (Cheikh Boutros Selim El-Khoury and Others v. Ceylon Shipping Lines Ltd.) [1967]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 224 ............................................................................................................... 11.40, 19.8, 19.21, 19.28
Madras Electrical Supply Co. v. P. & O. (1924) 18 Ll. L. Rep. 93; aff’g (1923) 16 Ll. L. Rep. 240 ...................... 14.48
Maersk Colombo, The (Southampton Container Terminals v. Hansa Sch.) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 491....... 21.57, 21.58
Magellan Pirates, The (1853) 1 Sp. Ecc. & Ad. 81 .................................................................................................... 26.14
Magnhild v. McIntyre (1920) 25 Com. Cas. 347 ....................................................................................................... 1.110
Maharani Woollen Mills v. Anchor Line (1927) 29 Ll. L. Rep. 169........................................................... 85.227, 85A.1
Mahavir Minerals v. Cho Yang Shipping (The M.C. Pearl) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 566............................. 85.25, 85.191
Mahia, The (Shaw Savill & Albion Co. v. Electric Reduction Sales) [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 264 ......................... 85.459
Mahkutai, The [1996] A.C. 650 ................................................... 18.127, 18.128, 18.132, 18.137, 85.62, 85.468, 85.471
Maintop Shipping Co. v. Bulkindo Lines (The Marinicki) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 655 .............................................. 5.83
Maistos, The (unreported, Q.B. (Com. Ct.), 4 May 2001) ......................................................................................... 20.54
Makedonia, The [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 316; [1962] P. 190........................................ 11.35, 11.37, 20.41, 20.42, 85.106
Malakhov (Nikolay) Shipping v. S.E.A.S. Sapfor [1999] L.M.C.L.Q. 411.................................................. 85.86, 85.116
Malayan Motor and General Uunderwriters v. Abdul Karim [1982] 1 M.L.J. 5 .....................................................85.145
Malozzi v. Carapelli [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 407 .......................................................................................................... 1.11
lxxiii
Mamidoil v. Okta [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 76 (C.A.)..................................................................................................... 1.10

Mamola Challenger, The (Omak Maritime v. Mamola Challenger Co.) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 47 ..................21.3, 21.4
Manbre Saccharine v. Corn Products [1919] 1 K.B. 198................................................................................ 1.65, 18.149
Manchester Trust v. Furness [1895] 2 Q.B. 539 ............................................................................................. 18.47, 18.75
Mander v. Commercial Union [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 93 ................................................................................... 21.83
Manfield v. Maitland (1821) 4 B. & Ald. 582............................................................................................................ 13.91
Manifest Lipkowy, The [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 138................................................................................................... 24.19
Manifest Shipping v. Uni-Polaris Ins. Co. (The Star Sea) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 360...................... 1.106, 11.27, 11.29,
11.35, 11.58, 85.95
Mannai Investments Co. Ltd v. Eagle Star Life Assurance [1997] A.C. 749................................................. 1.102, 1.106
Mansfield v. Maitland (1821) 4 B. & Ald. 582 .......................................................................................................... 13.97
Mansel Oil Ltd v. Troon Storage Tankers S.A. (The Ailsa Craig) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 384 ..................................5.14
Maori King (Owners of Cargo on Ship) v. Hughes [1895] 2 Q.B. 550..................................................................... 11.36
Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund v. Rouvroy [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 475 ...................................................21.7
Maratha Envoy, The (Federal Commerce and Navigation v. Tradax) [1978] A.C. 1; [1977]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 301; [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 217........................................................................... 1.123, 15.37, 15.57
Marbienes Compania Naviera S.A. v. Ferrostaal A.G. (The Democritos) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 149 ............. 4.12, 19.2
Marc Rich v. Tourloti Compania Naviera (The Kalliopi A) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101 ..................... 15.24, 16.4, 85.18
Marcelino Gonzalez y Compania v. James Nourse [1936] 1 K.B. 565 .......................................................... 14.6, 85.230
Marconi v. P.T. Pan Indonesia Bank [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 594 ................................................................................ 1.46
Mardorf Peach & Co. Ltd. v. Attica Sea Carriers Corp. of Liberia (The Laconia) [1977] A.C. 850; [1977]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 315 .......................................................................................................................... 13.57, 19.40, 34.3
Maredelanto Compania Naviera S.A. v. Bergbau Handel G.m.b.H. (The Mihalis Angelos) [1971]
1 Q.B. 164 (C.A.); [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 43................. 4.5, 4.6, 19.28, 19.29, 21.8, 21.11, 21.16, 28.1, 33.8, 56.3
Mareva Compania Naviera v. International Bulk Carriers [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509............................................... 2.47
Margaronis v. Peabody [1965] 2 Q.B. 430; aff’g [1965] 1 Q.B. 300; [1964] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 173.... 6.21, 6.22, 9.2, 15.5
Margerine Union v. Cambay Prince [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 315 ............................................................................. 18.115
Maria G., The (Compania Crystal de Vapores v. Herman & Mohatta) [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 616............. 15.17, 15.19,
15.71
Mariannina, The [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 12 (C.A.)....................................................................................................... 1.31
Mariasmi, The (Marifortuna Naviera v. Government of Ceylon) [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 247................................. 1.111,
11.77, 85.3, 85.7, 85.17, 85.253, 85.260
Marida v. Oswal Steel (The Bijela) [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 636............................................................ 20.13, 20.14, 74.4
Mariella Bolten, The (Whitesea Shipping and Trading v. El PasoRio Clara) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 648 ............85.223,
85.224, 85.229
Marifortuna Naviera S.A. v. Government of Ceylon (The Mariasmi) [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 247 .............. 1.111, 11.77,
85.3, 85.7, 85.17, 85.253, 85.260
Marilu, The (Luigi Monta v. Cechofracht Co. Ltd.) [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 97 ........................................ 26.7, 26.8, 26.9
Marina Offshore Pte Ltd v. China Insurance Co. (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 66 ............................11.34
Marinicki, The (Maintop Shipping Co. v. Bulkindo Lines) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 655 ............................................. 5.83
Marinor, The (Noranda v. Barton) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301 85.6, 85.13, 85.15, 85.16, 85.90, 85.181, 85.204, 85.260
Marion, The (Grand Champion Tankers Ltd. v. Norpipe A/S) [1984] A.C. 563 ..................... 11.39, 11.56, 11.58, 11.63
Maritime Fish v. Ocean Trawlers [1935] A.C. 524...................................................................................................... 22.4
Maritime Stores v. Marshall [1963] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 602.............................................................................................. 23.9
Maritime Trader, The [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 152 ........................................................................................................ 2.46
Maritsa, The [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 581 .................................................................................................................... 13.15
Marlborough Hill, The [1921] 1 A.C. 444 (P.C.) ..................................................................................................... 18.147
Marrache v. Ashton [1943] A.C. 311 (P.C.)............................................................................................................... 13.51
Marsh v. Pedder (1815) 4 Camp. 257 ......................................................................................................................... 13.60
Marshall v. Nicoll 1919 S.C. 244 .................................................................................................................. 21.12, 85.393
Martin P, The (O’Kane v. Jones) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 389 ................................................................... 1.65, 2.16, 2.29
Martineaus v. Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. Ltd. (1912) 17 Com. Cas. 176 ............................................... 18.16, 18.181
Marubeni v. Mongolian Govt. [2002] 2 All E.R. (Comm.) 873 .................................................................................. 1.36
Marvigor v. Romanoexport [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 280............................................................................................. 20.60
Mary Lou, The (Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v. Cook Industries Inc.) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 272 ......... 5.52, 5.74,
5.93, 5.96
Mary Nour, The (Citi Group Inc. v. Transclear SA) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 526 ..........................................................7.7
Marzetti v. Smith & Son (1883) 49 L.T. 580 ........................................................................................................... 85.230
Masefield AG v. Amlin Corporate Mmember (The Bunga Melati Dua) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 630 .....................85.306
Maskell v. Horner [1915] 3 K.B. 106 ........................................................................................................................... 1.88
Mass Glory, The (Glencore Grain Ltd. v. Goldbeam Shipping Inc.) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 244 ........................... 15.31,
15.62, 21.34, 21.78, 21.82
lxxiv
Massalia, The (Government of Ceylon v. Société Franco-Tunisienne d’Armement-Tunis) [1962] 2 Q.B. 416....... 15.40
Massalia, The (No. 2) [1960] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 352...................................................................................................... 15.59
Massalia, The (Société Franco-Tunisienne v. Sidermar) [1961] 2 Q.B. 278....................................... 22.27, 22.29, 22.34
Mata K., The (Agrosin Pte. v. Highway Shipping) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 614 ................................ 13.10, 18.26, 18.31,
85.139, 85.151, 85.409
Matheos v. Louis Dreyfus [1925] A.C. 654 ................................................................................ 7.18, 7.20, 15.27, 85.131
Mathew, The (Cosemar v. Marimarna Shipping Co.) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 323 ......................................... 13.39, 13.40
Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Hestia Holdings Ltd [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 121 ...............................................1.31
Mauritius Oil Refineries v. Stolt-Nielsen (The Stolt Sydness) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 273 ................... 72.2, 85.5, 85.16,
85.180, 85.260
Mavro Vetranic, The (Greenwich Marine v. Federal Commerce & Navigation Co.) [1985]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 580 ....................................................................................................................................... 3.6, 21.47
Maxine Footwear v. Canadian Govt. Merchant Marine [1959] A.C. 589 (P.C.) ................................. 11.24, 52.7, 85.94,
85.101, 85.255, 85.256, 85.282
May & Butcher v. R. [1934] 2 K.B. 17 ........................................................................................................................ 1.10
Mayban General Insurance v. Alstom Power Plants [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 609 ....................................................85.334
Mayhew Foods v. Overseas Containers [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 317 ....................... 85.53, 85.78, 85.116, 85.395, 85.499
Mediana, The [1900] A.C. 113 ................................................................................................................................. 21.104
Medina Princess, The [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 361 ...................................................................................................... 22.36
Mediolanum Shipping v. Japan Lines Shipping Ltd. (The Mediolanum) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 136......................... 5.6,
5.10, 5.75, 57.11
Mediterranean & New York SS. Co. v. Mackay [1903] 1 K.B. 297 ......................................................................... 13.11
Mediterranean Freight Services v. B.P. Oil International (The Fiona) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 506
(C.A.); aff’g [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 257 ........................................... 6.56, 6.60, 11.30, 85.94, 85.95, 85.96, 85.173,
85.255, 85.258, 85.355, 85.431, 85.438, 85.448, 85.449, 85.454, 85.457, 85.460, 85.461
Mediterranean Salvage & Towage Ltd v. Seamar Trading & Commerce Inc. (The Reborn)
[2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 639 ................................................................................5.4, 5.26, 5.33, 5.38, 5.42, 5.44, 5.46
Medora Shipping Inc. v. Navix Line Ltd. and Navios Corporation (The Timawra) [1996]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 166 ..................................................................................................................................... 21.5, 21.47
Melachrino v. Nickoll [1920] 1 K.B. 693................................................................................................................... 21.56
Mendala III Transport v. Total Transport Corp. (The Wilomi Tanana) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 41 .... 18.39, 18.40, 18.41
Mendl v. Ropner [1912] 1 K.B. 27 ............................................................................................................................. 1.105
Merak, The [1965] P. 223................................................................................. 18.51, 72.2, 85.5, 85.195, 85.228, 85A.23
Merak, The (Varverakis v. Compania Naviera Artico) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 250........................................... 1.22, 1.26
Mercedes Envoy, The (Hanjin Shipping v. Zenith Chartering) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 559 ..................... 1.20, 1.25, 2.31
Merchant Shipping Co. v. Armitage (1873) L.R. 9 Q.B. 99........................................ 13.18, 13.20, 13.22, 13.24, 18.212
Meredith Jones (A.) & Co. v. Vangemar Shipping (The Apostolis) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 241 ................. 11.24, 85.95,
85.256, 85.282, 85.284
Meredith Jones (A.) & Co. v. Vangemar Shipping (The Apostolis (No. 2)) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 292...... 15.28, 21.57
Merida The (Novologistics Sarl v. Five Ocean Corporation) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 274 .................................4.1, 15.34
Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd. v. Securities Commission [1995] 2 A.C. 500 (P.C.) .................... 11.55,
11.56, 85.283, 85.423
Merkur Island Shipping Corp. v. Laughton [1983] A.C. 570 .................................................................................. 85.328
Merlin v. British Nuclear Fuels [1990] 2 Q.B. 557..................................................................................... 85.508, 85.509
Mersin, The [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 532 ..................................................................................................................... 13.14
Metall Market OOO v. Vitorio Shipping Co. Ltd (The Lehmann Timber) [2013] EWCA Civ 650 .......................10.19,
17.38, 20.47, 20.48
Metamorfosis, The [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 196 ............................................................................................................ 1.38
Metcalfe v. Britannia Ironworks (1877) 2 Q.B.D. 423.................................................................................... 5.102, 13.27
Metropolitan Water Board v. Dick, Kerr & Co. [1917] 2 K.B. 1 .............................................................................. 22.13
Metula, The (Shell International Petroleum Co. v. Seabridge Shipping) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 5 (C.A.);
[1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 436 ..................................................................................... 13.6, 13.7, 13.8, 26.67, 31.7, 53.2
Metvale Ltd v. Monsanto International Sarl (The MSC Napoli) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 246 ......................................76.2
Mexico I, The (Transgrain Shipping v. Global Transporte Oceanico) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 507 .............. 15.31, 15.42,
15.50, 15.51, 15.52
Meyerstein v. Barber (1866) L.R. 2 C.P. 38, aff’d (1870) L.R. 4 H.L. 317 ................................................. 18.149, 85.89
Micada v. Texim [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 57.............................................................................. 6.46, 6.52, 85.434, 85.439
Michael S, The (Evryalos Maritime Ltd v. China Pacific Insurance Co. QBD (Com Ct.,
20 December 2001), L.M.L.N. 31 January 2002, 579 ........................................................................................ 18.51
Michalakis, The (Xiamen Xindaan Trade Co. Ltd v. North China Shipping Co. Ltd) [2009] EWHC 588
(Comm) ................................................................................................................................................................18.62
Midwest Shipping v. D.I. Henry (Jute) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 375........................................................................... 5.108
lxxv
Miguel de Larrinaga v. Flack (1926) 21 Ll. L. Rep. 284 ............................................................................................. 58.7

Mihailos Xilas, The [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 186......................................................................................................... 17.28
Mihalis Angelos, The (Maredelanto Compania Naviera S.A. v. Bergbau Handel G.m.b.H.) [1971] 1 Q.B.
164 (C.A.); [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. ; [1971] 1 Q.B 164 43 .................................. 4.5, 4.6, 19.28, 19.29, 21.8, 21.11,
21.16, 28.1, 33.8, 56.3
Mikkelsen v. Arcos (1925) 42 T.L.R. 3.......................................................................................................................... 6.6
Milan Nigeria v. Angeliki B Maritime [2011] EWHC 892 (Comm) 85.262, ..........................................................85.333
Milburn v. Jamaica [1900] 2 Q.B. 540 ....................................................................................................................... 20.40
Miliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd. [1976] A.C. 443...................................................................................... 13.53
Millar v. Freden [1918] 1 K.B. 611 ..................................................................................................................... 3.20, 3.21
Millars Machinery v. David Way (1935) 40 Com. Cas. 204 ..................................................................................... 21.40
Miller v. Borner [1900] 1 Q.B. 691 ..................................................................................................................... 6.16, 6.19
Miller v. Law Accident Assurance Society [1903] 1 K.B. 712 .................................................................. 85.309, 85.317
Miller (James) v. Whitworth Street Estates [1970] A.C. 572....................................................................................... 1.98
Milvain v. Perez (1861) 3 E. & E. 495 ......................................................................................................................... 17.3
Minister of Food v. Reardon Smith Line (The Fresno City) [1951] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 265 ............. 85.129, 85.254, 85.266
Ministry of Food v. Lamport & Holt Line [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 371................... 6.49, 18.100, 85.336, 85.337, 85.341
Mira Oil Resources of Tortola v Bocimar NV (The Obo Venture) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101 ...............................16.21
Miramar, The (Miramar Maritime Corp. v. Holborn Oil Trading Ltd.) [1984] A.C. 676 (H.L.); [1984]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 129 (C.A.); [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 142; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 319 ....................................... 1.116,
14.38, 16.19, 17.18, 17.22, 17.44, 18.50, 18.53, 18.55, 18.56, 18.233, 58.1, 71.1, 85.12, 85.161, 85.353
Miramar Maritime Corp. v. Holborn Oil Trading Ltd. (The Miramar) [1984] A.C. 676 (H.L.); [1984]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 129 (C.A.); [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 142; [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 319 ....................................... 1.116,
14.38, 16.19, 17.18, 17.22, 17.44, 18.50, 18.52, 18.55, 18.56, 18.233,
58.1, 71.1, 85.12, 85.161, 85.353
Miranda, The (1872) L.R. 3 A. & E. 561 ..................................................................................................................... 73.4
Missouri SS. Co., Re (1889) 42 Ch. D. 321 ................................................................................................................. 1.38
Mitchell v. Darthez (1836) 2 Bing. N.C. 555 ............................................................................................................. 13.28
Mitchell v. Ede (1840) 11 Ad. & El. 888 .................................................................................................... 18.143, 18.163
Mitchell Cotts v. Steel Bros. [1916] 2 K.B. 610..................................................... 6.49, 6.57, 6.58, 6.59, 85.431, 85.434
Mitcheson v. Nicol (1852) 7 Exch. 929........................................................................................................................ 6.41
Mitsubishi v. East Wind (The Irbenskiy Proliv) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 383 ................................................. 1.112, 1.113
Mitsui & Co. Ltd. v. Novorossiysk Shipping Co. (The Gudermes) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 311;
rev’g in part [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 456 ...................................... 11.20, 11.23, 18.114, 52.22, 52.24, 85.96, 85.240
Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. v. Agip S.p.A. [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 263 ........................................................................ 13.14
Moel Tryvan v. Kruger. See Kruger v. Moel Tryvan
Moel Tryvan Ship Co. Ltd. v. Andrew Weir & Co. [1910] 2 K.B. 844 (C.A.) ........................ 19.7, 19.31, 19.36, 19.38,
19.39, 19.40, 26.46, 36.1, 56.4
Moller v. Jecks (1865) 19 C.B.(N.S.) 332 .................................................................................................................... 16.7
Molthes Rederi v. Ellerman’s Wilson Line [1927] 1 K.B. 710 ............................................................. 23.5, 23.12, 23.13
Monarch Steamship Company Ltd. v. Karlshamns Oljefabriker (A/B) [1949] A.C. 196; (1948) 82 Ll.
L. Rep. 137 .......................................................................................................... 12.11, 21.32, 21.42, 21.123, 85.360
Monat v. Clark Boyce [1992] 2 N.Z.L.R. 559 (N.Z. Ct.)........................................................................................... 21.69
Monroe Bros. v. Ryan [1935] 2 K.B. 28 (C.A.) ........................................... 4.9, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.16, 11.75, 28.1
Monta (Luigi) v. Cechofracht Co. Ltd. (The Marilu) [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 97 ...................................... 26.7, 26.8, 26.9
Montedison S.p.A. v. Icroma S.p.A. (The Caspian Sea) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 91............................ 13.84, 13.85, 13.86
Montgomery v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance [1902] 1 K.B. 734.................................................................. 20.24
Montoya v. London Assurance Co. (1851) 6 Ex. 451.............................................................................................. 85.296
Moor Line v. Louis Dreyfus [1918] 1 K.B. 89.................................................................................................. 23.2, 24.15
Moorcock, The (1889) 14 P.D. 64 .............................................................................................................................. 1.124
Moore Large v. Hermes [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 163 .................................................................................................... 2.21
Moore v. Lunn (1922) 11 Ll. L. Rep. 86 .................................................................................................................... 11.31
Moorsom v. Page (1814) 4 Camp. 103 ........................................................................................................................... 6.4
Morel v. Westmoreland [1904] A.C. 11 ....................................................................................................................... 2.21
Morris v. C.W. Martin & Sons [1966] 1 Q.B. 716 ........................................................... 18.121, 18.125, 18.133, 85.350
Morris v. KLM Dutch Airlines [2002] 2 A.C. 628....................................................................................................... 85.9
Morris v. Levison (1876) 1 C.P.D. 155 ............................................................................................................... 3.25, 6.15
Morrison v. Shaw Savill [1916] 2 K.B. 783 .................................................... 6.31, 12.4, 12.5, 12.7, 12.19, 12.30, 12.42
Mors-Le Blanch v. Wilson (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 227.................................................................................................... 17.28
Morton Construction v. City of Hamilton (1961) 31 D.L.R. 323 ................................................................................ 1.91
Mosconici, The (Kinetics Technology International v. Cross Seas Shipping) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 30 ............. 85.385,
85.389, 85.400, 85.402, 85.414
lxxvi
Mosfield, The (Chief Controller of Chartering of the Government of India v. Central Gulf SS.
Corporation) [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 173............................................................................................................. 15.18
Moss SS. Co. v. Whinney [1912] A.C. 254................................................................................................................ 17.36
Mosvolds Rederi v. Food Corporation of India (The King Theras) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .................................. 15.43
Motis Exports Ltd v. Dampskibsselskapet af 1912 Akt. Svendborg [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 211 (C.A.);
[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 837; [1999] All E.R (D.) 1490.................................... 10.20, 18.32, 18.122, 18.150, 18.162,
18.164, 18.169, 18.170, 85.116
Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries v. Shipping Corp. of India (The Kanchenjunga) [1990]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 391 (H.L.); [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 354 (C.A.); [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509 ............................ 5.109,
5.112, 5.114, 26.77, 70.6, 77.5, 85.136
Mottram Consultants v. Bernard Sunley [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.197.......................................................................... 1.117
Moundreas (George) v. Navimpex [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 515.................................................................................. 24.19
Mount Albert B.C. v. Australasian Temperance and General [1938] A.C. 224 (P.C.)................................................ 1.38
Mountain v. Whittle [1921] 1 A.C. 615.................................................................................................................... 85.289
Muhammed v. Ali [1947] A.C. 414 (P.C.) ................................................................................................................. 21.35
Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v. Honeywell Control Systems Ltd [2007] EWHC 447 .........................1.119, 1.124
Muncaster Castle, The (Riverstone Meat Pty. Ltd. v. Lancashire Shipping Co. Ltd.) [1961]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 57; [1961] A.C. 807 ..................................................................... 5.47, 11.52, 85.99, 85.103, 85.422
Munro v. Meyer [1930] 2 K.B. 312 ............................................................................................................................ 22.33
Myrto, The [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449.............................................................................................................. 4.12, 22.36
N.V. Reederij Amsterdam v. President of India (The Amstelmolen) [1960] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 82............ 15.26, 16.2, 17.8
NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v. Cargill International S.A. (The Global Santosh) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 455 ...............................................................................................................................................................15.49
Nai Matteini, The (Navigazione Alta Italia v. Svenska Petroleum) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 452 ................... 18.56, 18.61
Nailsea Meadow, The (Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha v. Bantham SS. Co. Ltd.) [1939] 2 K.B. 544 (C.A.) ..................... 26.8,
26.12, 85.301
Nance v. British Columbia Electric [1951] A.C. 601................................................................................................. 21.71
Nanfri, The (Federal Commerce v. Molena Alpha) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201; [1979] A.C. 757;
[1978] Q.B. 927 .............................................. 13.116, 13.117, 13.118, 18.61, 18.201, 18.203, 18.204, 18.215, 35.2
Nassau Bay, The [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 395.............................................................................................................. 26.22
National Bank of Greece v. Pinios [1990] 1 A.C. 637 ............................................................................................... 21.36
National Navigation Co. v. Endesa Generacion S.A. (The Wadi Sudr) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 193 ........................18.48
National Oil Co. of Zimbabwe v. Sturge [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 281......................................................... 85.301, 85.303
National Packaging Corp. v. N.Y.K. Line [1973]1 Lloyd’s Rep. 46 ......................................................................... 10.23
National SS. Co. v. S.A. Comercial de Exportacion (1933) 38 Com. Cas. 88 (H.L.); (1932) 37 Com.
Cas. 283 ......................................................................................................................................... 14.19, 14.46, 14.49
National Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia v. BP Oil Supply Co. (The Abqaiq) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 18 .................16.21
National Westminster Bank v. Jones [2001] 1 B.C.L.C. 98......................................................................................... 2.43
Naviera Mogor S.A. v. Société Metallurgique de Normandie (The Nogar Marin) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 412 (C.A.); aff’g [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 456................................. 1.71, 17.41, 18.24, 18.181, 18.201, 18.202,
18.208, 18.223, 18.224, 18.234, 18.235, 18.242, 37.6, 85.133, 85.142, 85.162
Navigazione Alta Italia v. Concordia Maritime Chartering (The Stena Pacifica) [1990]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 234 ................................................................................................................................... 85.7, 85.180
Navigazione Alta Italia v. Svenska Petroleum (The Nai Matteini) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 452 .................... 18.56, 18.61
Navrom v. Callitsis Ship Management (The Radauti) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 416 (C.A.).................... 15.58, 33.6, 57.10
Naxos, The (Compagnie Commerciale Sucres et Denrées v. Czarnikow) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 29........................... 7.2
Nea Agrex S.A. v. Baltic Shipping Co. Ltd. (The Agios Lazarus) [1976] Q.B. 933................... 1.8, 85.3, 85.14, 85.196
Nea Tyhi, The [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 606 ...................................................................................................... 2.43, 85.152
Nea Tyhi, The, and the Nea Elpis (Nueva Fortuna Corp. v. Tata Ltd) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 497 ......... 2.21, 2.23, 2.41
Neill v. Ridley (1854) 9 Exch. 677 ............................................................................................................................... 6.41
Nelson v. Dahl (1879) 12 Ch. D. 568; (1879) 6 App. Cas. 38 ........................................................................... 10.8, 14.5
Nelson v. Dundee (1907) S.C. 927 ........................................................................................................................ 4.6, 4.13
Nelson Pine Industries v. Seatrans New Zealand (The Pembroke) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 290 (N.Z.
High Ct.) ................................................................... 6.26, 6.30, 6.31, 85.71, 85.72, 85.119, 85.368, 85.401, 85.423
Nema, The (Pioneer Shipping v. B.T.P. Tioxide) [1982] A.C. 724 ................. 21.142, 22.13, 22.15, 22.26, 22.32, 22.33
Nemea, The (1979) (reported only on LEXIS)......................................................................................................... 18.172
Nerano, The (Daval Aciers d’Usinor v. Armare s.r.l.) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1................................... 18.54, 18.56, 46.4
Nereide S.p.A. de Navigazione v. Bulk Oil International (The Laura Prima) [1982] A.C. 1; [1982]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (H.L.); [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 24 (C.A.); [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 466 .................................. 1.106,
57.8, 57A.44, 59.2, 59.3, 59A.10, 59A.11, 59A.12, 59A.17, 59A.18
Nesbitt v. Lushington (1792) 4 T.R. 783 .................................................................................................................. 85.308
New Chinese Antimony v. Ocean SS. Co. [1917] 2 K.B. 664 ..................................................................... 18.26, 85.149
lxxvii
New Horizon, The (Tramp Shipping Corp. v. Greenwich Marine Inc.) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 314;
[1975] 1 W.L.R. 1042............................................................................................................................... 25.4, 85.324
New India Assurance Co. v. M/S Splosna Plovba (1986) A.I.R. 176........................................................................ 85.86
New York and Cuba Mail SS. Co. v. Eriksen and Christensen (1922) 27 Com. Cas. 330 ............................ 11.48, 19.17
New York Star, The (Salmond and Spraggon (Australia) v. Port Jackson Stevedoring) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 317; [1981] 1 W.L.R. 138 (P.C.)............................................... 18.137, 85.63, 85.126, 85.174, 85.224, 85.471
New Zealand Shipping Co. v. A.M. Satterthwaite & Co. (The Eurymedon) [1975] A.C. 154; [1974]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 534 (P.C.) .................................................................. 18.137, 85.63, 85.224, 85.225, 85.471, 85.472
Newa Line v. Erechthion Shipping (The Erechthion) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 180 ............................................... 5.6, 5.10
Newcastle Protection & Indemnity Association v. Assuranceforeningen Gard (The Labrador) [1998]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 387 ................................................................................................................................... 21.85, 21.88
Newfoundland Coast, The [1990] A.M.C. 997........................................................................................................... 85.61
Niarchos v. Shell Tankers [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 496 ............................................................................................ 3.8, 3.9
Nichols v. Marsland (1876) 2 Ex. D. 1..................................................................................................................... 85.299
Nicholson v. Fremantle Port Authority [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 391............................................................................. 68.9
Nickoll v. Ashton [1900] 2 Q.B. 298.......................................................................................................................... 21.56
Nicolene v. Simmonds [1953] 1 Q.B. 543...................................................................................................................... 1.9
Nielsen v. Wait (1885) 16 Q.B.D. 67 ......................................................................................................................... 15.11
Nifa, The [1892] P. 411 (C.A.) ................................................................................................................................... 14.12
Nigerian National Shipping Lines v. Mutual (The Windfall) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 664 ........................................ 21.50
Niki, The (South African Dispatch Line v. Owners of SS. Niki) [1960] 1 Q.B. 518; aff’g [1959]
1 Q.B. 238................................................................................................................................... 7.17, 7.18, 7.19, 7.21
Nikmary, The (Triton v. Vitol) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 55; [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .................................. 6.1, 7.1, 7.10,
15.14, 15.24, 15.47, 19.4, 33.4, 53.9, 57.12, 68.2
Nile Co. v. H. & J.M. Bennett (Commodities) [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 555................................................................. 22.1
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. International Import and Export Co. (The Elbe Maru) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 206 ................................................................................................................................................ 18.137, 85.472
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Ramjiban Serowgee [1938] A.C. 429 .............................................................................. 85.218
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. S.A. Marocaine de l’Industrie du Raffinage (The Tsukuba Maru) [1979]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 459.................................................................................... 57.6, 57.24, 57.25, 57.64, 58.2, 58.6, 65.7
Nisshin Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Cleaves & Co. Ltd. and Others [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 38 ............................. 2.38, 18.142,
24.2, 24.4, 24.6, 85.225
Nissho v. Livanos (1941) 69 Ll. L. Rep. 125.............................................................................................. 21.110, 21.116
Nissos Samos, The (Samos v. Eckhardt) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 378 .......................................................................... 1.19
Nizeti, The (Compagnie Algerienne v. Katana Soc.) [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 132 (C.A.); [1958]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325 .................................................................................................. 1.123, 11.41, 11.45, 11.46, 11.47
Nizuru, The (Hyundai v. Karander Maritime) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 66.................................................................... 4.19
Njegos, The [1936] P. 90 ..................................................................................................................................... 1.34, 1.38
Nobel’s Explosives v. Jenkins & Co. [1896] 2 Q.B. 326 ................................................................ 12.12, 85.313, 85.434
Nobel’s Explosives v. Rea (1897) 2 Com. Cas. 293 .................................................................................................. 20.48
Noble Resources v. Cavalier Shipping (The Atlas) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 642 ........................................... 13.10, 18.26,
18.82, 18.142, 85.139, 85.151, 85.409
Noel Bay, The [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 361 .............................................. 21.7, 21.20, 21.21, 21.24, 21.91, 21.97, 21.101
Noemijulia SS. Co. v. Minister of Food (The San George) [1951] 1 K.B. 223 (C.A.); (1950) 83 Ll.
L. Rep. 500 .................................................................................................................. 6.16, 15.42, 19.8, 19.16, 19.19
Nogar Marin, The (Naviera Mogor S.A. v. Société Metallurgique de Normandie) [1988]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412 (C.A.); aff’g [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 456 .......................................... 1.71, 17.41, 18.24, 18.181,
18.201, 18.202, 18.208, 18.224, 18.223, 18.234, 18.235, 18.242, 37.6, 85.133, 85.142, 85.162
Nolisement (Owners) v. Bunge y Born (The Nolisement) [1917] 1 K.B. 160 (C.A.); rev’g [1916]
1 K.B. 805 .......................................................................................... 9.1, 9.3, 15.6, 16.15, 17.5, 18.23, 21.22, 21.24
Noranda v. Barton (The Marinor) [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301 ..................................... 85.6, 85.13, 85.16, 85.90, 85.181,
85.204, 85.260
Nordglimt, The [1988] 1 W.L.R. 183; [1988] Q.B. 183...................................... 85.171, 85.172, 85.185, 85.186, 85.253
Nordic Navigator, The (Associated Bulk Carriers v. Shell International Petroleum) [1984]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 182................................................................................................................................................. 68.5
North River Freighters Ltd v. President of India (The Radnor) [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 668 ...................................15A.86
North Sea, The (Georgian Maritime Corp. v. Sealand Industries (Bermuda)) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
21 (C.A.); [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 324 ...................................................................... 19.8, 19.19, 19.25, 19.26, 19.32
North Sea Energy Holdings v. Petroleum Authority of Thailand [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 483 (C.A.);
[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 418 .............................................................................................................. 21.8, 21.11, 21.19
North Sea Ventures v. Anstead Holdings [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 265 .....................................................................21.132
Northern Ocean Shipping v. Hyundai Construction (The Atlantic Baron) [1979] Q.B. 705 ...................................... 1.92
lxxviii
Northern Pioneer, The (CMA CGM v. KG MS Northern Pioneer) [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 212.................... 25.12, 26.76
Northern Progress, The (No. 2) (Ceval Alimentos v. Agrimpex Trading) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 319 .................... 18.55
Northern Shipping v. Deutsche Seereederei (The Kapitan Sakharov) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 255 (C.A.);
aff’g unreported, 20 February 1998........................................... 6.53, 11.31, 85.95, 85.100, 85.120, 85.258, 85.449,
85.458, 85.460, 85.461
Northgate, The (Ocean Pride Maritime LP) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 511 ........................................................15.29, 15.49
Northumbrian Shipping Co. Ltd. v. E. Timm and Son Ltd. [1939] A.C. 397 ........................................................... 11.51
Norway, The (No. 2) (Owners of the Norway v. Ashburner) (1865) 3 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 245;
rev’g (1864) B. & L. 226, 377, 404 ..................................................................................... 3.22, 13.18, 13.21, 20.47
Norway, Owners of The v. Ashburner (The Norway) (No. 2) (1865) 3 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 245;
rev’g (1864) B. & L. 226, 377, 404 ..................................................................................... 3.22, 13.18, 13.21, 20.47
Notara v. Henderson (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 225............................................................................................................. 20.13
Notos, The (S.A. Marocaine de l’Industrie du Raffinage v. Notos Maritime Corp.) [1987]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 503 (H.L.); [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 334 (C.A.) ...................... 1.110, 57.4, 57.7, 57A.44, 58.6, 59.28
Notting Hill, The (1884) 9 P.D. 105 ......................................................................................................................... 21.123
Nour, The (Islamic Investment v. Transorient Shipping) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ............................... 6.20, 6.48, 12.17,
12.34, 12.43, 85.436
Novassen v. Alimenta [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 648 .......................................................................................................21.9
Novologistics Sarl v. Five Ocean Corporation (The Merida) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 274 .................................4.1, 15.34
Novorossisk Shipping v. Neopetro Co. (The Ulyanovsk) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 425............................. 5.10, 5.14, 5.69,
21.33, 21.122, 57.11, 59.4
Nueva Fortuna Corp. v. Tata Ltd (The Nea Tyhi and the Nea Elpis) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 497 ........... 2.21, 2.23, 2.43
Nugent v. Michael Goss Aviation [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 222 ................................................................... 85.408, 85.424
Nugent v. Smith (1876) 1 C.P.D. 421 ............................................................................................ 85.298, 85.300, 85.424
Nyholm, Ex parte, Re Child (1873) 29 L.T. 634...................................................................................................... 13.106
O/Y Wasa SS. Co. v. Newspaper Pulp & Wood Export (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 936 ................................................... 2.17
Oakworth, The (Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers v. Teigland) [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 581 .......... 1.2, 21.140
Obestain Inc. v. National Mineral Development Corp. (The Sanix Ace) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 465..................... 18.91,
21.46, 21.126, 85.386
Obo Venture, The (Mira Oil Resources of Tortola v Bocimar NV) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 101 ..............................16.21
Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp. v. Skibs A/S Avanti (The Siboen and the Sibotre) [1976]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 293 ..................................................................................................................................... 1.88, 22.10
Ocean Chemical Transport v. Exnor Craggs [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 446 .................................................................. 1.112
Ocean Dynamic, The (Jack L. Israel v. Ocean Dynamic Lines) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 88..................................... 21.31,
21.117, 21.123, 21.124
Ocean Frost, The (Armagas v. Mundogas) [1986] A.C. 717 .............................................................................. 2.27, 2.28
Ocean Pride Maritime LP (The Northgate) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 511 .........................................................15.29, 15.49
Ocean Victory, The (Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v. China National Chartering Co. Ltd) [2013]
EWHC 2199 ......................................................................................................................5.58, 5.82, 5.94, 5.98, 5.99
Oceanfocus Shipping v. Hyundai Merchant Marine (The Hawk) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 176 ................... 18.42, 18.181,
18.182, 85.144
Oceanografia S.A. de C.V. v. DSND Subsea A.S (The Botnica) (2006) 695 L.M.L.N. 1 .......................................... 82.1
Odenfeld, The [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 367.................................................................................................................. 21.55
Odfjfell (Odfjell) Seachem v. Continentale des Petroles et d’Investissements [2005]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 275 ................................................................................................................................... 21.92, 21.97
Ogden v. Graham (1861) 1 B. & S. 773 ..................................................................... 5.24, 5.65, 5.67, 5.90, 5.110, 5.112
Oglesby v. Yglesias (1858) E.B. & E. 930................................................................................................................... 2.18
Ohrloff v. Briscall (1866) L.R. 1 P.C. 231 ................................................................................................................. 14.23
Oinoussian Friendship, The (Elpidoforos v. Furness Withy) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 258 ..... 15.72, 15.73, 21.48, 21.108
O’Kane v. Jones (The Martin P) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 389 .................................................................... 1.65, 2.16, 2.29
Okehampton, The [1913] P. 173............................................................................................ 18.47, 18.73, 18.115, 21.128
Okura v. Navara [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 537; [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 561................................................................... 1.15
Olanda, The [1919] 2 K.B. 728n................................................................................................................................... 6.64
Olbena S.A. v. Psara Maritime Inc. (The Thanassis A.) (1982) L.M.L.N. 68.................................................. 57.16, 58.8
Oldendorff (E.L.) & Co. v. Tradax Export (The Johanna Oldendorff) [1974] A.C. 479 (H.L.); [1973]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285 ................................................................ 15.36, 15.37, 15A.39, 15A.40, 15A.41, 15A.42, 19.14
Oliver v. Fielden (1849) 4 Exch. 135 ............................................................................................................................. 4.6
Ollive v. Booker (1847) 1 Exch. 416..................................................................................................................... 3.27, 4.2
Oltenia, The (Babanaft International Co. v. Avant Petroleum Inc.) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 448,
affirmed [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 99 (C.A.) ...........................................................................................................16.21
Olympic Brilliance, The (Lakeport Navigation Co. v. Anonima Petroli Italiana) [1982]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 205; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 176 ........................................................................................ 13.70, 53.9
lxxix
Olympic Galaxy, The (Galaxy Special Maritime Enterprise v. Prima Ceylon Ltd.) (C.A.) [2006]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 27 ......................................................................................................................................... 20.2, 20.3
Olympic Pride, The (Ets. Georges et Paul Levy v. Adderley Navigation) [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 67 ........................ 1.74
Omak Maritime v. Mamola Challenger Co. (The Mamola Challenger) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 47 ...................21.3, 21.4
Omnium d’Entreprises v. Sutherland [1919] 1 K.B. 618 ............................................................................................. 3.13
Onego Shipping & Chartering BV v. JSC Arcadia Shipping (The Socol 3) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 221 ..................6.32,
6.35, 6.38, 11.17, 85.12
Onisilos, The (Salamis Shipping v. Edm. van Meerbeeck & Co.) [1971] 1 Q.B. 500 (C.A.) ................................... 25.2,
25.6, 25.7, 25.17, 25.20, 43.3
Ord v. Bellhaven Pubs Ltd [1998] B.C.C. 607............................................................................................................. 2.42
Oriental SS. Co. v. Tylor [1893] 2 Q.B. 518 .................................................. 13.25, 13.106, 18.207, 18.237, 26.66, 53.3
Orinoco Navigation v. Ecotrade (The Ikariada) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 365; [1999] All E.R.
(D.) 727...................................................................................................................................... 18.61, 18.187, 18.229
Orion v. Belfort [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 257 ................................................................................................................. 1.29
Orjula, The [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 395 ........................................................................................................... 6.52, 85.454
Oro Chief, The (Eximenco Handels A.G. v. Partrederiert Oro Chief) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509........................... 19.40
Ot Sonja, The (Cargill International v. C.P.N. Tankers) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 435 (C.A.) ..................................... 1.37,
85.174, 85.177, 85.178, 85.180, 85.201, 85.249, 85.260
Overseas Transportation Co. v. Mineralimportexport (The Sinoe) [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201 (C.A.); [1971] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 514 ................................................................. 11.12, 15.7, 16.14, 17.2, 17.10, 17.12, 17.13, 17.29, 17.42, 68.2
Owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship Tatry v. The owners of the ship Maciej Rataj
(The Tatry) [1994] E.C.R. I–5439 ....................................................................................................................... 85.27
P v. A [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 415 3.6, 4.19, 5.21
P. & O. v. Leetham (1915) 32 T.L.R. 153.................................................................................................................. 10.17
P. & O. Nedlloyd v. Arab Metals Co. (The UB Tiger) (No. 2) Com Ct., 5 October 2006 ..................................... 21.143
Pace Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Churchgate Nigeria Ltd. (The Pace) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 183 18.85, 18.97
Pace Shipping Ltd. v. Churchgate Nigeria Co. Ltd (The Pace ) (No. 2) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 537 ......................18.97,
85.189, 85.192
Pacific Basin IHX Ltd v. Bulkhandling Handymax AS (The Triton Lark) [2012] Lloyd’s Rep. 151 .......................44.4,
44.5, 44.13, 77.2
Pacific Carriers v. BNP Paribas (2004) 208 A.L.R. 213 (H.C.A.).................................................................. 2.28, 18.173
Pacific Milk v. Koninklinjke Jaya [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 492................................................................................... 10.26
Pacific Molasses v. Entre Rios (The San Nicholas) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 8..................................... 1.38, 18.61, 85.244
Pagnan (R.) v. Corbisa Industrial [1970] 1 W.L.R. 1306........................................................................................... 21.46
Pagnan (R.) & Fratelli v. Finagrain (The Adolf Leonhardt) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 395 ............................... 15.21, 15.63
Pagnan (R.) & Fratelli v. N.G.J. Schouten [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349 ......................................................................... 4.8
Pagnan (R.) & Fratelli v. Tradax Export [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 150 .......................................................................... 57.6
Pagnan S.p.A. v. Feed Products [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601 ........................................................................... 1.4, 1.5, 1.6
Pagnan S.p.A. v. Tradax Ocean Transportation [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 342; [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 646............... 1.108,
1.115, 11.77, 11.78, 85.16
Palace Shipping Company Ltd. v. Gans SS. Line [1916] 1 K.B. 138 ......................................................................... 5.74
Palgrave, Brown v. Turid [1922] 1 A.C. 397 .................................................................................................. 14.11, 14.12
Palm Shipping v. Kuwait Petroleum Corp. (The Sea Queen) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 500 .......... 1.108, 57.9, 59.3, 59.21
Palmea, The (Ferruzzi France v. Oceania Maritime) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 261 ............................... 21.15, 21.18, 21.24
Palmer v. Thomas (1828) 2 Moo. P.C. 296 ................................................................................................................ 57.11
Panaghia P., The (Howard Houlder & Partners v. Marine General Transporters) [1983]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 653 ........................................................................................................ 24.2, 24.5, 24.9, 24.12, 24.13
Panaghia Tinnou, The (C.H.Z. Rolimpex v. Eftavrysses) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 586 ........ 14.42, 14.54, 85.262, 85.461
Panglobal Friendship, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 368 ....................................................................................... 17.1, 79.3
Pantanassa, The (Efploia Shipping Corp. v. Canadian Transport) [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449............................ 4.8, 33.8
Pao On v. Lao Yiu Long [1980] A.C. 614 .......................................................................................................... 1.89, 1.92
Paola d’Alesio, The (Chimimport v. D’Alesio SAS) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 366 ....................................................... 82.1
Papas Olio JSC v. Grains & Fourrages [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 152 1.3
Papayanni v. Grampian SS. Co. (1896) 1 Com. Cas. 448.......................................................................................... 20.15
Papera Traders v. Hyundai Merchant Marine (The Eurasian Dream) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 719;
[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 692 ........................................ 11.25, 11.26, 11.33, 21.77, 21.78, 85.93, 85.94, 85.95, 85.98,
85.109, 85.121, 85.254, 85.265, 85.282
Parabola Investments v. Browallia Cal [2011] Q.B. 477 ...........................................................................................21.43
Paragon, The (Lansat v. Glencore Grain) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 688 .....................................................................21.132
Parana, The (1877) 2 P.D. 118 (C.A.) ...................................................................................................................... 21.123
Parker v. Winslow (1857) 7 E. & B. 942 ............................................................................................................ 2.10, 2.12
Paros, The [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 269......................................... 16.15, 18.218, 18.229, 18.230, 18.233, 85.161, 85.163
lxxx
Parouth, The [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 351 ...................................................................................................................... 1.49

Parsons v. New Zealand Shipping Co. [1901] 1 K.B. 548; aff’g [1900] 1 Q.B. 714........... 10.14, 18.37, 85.137, 85.344
Parsons Corporation v. CV Scheep. (The Happy Ranger) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 357.............................................. 6.31,
18.43, 72.3, 85.12, 85.36, 85.40, 85.42, 85.66, 85.71, 85.105, 85.119, 85.133, 85.137,
85.344, 85.368, 85.401, 85.423, 85.401, 85.423
Parsons (H.) (Livestock) v. Uttley Ingham [1978] Q.B. 791 ..................................................................................... 21.38
Paterson v. Robin Hood Mills (1937) 58 Ll. L. Rep. 33............................................................................................ 12.31
Paterson Zochonis & Co. Ltd. v. Elder Dempster & Co. Ltd. [1924] A.C. 522 ....................... 8.2, 11.32, 18.73, 18.127,
18.128, 18.132, 85.62, 85.224, 85.264, 85.468
Patria, The (1871) L.R. 3 A. & E. 436 ....................................................................................................................... 12.15
Patterson Steamships v. Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers [1934] A.C. 538 ................................. 85.348, 85.349
Paul (R. & W.) v. National SS. Co. (1937) 43 Com. Cas. 68; (1937) 59 Ll. L. Rep. 28............................. 18.91, 21.126
Payzu v. Saunders [1919] 2 K.B. 58........................................................................................................................... 21.52
Pearl C, The (Bulk Ship Union S.A. v. Clipper Bulk Shipping Ltd) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 533 ......................... 9.5, 9.8
Pearl Carriers v. Japan Line (The Chemical Venture) [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 528 .......................................... 5.48, 5.112
Peek v. Larsen (1871) L.R. 12 Eq. 378 ............................................................................................................. 1.71, 18.47
Pegase, The [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 175 .............................................................................. 21.33, 21.123, 21.124, 21.125
Pegler Ltd. v. Wang [2000] B.L.R. 218...................................................................................................................... 21.40
Pembroke, The (Nelson Pine Industries v. Seatrans New Zealand) [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 290
(N.Z. High Ct.).......................................................... 6.26, 6.30, 6.31, 85.71, 85.72, 85.119, 85.368, 85.401, 85.423
Pendle and Rivet v. Ellerman Lines (1928) 33 Com. Cas. 70 .......................................... 85.139, 85.349, 85.409, 85.416
Penelope, The [1928] P. 180........................................................................................................ 22.9, 22.13, 22.25, 22.33
Pennsylvania Shipping v. Cie. Nationale de Navigation (1936) 55 Ll. L. Rep. 271 ..................................................... 3.3
Pera, The [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 363.......................................................................................................................... 1.112
Perry v. Suffields [1916] 2 Ch. 187 .............................................................................................................................. 1.13
Pesquerias y Secaderos de Bacalao de España S.A. v. Beer (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 501; [1949]
1 All E.R. 845 ......................................................................................................................................... 26.23, 85.303
Peter Cassidy Seed Co. v. Osuustukkakauppa Ltd. [1957] 1 W.L.R. 273 ..................................................................... 7.8
Peter der Grosse, The (1875) 1 P.D. 414; (1876) 34 L.T. 749................................................................................. 85.142
Petersen v. Dunn (1895) 1 Com. Cas. 8 ................................................................................................................ 7.14, 9.2
Petersen v. Freebody [1895] 2 Q.B. 294 ......................................................................................................... 14.17, 14.61
Petr Schmidt, The (Galaxy Energy International v. Novorossiysk Shipping) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 1; aff’g [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 284 ............................................................................................................. 15.54
Petr Shmidt, The (Swiss Bank Corporation v. Novorossiysk Shipping Co.) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 202................... 51.2
Petredec v. Tokomaru Kaiun (The Sargasso) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 162 ............................................................... 85.196
Petrinovic v. Mission Française des Transports Maritimes (1941) 71 Ll. L. Rep. 208.................................. 15.74, 22.36
Petrocochino v. Bott (1873) L.R. 9 C.P. 355................................................................................................................ 10.4
Petrodel Resources v. Prest [2013] U.K.S.C. 34 ......................................................................2.38, 2.39, 2.40, 2.42, 2.43
Petrofina S.A. v. Compania Italiana Trasporto Olii Minerali (1937) 57 Ll. L. Rep. 247; (1937)
42 Com. Cas. 286 (C.A.); (1937) 42 Com. Cas. 130; (1936) 56 Ll. L. Rep. 141 ............ 68.3, 68.4, 85.125, 85.235
Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v. FR8 Singapore Pte Ltd (The Eternity)
[2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 107 ......................................................................................................................68.10, 85.276
Petroleum Shipping v. Vatis [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 314 ............................................................................................. 2.39
Petros Hadjikyriakos, The (Food Corporation of India v. Achilles Halcoussis) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 56 ............. 15.43
Petrotrade v. Stinnes [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 142; [1981] Lloyd’s Rep. 521 ................................................ 21.12, 85.393
Peyman v. Lanjani [1985] Ch. 457 ............................................................................................................................... 2.21
Phelps v. Hill [1891] 1 Q.B. 605 ................................................................................................................................ 12.15
Philipps v. Edwards (1858) 3 H. & N. 813 ................................................................................................................ 18.46
Phoenix v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 552.................................................................. 1.52
Phosphate Mining Co. v. Rankin Gilmour & Co. (1915) 21 Com. Cas. 248 ................................................. 3.13, 85.310
Photo Production v. Securicor [1980] A.C. 827 (H.L.) ................................................ 1.112, 1.133, 11.72, 12.29, 12.38,
12.42, 18.166, 85.207, 85.469
Pickering v. Barclay (1648) Styles 132 .................................................................................................................... 85.306
Pilgrim Shipping Co. Ltd. v. State Trading Corporation of India (The Hadjitsakos) [1975]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 356 ....................................................................................................................................... 5.18, 5.17
Pinch & Simpson v. Harrison Whitfield (1948) 81 Ll. L. Rep. 268 ............................................................................ 4.16
Pindell v. AirAsia Berhad [2011] 2 All E.R. Comm 396 ...........................................................................................21.30
Pink v. Fleming (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 396..................................................................................................................... 85.297
Pinta, The [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 103; aff’g [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 246 .................................................................... 1.77
Pioneer Container, The [1994] 2 A.C. 324; sub nom. The K.H. Enterprise [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 593............... 18.118,
18.127, 18.128, 18.129, 18.132, 18.133, 18.134, 18.136, 85.62, 85.468
Pioneer Shipping v. B.T.P. Tioxide (The Nema) [1982] A.C. 724 .................. 21.142, 22.13, 22.15, 22.26, 22.32, 22.33
lxxxi
Pionier, The (Continental Fertilizer v. Pionier Shipping) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 223 .................. 85.183, 85.190, 85.193
Piracy Jure Gentium, Re [1934] A.C. 586 .................................................................................................................. 26.13
Pirelli General v. PSA Corp. [2003] S.G.H.C. 31 ....................................................................................................85.404
Pirie v. Middle Dock (1881) 44 L.T. 426 ................................................................................................................... 20.39
Platform Home Loans v. Oyston Shipways [2000] 2 A.C. 190 ...................................................................... 21.62, 21.75
Playa Larga, The (Empresa Exportadora de Azucar v. Industria Azucarera Nacional) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 .. 22.1
Polar, The (A.I.C.C.O. v. Forggensee Navigation) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 478................... 14.24, 14.38, 85.116, 85.333
Polessk, The, and the Akademik Iosif Orbeli [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 40.................................................... 85.109, 85.122
Polish Steamship Co. v. Williams Fuels (The Suwalki) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 511 .................................................. 2.31
Polly Peck International Plc, Re [1996] 2 All E.R. 433 ............................................................................................... 2.43
Polyglory, The (Kristiansands Tankrederi A/S v. Standard Tankers (Bahamas) Ltd.) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 353...................................................................................................................................... 5.59, 5.62, 5.64, 5.99
Port Line v. Ben Line [1958] 2 Q.B. 146 ................................................................................................................. 21.141
Port Russel, The (Trafigura Beheer v. Ravennavi SpA) [2013] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 57 ...................................................15.31
Port Swettenham Authority v. T.W. Wu & Co. [1979] A.C. 580............................................................................ 18.120
Porteus v. Watney (1878) 3 Q.B.D. 227 ........................................................................ 16.19, 16.20, 17.22, 17.35, 18.52
Portolana Cia. Nav. v. Vitol S.A. (The Afrapearl) [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 305; rev’g [2003] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 671........................................................ 5.10, 15.28, 15.29, 15.67, 15.69, 57.13, 57.16, 57.22, 58.8, 59.7, 59.8
Portuguese Consolidated Copper Mines, Re (1890) 45 Ch. D. 16 ............................................................................... 2.33
Posner v. Scott-Lewis [1987] Ch. 25 ........................................................................................................................ 21.144
Postlethwaite v. Freeland (1880) 5 App. Cas. 599 ................................................................................................ 7.8, 14.4
Potter v. Burrell [1897] 1 Q.B. 97 .............................................................................................................................. 12.21
Potts (A.E.) v. Union Steamship [1946] N.Z.L.R. 276 ............................................................................... 85.337, 85.348
Prenn v. Simmonds [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1381 ....................................................................................................... 1.97, 1.102
President Brand, The (Inca Compania Naviera v. Monofil Inc.) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 338........ 16.15, 59.2, 59.3, 59.4
President of India v. Jebsens (U.K.) (The General Capinpin) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; [1989]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 232 ................................................................................................................................... 15.12, 15.43
President of India v. La Pintada. See La Pintada Cia Navegacion S.A. v. President of India
President of India v. Lips Maritime Corp. (The Lips) [1985] A.C. 395 ......................................................... 21.36, 26.71
President of India v. Metcalfe Shipping Co. (The Dunelmia) [1970] 1 Q.B. 289; [1969] 2 Q.B. 123......... 17.45, 17.47,
18.2, 18.208, 70.4, 85.67, 85.482
President of India v. N.G. Livanos Maritime (The John Michalos) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 188 ................................ 16.4
President of India v. Olympia Sauna Shipping [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 455................................................................... 5.3
Price v. Livingstone (1882) 9 Q.B.D. 679 ................................................................................................................ 13.104
Price v. Noble (1811) 4 Taunt. 123 ............................................................................................................................ 20.15
Pride Shipping v. Chung Hua Pulp [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 126................................................................................. 18.56
Priestly v. Fernie (1863) 3 H. & C. 977 ....................................................................................................................... 2.21
Primorje, The [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 74......................................................................................................................... 2.4
Primula, The [1894] P. 128................................................................................................................... 13.93, 13.94, 13.95
Princess, The (1894) 70 L.T. 388 ................................................................................................................ 18.175, 18.179
Pro Victor, The [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep., 158; (2010) L.M.C.L.Q. 359 21.7
Procter & Gamble v. Peter Cremer [1988] 3 All E.R. 843 ........................................................................................ 13.27
Procter, Garratt, Marston v. Oakwin SS. Co. [1926] 1 K.B. 244.................................................................. 10.19, 21.117
Produce Brokers v. Olympia Oil & Cake Co. [1916] 1 A.C. 314................................................................................ 82.1
Product Star, The [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 268............................................................................................................. 1.106
Product Star, The (No. 2) (Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co. v. Product Star Shipping) [1993]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 397 (C.A.)............................................................................................................. 26.30, 26.34, 26.35
Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd v. Tube City IMS LLC (The Cenk Kaptanoglu) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 501 ....................3.5
Prometheus, The (Venezelos v. Soc. Commerciale de Cereales) [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 350 ........................... 5.20, 7.18
Protank Orinoco, The (Protank Shipping v. Total Transport Corp.) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 42 ..................... 13.72, 53.3,
53.9, 53.10, 68.2
Protank Shipping v. Total Transport Corp. (The Protank Orinoco) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 42 ...................... 13.72, 53.3,
53.9, 53.10, 68.2
Pteroti v. National Coal Board (The Chios Breeze) [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 245; [1958] 1 Q.B. 469.............. 15.56, 57.1
Puerto Buitrago, The (Attica Sea Carriers v. Ferrostaal Poseidon) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 250 ...................... 21.55, 32.6
Pust v. Dowie (1864) 5 B. & S. 20.................................................................................................................. 13.21, 13.23
Pyrene v. Scindia Navigation [1954] 2 Q.B. 402 ..................................... 14.2, 18.45, 18.78, 85.65, 85.68, 85.79, 85.80,
85.85, 85.86, 85.88, 85.111
Pythia, The (Western Sealanes Corp. v. Unimarine S.A.) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 160 ............................................... 3.15
Quark v. Chiquita Unifrutti Japan (The Vinson) (2005) 677 L.M.L.N. 1 (Com. Ct. 26 April 2005) ....................... 18.64
Queensland National Bank Ltd. v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. [1898] 1 Q.B. 567 ................... 11.36
Quinn v. Birch Bros. (Builders) [1966] 1 Q.B. 370 ................................................................................................... 21.69
lxxxii
R. v. Coroner for South-East Kent, Ex parte Spooner (The Herald of Free Enterprise) (1987) 88 Cr.
App. Rep. 10 ...................................................................................................................................................... 85.429
Radauti, The (Navrom v. Callitsis Ship Management) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 416 (C.A.)................... 15.58, 33.6, 57.10
Radford v. de Froberville [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1262 ....................................................................................................... 21.57
Radnor, The (North River Freighters Ltd v. President of India) [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 668................................. 15A.86
Raeburn v. Burness (1895) 1 Com. Cas. 22 ................................................................................................................. 2.32
Rafaela S, The (J.I. MacWilliam v. Mediterranean Shipping Co.) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127 (C.A.);
[2005] 2 A.C. 423; [2005] 2 A.C. 605 ........................... 18.81, 18.82, 18.144, 18.145, 18.160, 18.163, 85.9, 85.23,
85.36, 85.37, 85.43, 85.50, 85.64, 85.66, 85.134, 85.489
Rafaella, The [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 36 ....................................................................................................................... 2.28
Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H. & C. 906.............................................................................................................. 1.101
Raflatac v. Eade [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 506.................................................................................................. 21.69, 85.463
Rainy Sky v. Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2900 (The Rainy Sky) .....................................................................1.107
Ralli v. Paddington SS. Co. (1900) 5 Com. Cas. 124 ....................................................................................... 1.71, 18.47
Ralli Brothers v. Compania Naviera Sota y Aznar [1920] 2 K.B. 287 ........................................................................ 1.58
Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers v. Huddart Parker Industries (The Boral Gas) [1988]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 342 ....................................................... 15.9, 15.46, 16.15, 16.16, 17.36, 17.37, 21.101, 26.28, 79.3
Rasnoimport (V/O) v. Guthrie [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1........................................................................ 2.34, 18.12, 18.29
Rayner (J.H.) (Mincing Lane) v. Dept. of Trade & Industry [1989] Ch. 72 ............................................................... 2.15
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Australian Wheat Board (The Houston City) [1956] A.C. 266 (P.C.); [1954]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 148 (H.C. Aust.)............................................................................ 5.33, 5.35, 5.38, 5.60, 5.80, 21.42
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance [1939] A.C. 562 .......................... 12.1, 12.2, 12.4,
12.5, 12.7, 85.359
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. East Asiatic Co. (1938) 62 Ll. L. Rep. 23 ....................................................................15.26
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Hansen Tangen (The Diana Prosperity) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 621 (H.L.);
[1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 60 (C.A.)............................................................................................. 1.95, 1.96, 3.2, 3.5, 4.3
Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (The Vancouver Strike Cases)
[1963] A.C. 691; [1962] 1 Q.B. 42; [1960] 1 Q.B. 439 ................................. 5.8, 5.20, 5.24, 5.37, 7.17, 7.19, 7.23,
7.24, 7.25, 7.26, 7.27, 7.28, 15.11, 15.16, 15.26,
15.27, 15.55, 15.176, 85.304, 85.315
Reborn, The (Mediterranean Salvage & Towage Ltd v. Seamar Trading & Commerce Inc.) [2009]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 639 ............................................................................................5.4, 5.26, 5.33, 5.38, 5.42, 5.44, 5.46
Red. A/B Unda v. Burdon (1937) 42 Com. Cas. 239..................................................................................................... 8.3
Red. A/B Urania v. Zacharides (1931) 41 Ll. L. Rep. 145 ................................................................................. 3.25, 6.13
Red. Akt. Transatlantic v. Board of Trade (1924) 20 Ll. L. Rep. 241.............................................................. 6.59, 14.20
Red. Argonaut v. Hani [1918] 2 K.B. 247.................................................................................................................... 2.17
Red. Erven H. Groen v. England (Owners) [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 373.................................................................... 11.38
Red. Gustav Erikson v. Ismail (The Herroe and the Askoe) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 281 ................. 13.12, 18.35, 85.151
Red. “Macedonia” v. Slaughter (1935) 40 Com. Cas. 227......................................................................................... 14.62
Reed v. Page [1927] 1 K.B. 743 ................................................................................................................................. 11.46
Rederij Erven H. Groen v. England (Owners) [1973] 1 Lloyd’sLloydís Rep. 373 ...................................................11.39
Regazzoni v. K.C. Sethia (1944); [1958] A.C. 301...................................................................................................... 1.59
Regent v. Pageguide, The Times, 13 May 1985 ....................................................................................................... 21.144
Reidar v. Arcos [1927] 1 K.B. 352 (C.A.) ........................................................................................ 6.8, 16.14, 27.8, 54.9
Reigate v. Union Manufacturing [1918] 1 K.B. 592 .................................................................................................. 1.123
Remco, The (Gewa Chartering B.V. v. Remco Shipping Lines Ltd) [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 205 .............................. 2.20
Rena K., The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 545 ................................................................................................................... 18.56
Renee Byaffil, The (1916) 32 T.L.R. 660 ................................................................................................................. 85.271
Renton (G.H.) & Co. v. Palmyra Trading Corp. of Panama [1957] A.C. 149 (H.L.); rev’g [1956] 1 Q.B. 462..... 5.104,
18.168, 20.59, 26.54, 26.55, 85.85, 85.86, 85.111, 85.116,
85.117, 85.177, 85.230, 85.243, 85.249, 85.359, 85.361, 85.362
Republic of Bolivia v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co. [1909] 1 K.B. 785 ............................................. 85.329
Resolute Maritime v. Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (The Skopas) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 431 ............................................... 1.85
Resolven, The (1892) 9 T.L.R. 75 ....................................................................................................................... 3.22, 3.25
Rewia, The [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325 (C.A.).......................................................................... 18.67, 18.73, 18.74, 85.62
Rey Banano del Pacifico C.A. v. Transportes Navieros Ecuatorianos (The Isla Fernandina) [2000]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 15 ....................................... 85.95, 85.254, 85.263, 85.265, 85.269, 85.277, 85.360, 85.362, 85.363
Reynolds v. Jex (1865) 7 B. & S. 86........................................................................................................... 18.204, 18.215
Reynolds v. Tomlinson [1896] 1 Q.B. 586................................................................................................................... 5.76
Rheinoel v. Huron Liberian (The Concordia C.) [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 55.............................................................. 21.97
Rhodian River, The [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 373 ........................................................................................................... 1.78
Rialto, The [1891] P. 175.............................................................................................................................................. 1.91
lxxxiii
Rialto, The (Yukong Lines v. Rendsburg Investments) (No. 2) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 322.. 2.23, 2.40, 2.42, 2.43, 2.47
Ricargo Trading v. Spliethoff’s Befrachtingskantor (The Tassos N.) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 648 ................ 15.74, 15.72
Richard de Larrinaga v. Liverpool & London War Risks Association [1921] 2 A.C. 141 ..................................... 85.304
Richardsons & Samuel, Re [1898] 1 Q.B. 261............................................................................................ 85.324, 85.326
Richco Rotterdam B.V. v. Shipmair B.V. (unreported, 29 June 1987)...................................................................... 15.20
Rickards v. Forrestal Land Timber and Railways Co. [1942] A.C. 50.................................................................... 85.309
Ridgeway Maritime v. Beulah Wings [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 611............................................................................... 2.45
Rigoletto, The [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 532 ....................................................................... 18.118, 18.119, 18.135, 18.136,
Rio Assu, The (C. Itoh v. Cia. de Nav. Lloyd Brasileiro) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201 ............................................. 85.56
Rio Claro, The (Transworld Oil v. North Bay Shipping) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 173 ............. 4.15, 11.74, 21.30, 21.121
Rio Sun, The (Gatoil International v. Tradex Petroleum) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 350........................ 5.14, 52.24, 85.336
Rio Tinto v. Seed Shipping (1926) 42 T.L.R. 381 ....................................................................................................... 12.3
Ritchie v. Atkinson (1809) 10 E. 530 .................................................................................................................. 6.7, 13.23
River Gurara, The [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 225 (C.A.) ..................... 18.26, 85.9, 85.139, 85.236, 85.375, 85.379, 85.409
Riverstone Meat Co. Pty. Ltd. v. Lancashire Shipping Co. Ltd. (The Muncaster Castle) [1961]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 57; [1961] A.C. 807 ..................................................................... 5.47, 11.52, 85.99, 85.103, 85.422
Roberta, The (1938) 60 Ll. L. Rep. 84 ............................................................................................... 11.63, 11.81, 85.125
Robertson v. Wait (1853) L.R. 8 Ex. 299..................................................................................................................... 23.2
Robinson v. Harman (1848) 1 Exch. 850 .....................................................................................................................21.1
Robinson v. Knights (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 465.............................................................................................................. 13.21
Robinson v. Price (1877) 2 Q.B.D. 295...................................................................................................................... 20.12
Robinson v. Robinson (1851) 1 De G.M. & G. 247 ...................................................................................................21.19
Rodney, The [1900] P. 112 ....................................................................................................................................... 85.280
Rodocanachi v. Elliott (1874) L.R. 9 C.P. 518............................................................................................ 85.302, 85.311
Rodocanachi v. Milburn (1886) 18 Q.B.D. 67; (1886) 17 Q.B.D. 316 ................................ 13.33, 13.98, 18.200, 21.119
Roelandts v. Harrison (1854) 23 L.J.Ex. 169 ........................................................................................................... 13.104
Rolls Royce v. Heavylift-Volga Dnepr [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 653......................................................................... 85.424
Roman Karmen, The (Furness Withy v. Black Sea Shipping) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 644 ................................. 6.9, 6.13
Rookwood, The (1894) 10 T.L.R. 314 .................................................................................................................. 7.7, 7.16
Roper v. Johnson (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 167...................................................................................................... 21.56, 21.114
Ropner v. Stoate Hosegood (1905) 10 Com. Cas. 73................................................................................................... 14.5
Ropner Shipping Co. v. Cleeves Western Valley Anthracite Collieries [1927] 1 K.B. 879 ................. 15.72, 15.73, 16.5
Rosa S., The [1989] Q.B. 419 .................................................... 85.238, 85.370, 85.371, 85.378, 85.414, 85.504, 85.506
Rossiter v. Miller (1878) 3 App. Cas. 1124 .......................................................................................................... 1.3, 1.14
Roth v. Taysen (1896) 1 Com. Cas. 240..................................................................................................................... 21.56
Routh v. Macmillan (1863) 2 H. & C. 750................................................................................................................... 3.26
Rowan, The (Transpetrol Maritime Services Ltd v. SJB (Marine Energy) BV) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 564 ...........................................................................................................................3.29, 3.30, 3.31, 3.40, 11.27
Rowe v. Turner Hopkins [1980] 2 N.Z.L.R. 550 ....................................................................................................... 21.69
Rowson v. Atlantic Transport Co. [1903] 2 K.B. 666 (C.A.) ..................................................................... 85.275, 85.277
Royal Boskalis v. Mountain [1999] Q.B. 674; [1997] L.R.L.R. 523 (C.A.).................. 1.55, 1.56, 1.58, 1.62, 1.63, 1.93
Royal Exchange v. Vega [1902] 2 K.B. 384 ................................................................................................................ 1.38
Royal Exchange Shipping Co. v. Dixon (1886) 12 App. Cas. 11 ........................ 6.27, 6.28, 6.31, 85.71, 85.261, 85.469
Royal Greek Government v. Minister of Transport (1949) 83 Ll. L. Rep. 228.............................................. 1.106, 27.18
Royscot v. Rogerson [1991] 2 Q.B. 297....................................................................................................................... 1.82
Rozel, The (Channel Island Ferries v. Cenargo Navigation) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 161 ......................................... 21.57
Rudolf A. Oetker v. I.F.A. (The Almak) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 557 .......... 18.24, 18.39, 18.84, 18.183, 18.207, 18.235
Russell v. Niemann (1864) 17 C.B.(N.S.) 163 ......................................................................................................... 85.305
Russo-Chinese Bank v. Li Yau Sam [1910] A.C. 174 ................................................................................................. 2.27
Rutherford v. Goldthorpe [1922] 1 K.B. 508 ........................................................................................................... 21.100
Ruxley Electronics and Construction v. Forsyth [1996] A.C. 344 ...................................................... 21.1, 21.57, 21.107
S.A. Comercial d’Exportacion v. National SS. Co. [1935] 2 K.B. 313 ......................................................................... 6.3
“Snia” v. Suzuki (1924) 18 Ll. L. Rep. 333; (1923) 17 Ll. L. Rep. 78 ............................................................ 21.29, 52.2
S.A. Maritime et Commerciale v. Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. [1954] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; [1954]
1 W.L.R. 492; [1953] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 466 .......................................................................................... 1.109, 3.8, 3.10
S.A. Marocaine de l’Industrie du Raffinage v. Notos Maritime Corp. (The Notos) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 503 (H.L.); [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 334 (C.A.)....................................... 1.110, 57.4, 57.7, 57A.44, 58.6, 59.28
S.A. Sucre Export v. Northern River Shipping (The Sormovskiy 3068) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 226 ....................................................................................................................................... 10.4, 18.169, 18.172
SHV Gas Supply & Trading v. Naftomar Sshipping & Trading (The Azur Gaz) [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 163 .............4.8
S.L.S. Everest, The [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 389............................................................................................... 13.39, 18.61
SS. Carisbrook v. London & Provincial Marine Insurance [1901] 2 K.B. 861 ......................................................... 20.34
lxxxiv
S.S. Pharmaceutical v. Qantas Airways [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 288........................................................................ 85.424

STX Pan Ocean Co. Ltd v. Ugland Bulk Transport A.S. (The Livanita) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 86 .................5.31, 5.49
Sabah Flour and Feedmills v. Comfez [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 18 ................................. 85.7, 85.13, 85.15, 85.17, 85.179
Sabrewing, The (Waterfront Shipping Co. v. Trafigura AG) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 286 ................................16.21, 60.3
Sack v. Ford (1862) 13 C.B.(N.S.) 90 ............................................................................................................. 11.12, 14.53
Sacor Maritima v. Repsol Petroleo [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 518.................................................... 21.78, 21.82, 68.3, 68.5
Safeer, The (Kuwait Supply Co. v. Oyster Marine Management) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 637....................... 22.9, 26.40,
26.63, 26.79
Safeway Stores v. Twigger [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 39 .......................................................................11.55, 11.56, 85.423
Saga Cob, The (K/S Penta Shipping v. Ethiopian Shipping Lines Corp.) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 545 ............ 5.48, 5.51,
5.65, 5.66, 5.87
Saga Explorer, The (Breffka & Hehnke GmbH & Co. KG v. Navire Shipping Co. Ltd.) [2013]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 401 ......................................................................................................18.17, 85.142, 85.219, 85A.17
Sagona, The (A/S Hansen Tangens Rederi v. Total) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 194 ................................................... 18.240
Said v. Butt [1920] 3 K.B. 497 ..................................................................................................................................... 2.45
Sailing Ship Garston Company v. Hickie, Borman & Co. (1886) 18 Q.B.D 17; (1885) 15 Q.B.D. 580 ................ 1.105,
5.3, 13.70
Sainsbury (H.R. & S. ) v. Street [1972] 1 W.L.R. 834 .............................................................................................. 22.24
Saint Line v. Richardsons Westgarth [1940] 2 K.B. 99 .................................................................................... 21.4, 21.40
Salamis Shipping v. Edm. van Meerbeeck & Co. (The Onisilos) [1971] 1 Q.B. 500 (C.A.) ........................... 25.2, 25.6,
25.7, 25.17, 25.20, 43.3
Salmond and Spraggon (Australia) v. Port Jackson Stevedoring (The New York Star) [1980]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 317; [1981] 1 W.L.R. 138 (P.C.).............................. 18.137, 85.63, 85.126, 85.174, 85.224, 85.471
Salomon v. Salomon & Co. [1897] A.C. 22............................................................................................... 2.39, 2.40, 2.44
Samah, The [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 40.......................................................................................................................... 2.31
Samcrete v. Land Rover Exports [2002] E.W.C.A. Civ. 2019; [2002] C.L.C. 533 .................................. 1.30, 1.38, 1.46
Sameiling v. Grain Importers [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 312.......................................................................................... 14.59
Samengo-Turner v. J & H Marsh & McLennan (Services) [2007] 2 All E.R. 723 .................................................85.227
Sameon v. Petrofina (unreported, Q.B. (Com. Ct.), 13 March 1996) ........................................................................ 20.52
Sametiet M/T Johs Stove v. Istanbul Petrol Rafinerisi A/S (The Johs Stove) [1984]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 38 ............................................................................................................................ 15.24, 57.27, 69.2
Samos Glory, The [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 603............................................................................................................ 17.34
Samos v. Eckhardt (The Nissos Samos) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 378 ........................................................................... 1.19
Samuel (P.) v. Dumas [1924] A.C. 431....................................................................................................... 85.291, 85.294
Samuel v. West Hartlepool (1906) 11 Com. Cas. 111 ............................................................................................... 18.73
San George, The (Noemijulia SS. Co. v. Minister of Food) [1951] 1 K.B. 223 (C.A.); (1950) 83
Ll. L. Rep. 500 ............................................................................................................ 6.16, 15.42, 19.8, 19.16, 19.19
San Nicholas, The (Pacific Molasses v. Entre Rios) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 8.................................... 1.38, 18.61, 85.244
San Roman, The (1872) L.R. 5 P.C. 301......................................................................................................... 12.12, 12.15
Sanday (Samuel) v. Keighley Maxsted & Co. (1922) 10 Ll. L. Rep. 738.............................................................. 4.6, 4.8
Sandeman v. Scurr (1866) L.R. 2 Q.B. 86.................................................................................................................. 18.47
Sandeman & Sons v. Tyzack and Branfoot SS. Co. [1913] A.C. 680 (H.L.) .................................... 10.10, 10.13, 10.14,
18.37, 18.231, 85.158, 85.343, 85.344
Sandeman Coprimar v. Transitos y Trasportes Integrales [2003] Q.B. 1270................................. 18.125, 18.134 , 21.33
Sanders v. Maclean (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 327 ............................................................................................................... 18.145
Sanguinetti v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co. (1877) 2 Q.B.D. 238 (C.A.).............................................. 6.4, 17.45, 17.46
Sanix Ace, The (Obestain Inc. v. National Mineral Development Corp.) [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 465.................... 18.91,
21.46, 21.126, 85.386
Sanko Steamship Co. Ltd v. Kano Trading Ltd [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 156 .................................................................3.5
Santa Carina, The (Vlassopoulos v. Ney Shipping) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 478 .................................................. 2.4, 23.9
Santa Clara, The (Vitol v. Norelf) [1996] A.C. 800 .....................................................................................................21.7
Santamana, The (Upper Egypt Produce Exporters v. “Santamana”) (1923) 14 Ll. L. Rep. 159 ................... 14.23, 14.25
Santiren Shipping Ltd. v. Unimarine S.A. (The Chrysovalandou Dyo) [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 159 .............. 17.1, 17.25,
17.27, 17.28, 35.2
Sara D, The [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277...................................................................................................................... 12.40
Sargasso, The (Petredec v. Tokomaru Kaiun) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 162 .............................................................. 85.196
Sargasso, The (Stargas v. Petredec) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412 ................................... 21.79, 21.80, 21.81, 21.82, 21.88
Sargent v. East Asiatic Co. (1915) 21 Com. Cas. 344 ............................................................................................... 12.26
Saronikos, The (Greenmast Shipping v. Jean Lion & Cie.) [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277........................................... 13.30
Sassoon (E.D.) & Co. v. Western Assurance Co. [1912] A.C. 561 ......................................................................... 85.289
Saturnia, The (Superfos Chartering v. N.B.R. London) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 43 (C.A.); aff’g [1984]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 366 ......................................... 25.2, 25.5, 25.6, 25.7, 25.8, 25.10, 25.12, 25.14, 25.15. 25.18, 25.22
lxxxv
Satya Kailash, The, and the Oceanic Amity, The (Seven Seas Transportation v. Pacifico Union
Marina Corp.) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 588; aff’g [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 465.................... 1.112, 71.2, 85.10, 85.13,
85.90, 85.181, 85.247, 85.268, 85.274
Saudi Crown, The [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 261 ................................................................. 18.9, 18.39, 18.42, 18.43, 18.44
Saudi Prince, The [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 255 .............................................................................................................. 2.46
Saudi Prince, The (No. 2) [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 347 .................................................................................. 21.124, 85.86
Savina Caylyn, The (Dolphin Tanker SRL v. Westport Petroleum Inc.) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 550 ........................3.29
Savona, The [1900] P. 252............................................................................................................................... 22.11, 22.22
Savvas, The (Clerco Compania Naviera v. Food Corporation of India) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 22.......................... 15.43
Saxon Ship Co. v. Union SS. Co. (1899) 81 L.T. 246; (1900) 83 L.T. 106................................................... 16.12, 21.92
Saxon Star, The (Adamastos Shipping Co. v. Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Co.) [1957] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 271
(C.A.); [1959] A.C. 133..................................................... 1.116, 4.15, 20.59, 52.2, 71.2, 85.8, 85.10, 85.12, 85.13,
85.17, 85.20, 85.177, 85.181, 85.253, 85.260, 85.353,
85.483
Sayers v. Harlow U.D.C. [1958] 1 W.L.R. 623.......................................................................................................... 21.64
Scammell v. Ouston [1941] A.C. 251............................................................................................................................. 1.7
Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co. A.B. v. Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana (The Scaptrade) [1983]
2 A.C. 694; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 425 ........................................................................... 1.10, 19.40, 21.142, 21.144
Scaplake, The [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 380 .................................................................................................. 2.11, 2.17, 2.21
Scaptrade, The (Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co. A.B. v. Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana) [1983]
2 A.C. 694; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 425 ........................................................................... 1.10, 19.40, 21.142, 21.144
Scaramanga v. Stamp (1880) 5 C.P.D. 295 .......................................................................................... 12.10, 12.13, 12.21
Schmaltz v. Avery (1851) 16 Q.B. 655 ............................................................................................................... 2.18, 2.19
Schmidt v. Royal Mail SS. Co. (1876) 45 L.J.Q.B. 646 ................................................................................. 20.51, 20.60
Schotsmans v. Lancs. & Yorks. Ry (1867) LR. 2 Ch. App. 332 ............................................................................. 18.157
Schuler v. Wickman Sales [1974] A.C. 235.................................................................................. 1.98, 1.99, 1.107, 1.134
Schwan, The [1909] A.C. 450..................................................................................................................................... 11.19
Scott v. London and St. Katherine’s Docks Co. (1865) 3 H. & C. 596................................................................... 85.121
Scrutton v. Childs (1877) 36 L.T. 212 ........................................................................................................................ 14.12
Scruttons v. Midland Silicones [1962] A.C. 446 (H.L.)................ 18.127, 18.137, 85.62, 85.63, 85.224, 85.471, 85.473
Sea Insurance v. Blogg [1898] 1 Q.B. 398 ............................................................................................................... 13.104
Sea Joy, The (1998) (1) S.A. 487 ............................................................................................................................... 85.86
Sea Queen, The (Palm Shipping v. Kuwait Petroleum Corp.) [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 500 ......... 1.108, 57.9, 59.3, 59.21
Sea Success Maritime Inc. v. African Carriers [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 692; [2005] All E.R.
(Comm.) 441 ........................................................................................ 18.23, 18.24, 18.181, 18.182, 18.236, 85.145
Sea Trade Maritime Corp. v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd
(The Athena (No. 2)) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 280 ...............................................................................................18.50
Seabridge v. Antco (The Furness Bridge) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 367 ............................................................. 7.20, 15.27
Seacrystal Shipping v. Bulk Transport (The Kyzikos) [1989] A.C. 1264 (H.L.); [1987] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 122 (C.A.); [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 48 ........................................................................... 15.62, 15.65, 33.4, 59.3
Seaflower, The (B.S. & N. v. Micado Shipping) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 341 (C.A.); aff’g [2000]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 ....................................................................................................... 3.31, 11.27, 21.9, 48.3, 84A.15
Seafood Imports Pty. Ltd v. ANL Singapore Ltd (2010) 272 A.L.R. 149 ...........................85.82, 85.88, 85.117, 85.345
Seagate Shipping v. Glencore International A.G. (The Silver Constellation) [2008]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 440 ...................................................................................................................................11.27, 11.40
Sealace Shipping v. Oceanvoice (The Alecos M) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 120 .......................................................... 21.57
Sea-Link Marine Services v. Doman Forest Products (2003) 235 F.T.R. 173 .......................................................... 21.61
Sealion Shipping Ltd v. Valiant Insurance (The Toisa Pisces) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.108 .......................................21.42
Seals (L.D.) v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (The Darya Tara) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 42 ............................................. 6.36, 6.40
Seatrade Groeningen v. Geest Industries (The Frost Express) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 375 ............... 2.7, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13
Seeger v. Duthie (1860) 8 C.B.(N.S.) 45 .................................................................................................................... 13.23
Seiko Maru, The [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 235................................................................................................... 13.15, 13.16
Seki Rolette, The (Grimaldi Compania di Navigazione S.p.A. v. Sekihyo Lines) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 638........................................................................................................ 85.2, 85.8, 85.13, 85.16, 85.180, 85.182
Selda, The (Bem Dis A Turk v. International Agri Trade) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 729 .......................................... 85.385
Sellers Fabrics Pty. v. Hapag-Lloyd (The Encounter Express) (1998) N.S.W.S.C. 646; [1999]
L.M.C.L.Q. 412..................................................................................................................................... 85.106, 85.423
Sempra Metals v. IRC [2008] A.C. 561 .....................................................................................................................21.36
Sennar, The (No. 2) [1985] 1 W.L.R. 490................................................................................................................ 85.191
Serraino v. Campbell [1891] 1 Q.B. 283 .................................................................................................................... 18.52
Serena Navigation v. Dera Commercial Est. (The Limnos) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 166 ..............................85.9, 85.402,
85.404, 85.405, 85.406
lxxxvi
Services Europe Atlantique Sud v. Stockholms Rederiaktiebolaget (The Folias and the Despina R.)
[1979] A.C. 685 .................................................................................................................................... 21.128, 85.413
Seven Seas Transportation v. Pacifico Union Marina Corp. (The Satya Kailash and the Oceanic
Amity) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 588; aff’g [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 465 ............................... 1.112, 71.2, 85.10, 85.13,
85.90, 85.181, 85.247, 85.268, 85.274
Severn, The (Good v. London SS. Owners’ Mutual Protecting Association) (1871) L.R. 6 C.P. 563 ................... 85.273
Sevin v. Deslandes (1860) 30 L.J. Ch. 457 .............................................................................................................. 21.140
Sevonia Team, The [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 640 ........................................................... 13.35, 13.39, 18.61, 18.63, 18.193
Sewell v. Burdick (1884) 10 App. Cas. 74.................................................................................................... 18.45, 18.155
Shackleford, The (Surrey Shipping v. Compagnie Continentale (France)) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
191 affirmed [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 154....................................................................................... 15.49, 15.72, 15.73
Shamia v. Joory [1958] 1 Q.B. 448 ............................................................................................................................ 24.14
Shamil v. Beximco [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1784 ................................................................................................................... 1.29
Shamrock SS. Co. v. Storey (1899) 81 L.T. 413............................................................................................................ 1.8
Shand v. Sanderson (1859) 28 L.J. Ex. 278.............................................................................................................. 18.208
Shaw Savill v. Powley [1949] N.Z.L.R. 668 ............................................................................................................ 85.131
Shaw Savill & Albion v. The Commonwealth (1940) 66 C.L.R. 344 ....................................................................... 26.20
Shaw Savill & Albion Co. v. Electric Reduction Sales (The Mahia) [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 264 .......................... 85.459
Shearson Lehman Hutton v. Maclaine Watson (No. 2) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 441 .................................... 21.12, 85.393
Sheels v. Davies (sub nom. Shields v. Davies) (1815) 6 Taunt. 65; (1814) 4 Camp. 119 ........................................ 13.63
Sheffield Corporation v. Barclays [1905] A.C. 392 ................................................................................................. 18.223
Shell International Petroleum Co. v. Seabridge Shipping (The Metula) [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 5 (C.A.);
[1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 436 ..................................................................................... 13.6, 13.7, 13.8, 26.67, 31.7, 53.2
Shepherd v. De Bernales (1811) 13 East 565 ............................................................................................................. 13.40
Shepherd v. Kottgen (1877) 2 C.P.D. 578 .................................................................................................................. 20.11
Shield v. Wilkins (1850) 5 Ex. 304 ..................................................................................................................... 5.76, 6.12
Shields v. Davies. See Sheels v. Davies
Shillito, The (1897) 3 Com. Cas. 44............................................................................................................ 18.199, 18.215
Shindler v. Northern Raincoat [1960] 1 W.L.R. 1038................................................................................................ 21.54
Shinjitsu Maru, The (A.B. Marintrans v. Comet Shipping) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 568; [1985]
1 W.L.R. 1270........................................................................................................................................... 14.40, 21.67
Shipping Corporation of India v. Gamlen Chemical [1980] 147 C.L.R. 142 ............................................... 85.86, 85.113
Shipping Corporation of India v. Naviera Letasa S.A. [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 132 ......................................... 5.14, 19.24
Shipping Developments Corp. v. V/O Sojuzneftexport (The Delian Spirit) [1972] 1 Q.B. 103................................ 5.69,
15.45, 16.13, 16.15, 19.16, 21.26, 59.3
Shipton v. Thornton (1838) 9 A. & E. 114................................................................................................................... 3.16
Shirlaw v. Southern Foundries [1939] 2 K.B. 206 ..................................................................................................... 1.124
Shogun Finance v. Hudson [2004] 1 A.C. 919............................................................................................................... 2.3
Short v. Simpson (1866) L.R. 1 C.P. 248 ................................................................................................................. 18.149
Sibi, The (Baghlaf Al Zafer Factory Co. v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp.) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 229
(C.A.); [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (C.A.) ................................................. 85.28, 85.29, 85.30, 85.191, 85.225, 85.241
Siboen, The, and the Sibotre (Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp. v. Skibs A/S Avanti) [1976]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 293 ..................................................................................................................................... 1.88, 22.10
Sibohelle, The (TTMI Sarl v. Statoil ASA) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 220 .......................................................1.3, 2.3, 2.14
Siboti, The (Siboti K/S v. BP France) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 364............................ 18.51, 18.52, 85.27, 85.190, 85.191
Siboti K/S v. BP France (The Siboti) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 364................................................... 85.27, 85.190, 85.191
Sideridraulic Systems SpA v. BBC Chartering & Logistic GmbH & Co. KG (The BBC
Greenland) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 230 ................................................................................6.38, 85.72, 85.73, 85.76
Sidermar S.p.A. v. Apollo Navigation (The Apollo) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 200 .......................................... 5.66, 85.204
Sidmar v. Fednav International [1998] L.M.C.L.Q. 273 .......................................................................................... 85.227
Silva Plana, The [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 371 ................................................................................................................ 17.8
Silver v. Ocean SS. Co. [1930] 1 K.B. 416 (C.A.)............................ 18.12, 18.16, 18.18, 18.19, 18.181, 85.336, 85.338
Silver Constellation, The (Seagate Shipping v. Glencore International A.G.) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 440 ...11.27, 11.40
Silver Sky, The [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 95.................................................................................................................. 22.30
Simona, The (Fercometal SARL v. Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A.) [1989] A.C. 788 ................. 19.29, 19.30, 19.32,
21.16, 21.54
Simonds v. White (1824) 2 B. & C. 805 ...................................................................................................................... 20.2
Sinason-Teicher Inter American Grain Corporation v. Oilcakes & Oilseeds Trading Co. Ltd. [1954]
1 W.L.R. 935........................................................................................................................................................ 21.17
Sindall (Wm.) v. Cambridgeshire C.C. [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1016 (C.A.) ........................................................................ 1.84
Sine Nomine, The (AB Corp. v. CD Corp.) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 805 ................................................................. 21.145
Sinochem v. Mobil Sales & Supply [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 339................................................................................ 1.108
lxxxvii
Sinoe, The (Overseas Transportation Co. v. Mineralimportexport) [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201
(C.A.); [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 514........................ 11.12, 15.7, 16.18, 17.2, 17.10, 17.12, 17.13, 17.29, 17.42, 68.2
Sirius Insurance v. FAI General Insurance [2004] 1 W.L.R. 3251 .............................................................................. 1.95
Siu Yin Kwan v. Eastern Insurance [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 616 (P.C.) ....................................................................... 2.14
Sivand, The [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 97 ................................................................................................. 21.38, 21.50, 21.57
Skarp, The [1935] P. 134; (1935) 52 Ll. L. Rep. 152................................................ 18.16, 18.17, 18.34, 18.181, 85.142
Skips A/S Nordheim v. Syrian Petroleum (The Varenna) [1984] 1 Q.B. 599 ......................... 1.134, 18.49, 18.51, 18.53
Skopas, The (Resolute Maritime v. Nippon Kaiji Kyokai) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 431 .............................................. 1.85
Slater v. Hoyle & Smith [1920] 2 K.B. 11 ...............................................................................................................21.124
Slattery v. Mance [1962] 1 Q.B. 676 ........................................................................................................................ 85.284
Smailes v. Hans Dessen (1906) 12 Com. Cas. 117 ...................................................................................................... 16.8
Smaro, The (Charles M. Willie v. Ocean Laser) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 225.......................................................... 85.196
Smidt v. Tiden (1874) L.R. 9 Q.B. 446.................................................................................................. 1.70, 13.33, 18.63
Smith v. Dart & Son (1884) 14 Q.B.D. 105 ................................................................................................................. 19.2
Smith v. Henniker-Major [2003] Ch. 182..................................................................................................................... 2.32
Smith v. McGuire (1858) 3 H. & N. 554...................................................................................................................... 2.29
Smith v. Pyman [1891] 1 Q.B. 742; rev’g [1891] 1 Q.B. 42.......................................................................... 13.91, 13.95
Smith v. South Wales Switchgear [1978] 1 W.L.R. 165............................................................................................ 1.112
Smith v. Tregarthen (1887) 56 L.J.Q.B. 437 ............................................................................................................ 21.112
Smith & Service v. The Rosario Nitrate Co. [1894] 1 Q.B. 174; aff’g [1893] 2 Q.B. 323 .............. 7.12, 85.311, 85.325
Smith (Henry) & Co. v. Bedouin Steam Navigation Co. [1896] A.C. 70 .................................................... 18.25, 85.148
Smith, Hogg v. Bamberger [1929] 1 K.B. 150..................................................................................... 14.12, 14.18, 14.61
Smith, Hogg & Co. v. Black Sea & Baltic General Insurance Co. [1940] A.C. 997 (H.L.).............. 11.31, 22.3, 85.258,
85.287
Smith New Court v. Citibank. See Smith New Court Securities v. Scrimgeour Vickers
Smith New Court Securities v. Scrimgeour Vickers [1997] A.C. 254 .................................................. 1.82, 21.7, 85.448
Smurthwaite v. Wilkins (1862) 11 C.B.(N.S.) 842................................................................................................... 18.105
“Snia” v. Suzuki (1924) 18 Ll. L. Rep. 333 ...............................................................................................................21.34
Snook v. London and West Riding Investments [1967] Q.B. 786 ............................................................................... 2.43
Soames v. British Empire Shipping Co. (1980) H.L. Cas. 338......................................................................... 17.37, 79.2
Soblomsten, The (1886) L.R. 1 A. & E. 293................................................................................................... 13.25, 13.26
Socap v. Marc Rich [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 175....................................................................................................... 85.476
Sociedad Carga Oceanica v. Idolinoele Vertriebs G.m.b.H. (The Angelos Lusis) [1964] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 28 .......................................................................................................................................................... 59.2, 59.3
Sociedad Financiera de Bienes Raices v. Agrimpex (The Aello) [1961] A.C. 135 (H.L.); aff’g [1958]
2 Q.B. 385 (C.A.)............................................................................................. 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, 7.5, 15.36, 15.44, 16.15
Sociedad Portuguesa de Navios Tanques v. Polaris [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 71, 407.......................................... 1.15, 1.16
Societa Anonima Ungherese v. Tyset Line (1902) 8 Com. Cas. 25 ............................................................................ 3.21
Société Anonyme des Minerais v. Grant Trading Inc. (The Ert Stefanie) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349.................... 11.55,
11.56, 11.58, 11.61
Société Belge des Betons v. London & Lancashire Insurance Co. Ltd. [1938] 2 All E.R. 305................................ 26.10
Société Co-Opérative Suisse des Céréales et Matières Fourragères v. La Plata Cereal Co. S.A.(1947)
80 Ll. L. Rep. 530................................................................................................................................................ 22.25
Société Franco-Tunisienne v. Sidermar (The Massalia) [1961] 2 Q.B. 278........................................ 22.27, 22.29, 22.34
Société Maritime v. African & Eastern Trade Co. (1925) 22 Ll. L. Rep. 94 .............................................................. 6.11
Société Minière du Tonkin v. Sutherland & Co. (unreported, 27 April 1917) ............................................................ 3.22
Société Navale de l’Ouest v. Sutherland (1920) 4 Ll. L. Rep. 58 ...................................................................... 3.11, 3.13
Société Nouvelle d’Armement v. Spillers & Bakers [1917] K.B. 865 ...................................................................... 20.21
Socimer International Bank Ltd v. Standard Bank London Ltd [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 558 .......................................27.7
Socol 3, The (Onego Shipping & Chartering BV v. JSC Arcadia Shipping) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 221 ........6.32, 6.35,
6.38, 11.17, 85.12
Sofial v. Ove Skou (The Helle Skou) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 205....................................................... 15.20, 15.49, 15.50
Solholt, The [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 605; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 574............................................................... 1.17, 21.52
Solle v. Butcher [1950] 1 K.B. 671 .............................................................................................................................. 1.72
Solon, The (Cero Navigation Corp. v. Jean Lion) [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 292 ..................................... 1.112, 15.24, 69.2
Somes v. British Empire Shipping (1860) 8 H.L. Cas. 338 ............................................................................17.37, 17.38
Sonia, The (Trafigura Beheer BV v. Golden Stavraetos Maritime) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 201 .................. 85.2, 85.198,
85.200, 85.201
Sonicare v. E.A.F.T. [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 48........................................................................................................ 18.128
Sophie J., The (Linea Naviera Paramaconi v. Abnormal Load Engineering) [2001] All E.R. (D.) 306 ............... 85.101,
85.178, 85.180
Soproma v. Marine & Animal By-Products Assn. [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 367 ....................................................... 18.143
lxxxviii
Sormovskiy 3068, The (S.A. Sucre Export v. Northern River Shipping) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 226 ...................... 10.4,
18.169, 18.172
Sotrade Denizcilik v. Amadou Lo (The Duden) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 145 .................................................18.60, 16.67
South African Dispatch Line v. Owners of SS. Niki (The Niki) [1960] 1 Q.B. 518; aff’g [1959]
1 Q.B. 238................................................................................................................................... 7.17, 7.18, 7.19, 7.21
South Australia Asset Management Corp. v. York Montague [1997] A.C. 191 ....................................................... 21.52
South Caribbean Trading v. Trafigura Beher BV [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 128 .............................................................21.7
Southampton Container Terminals v. Hansa Sch. (The Maersk Colombo) [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 491........ 21.57, 21.58
Soya, The [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 557; aff’g [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 376 ................................................... 21.103, 21.104
Soya G.m.b.H. v. White [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 122 ................................................................................................ 85.334
Spaight v. Farnsworth (1880) 5 Q.B.D. 115 ................................................................................................................. 13.4
Spain (Government of the Republic of) v. North of England SS. Co. (The Hartbridge) (1938) 61 Ll. L.
Rep. 44........................................................................................................................... 26.6, 26.8, 26.30, 26.44, 27.7
Spalmatori, The (Union of India v. Compania Naviera Aeolus) [1964] A.C. 868; [1962]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 175 ............................................................................................................................ 15.26, 16.3, 25.6
Spectra International v. Hayesoak [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 162; aff’g [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 153 .......................... 18.118
Spectra International v. Tiscali [2002] All E.R. (D) 209 ............................................................................................... 1.4
Spence v. Chadwick (1847) 10 Q.B. 517 ................................................................................................................. 85.305
Spence v. Union Marine Insurance (1868) L.R. 3 C.P. 427....................................................................................... 10.12
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v. Cansulex Ltd. [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1.............................................................. 85.441
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v. Louis Dreyfus [1983] Com. L.R. 268 ....................................................... 21.18, 21.21
Spinney’s (1948) Ltd. v. Royal Insurance Co. [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 406 ..... 26.8, 26.20, 26.23, 26.25, 85.303, 85.331
Spiros C., The (Tradigrain v. King Diamond Shipping) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 319 (C.A.); rev’g [1999]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 91 ...................................... 13.43, 13.44, 13.45, 13.55, 15.13, 18.55, 18.62, 18.193, 18.237, 85.112
Springbank, The (Aktieselskabet Olivebank v. Dansk Svovlsyre Fabrik) [1919] 2 K.B.
162 (C.A.)........................................................................................................................ 5.16, 5.24, 5.25, 5.37, 13.25
St. Cloud, The (1863) B. & L. 4 ............................................................................................................................... 21.119
St. Elefterio, The [1957] P. 179 .................................................................................................................................. 18.43
St. John Shipping v. Joseph Rank [1957] 1 Q.B. 267 ......................................................................................... 1.52, 1.55
St. Simeon Navigation Inc. v. Couturier & Ffils [1974] S.C.R. 1176.........................................................................85.72
Stafford Allen & Sons v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co. [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 104; [1956]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 495 ..................................................................................................................................... 72.2, 85.50
Stag Line Ltd. v. Board of Trade (1950) 83 Ll. L. Rep. 356 ..................................................................................... 15.34
Stag Line Ltd. v. Foscolo, Mango & Co. [1932] A.C. 328; (1931) 41 Ll. L. Rep. 165 12.15, 12.27, 12.32, 12.56, 85.6,
85.9, 85.175, 85.206, 85.261, 85.329, 85.358, 85.360
Stainless Emperor, The (Huyton v. Inter Operators) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 298...................................................... 15.60
Standard Ardour, The (Interbulk v. Ponte dei Sospiri Shipping Co.) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 159................ 85.13, 85.16,
85.179, 85.195
Standard Chartered Bank v. Dorchester LNG (2) (The Erin Schulte) [2013] EWHC 808 (Comm) ............18.97, 18.164
Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp. (No. 2) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 684;
[2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 511; [2001] Q.B. 167; [2003] 1 A.C. 959; [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 227 ....................... 18.41,
18.169, 18.176, 18.181, 18.207, 21.41, 21.53, 21.62, 21.69, 21.71, 84.143, 85.463
Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp. (No. 3) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 747............ 21.41, 21.42,
21.53, 85.389
Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp. [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 227....................................... 2.39
Standard Oil Company of New York v. Clan Line Steamers Ltd. (The Clan Gordon) [1924]
A.C. 100 (H.L.)......................................................................................................................................... 11.35, 11.63
Stanley Yeung Kai Yung v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp. [1981] A.C. 787....................................... 18.223
Stansted Shipping Co. v. Shenzen Nantian Oil Mills [2000] All E.R. (D.) 1175........................................... 18.48, 18.59
Stanton v. Richardson (1875) 3 Asp. M.L.C. 23, 45 L.J.Q.B. 651, 33 L.T. 193 (H.L.); aff’g (1874)
L.R. 9 C.P. 390 (Ex. Ch.); aff’g (1872) L.R. 7 C.P. 421 ............................................. 6.43, 6.44, 6.61, 11.20, 11.21
Star Sea, The (Manifest Shipping v. Uni-Polaris Ins. Co.) [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 360 (C.A.); [2001]
2 W.L.R. 170 (H.L.)..................................................................................... 1.106, 11.27, 11.29, 11.35, 11.58, 85.95
Star Shipping v. C.N.F.T.C. (The Star Texas) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445 ........................................................ 1.31, 1.36
Star SS. Society v. Beogradska Plovidba (The Junior K.) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 583 ...................................... 1.17, 1.19
Star Texas, The (Star Shipping v. C.N.F.T.C.) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445 ....................................................... 1.31, 1.36
Stargas v. Petredec (The Sargasso) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 412 .................................... 21.79, 21.80, 21.81, 21.82, 21.88
Starsin, The (Homburg Houtimport v. Agrosin) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 437; rev’g [2000]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85; [2004] A.C. 715......................................... 1.115, 18.8, 18.9, 18.28, 18.30, 18.42, 18.69, 18.70,
18.72, 18.74, 18.76, 18.77, 18.115, 18.174, 21.128, 85.24, 85.61, 85.62, 85.171,
85.174, 85.224, 85.225, 85.226, 85.229, 85.466, 85.468, 85.471
State Trading Corporation of India v. M. Golodetz [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277 ....................................................... 21.12
lxxxix
Statoil v. Louis Dreyfus Energy Services (The Hariette N.) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 685 ..........................................16.21
Steaua Romana v. A/S Oljefart II (1934) 50 Ll. L. Rep. 21 ........................................................................................ 68.8
Stebbing v. Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Co. [1917] 2 K.B. 433 ....................................................... 82.1
Steel v. State Line SS. Co. (1877) 3 App. Cas. 72, 88 ...................................................................... 11.28, 11.31, 85.285
Steendiek, The (Johs. Thode v. Vda. de Gimeno y Compania S.L.) [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 .................... 5.16, 19.23
Stein v. Blake [1996] 1 A.C. 243.............................................................................................................................. 85.414
Stena Pacifica, The (Navigazione Alta Italia v. Concordia Maritime Chartering) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 234 .................................................................................................................................................... 85.7, 85.180
Stephens v. Harris (1887) 57 L.J.Q.B. 203; (1887) 57 L.T. 618; (1887) 56 L.J.Q.B. 516 ................... 7.12, 7.13, 85.324
Stephens v. Wintringham (1898) 3 Com. Cas. 169 .................................................................................................... 14.12
Sterns v. Salterns (1922) 12 Ll. L. Rep. 385 ............................................................................................................ 21.115
Stettin, The (1889) 14 P.D. 142 ................................................................................................................... 18.162, 18.163
Steven v. Bromley [1919] 2 K.B. 722 (C.A.).................................................................................. 6.17, 6.41, 6.64, 13.30
Stinnes Interoil G.m.b.H. v. Halcoussis & Co. (The Yanxilas) (No. 1) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445 ................ 2.4, 21.28,
21. 26, 21.121, 61.3
Stinnes Interoil G.m.b.H. v. Halcoussis & Co. (The Yanxilas) (No. 2) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 676 ....................... 21.31,
21.121, 61.3
Stocznia Gdynia v. Gearbulk [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 461 ............................................................................................21.7
Stocznia Gdanska v. Latvian Shipping [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132....................................................... 2.43, 21.16, 21.55
Stolt Loyalty, The [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 281.......................................................................................................... 85.192
Stolt Spur, The (Stolt Tankers Inc. v. Landmark Chemicals S.A.) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 786 ..................... 15.8, 15.72,
15.73, 16.6, 57.26, 58.2
Stolt Sydness, The (Mauritius Oil Refineries v. Stolt-Nielsen) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 273 ............................. 72.2, 85.5,
85.16, 85.47, 85.180, 85.260
Stolt Tankers Inc. v. Landmark Chemicals S.A. (The Stolt Spur) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 786 ...................... 15.8, 15.72,
15.73, 16.6, 57.26, 58.2
Stone & Rolls (in liquidation) v. Moore Stephens [2009] A.C.1391 .........................................................................11.55
Stone Gemini, The [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 255 ........................................................................................................ 18.172
Storer v. Manchester C.C. [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1403 ........................................................................................................ 1.12
Stork, The (Compania Naviera Maropan v. Bowaters Lloyd Pulp and Paper Mills) [1955] 2 Q.B. 68 ...................... 5.2,
5.33, 5.41, 5.98, 5.113, 5.114, 21.136
Stornoway, The (1882) 51 L.J. Adm. 27 .................................................................................................................... 18.47
Stott v. Marten [1916] 1 A.C. 304 ............................................................................................................................ 85.286
Straker v. Kidd (1878) 3 Q.B.D. 223............................................................................................................... 17.22, 17.35
Strang v. Scott (1889) 14 App. Cas. 601 ........................................................................................................... 6.39, 20.39
Stranna, The [1938] P. 69 (C.A.) .............................................................................................................................. 85.290
Strathlorne v. Baird, 1916 S.C. (H.L.) 134 ................................................................................................................... 14.5
Strathlorne v. Weir (1934) 50 Ll. L. Rep. 185 (C.A.); aff’g (1934) 49 Ll. L. Rep. 306 ......................................... 18.240
Strom Bruks Akt. v. Hutchinson [1905] A.C. 515 ...................................................................................... 21.110, 21.116
Strong v. Hart (1827) 6 B. & C. 160 .......................................................................................................................... 13.60
Stuart v. British & African Nav. Co. (1875) 32 L.T. 257 ................................................................ 12.21, 85.332, 85.358
Stuart v. Haigh (1893) 9 T.L.R. 488 (H.L.).................................................................................................................. 2.35
Studebaker Distributors v. Charlton Steam Shipping Co. [1938] 1 K.B. 459 .................. 85.223, 85.234, 85.236, 85.378
Subiaco (Singapore) Pte. Ltd .v. Baker Hughes Singapore [2010] S.G.H.C. 265 .....................................................85.86
Subro Valour, The [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 509.............................................................................................. 85.95, 85.397
Sudbrook Trading Estate v. Eggleton [1983] 1 AC 444 (H.L.) ................................................................................... 1.10
Suek A.G. v. Glencore International [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 278 .....................................................................15.62, 33.4
Suisse Atlantique v. N.V. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 A.C. 361.................. 1.1, 12.38, 12.39, 16.13, 16.14
Sulamerica S.A. v. Enesaa Engelharia S.A. [2013] 1 W.L.R. 102 ...............................................................................1.27
Sun Happiness, The (Et. Biret v. Yukiteru Kaiun K.K.) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 381......................................... 2.11, 2.12
Sun Life of Canada v. Lincoln National [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 606......................................................................... 21.82
Sun Shipping v. Watson & Youell Shipping Agency (1926) 42 T.L.R. 240............................................................. 19.16
Sunbeam Shipping Co. v. President of India (The Atlantic Sunbeam) [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 482 ........................ 1.124,
5.14, 15.5, 15.47
Sunlight Mercantile v. Ever Lucky Shipping [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 174 (C.A. of Singapore)...................... 1.113, 6.35,
11.10, 11.17, 11.31, 14.43
Sunrise Maritime v. Uvisco (The Hector) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 287...................................... 18.9, 18.42, 18.66, 18.71,
18.72, 18.74, 18.75, 18.182
Super Servant Two, The (J. Lauritzen v. Wijsmuller) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1; aff’g [1989]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 148 ..................................................................................................................................... 22.4, 22.17
Superfos Chartering v. N.B.R. London (The Saturnia) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 43 (C.A.); aff’g [1984]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 366 ......................................... 25.2, 25.5, 25.6, 25.7, 25.8, 25.10, 25.12, 25.14, 25.15, 25.18, 25.22
xc
Superhulls Cover case. See Youell v. Bland Welch

Supershield v. Siemens Building Technologies. [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 349 ......................................21.30, 21.83, 21.85
Surrey Shipping v. Compagnie Continentale (France) (The Shackleford) [1978] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 191 affirmed [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 154 .............................................................................. 15.49, 15.72, 15.73
Susan V. Luckenbach, The [1951] P. 197 .................................................................................................................... 73.5
Sussex Oak, The (Grace (G.W.) v. General Steam Navigation Co.) [1950] 2 K.B. 383 .................................. 5.72, 5.74,
5.89, 26.39, 27.18, 27.19, 27.20
Sutton Shipping Co. v. Graham’s Trading Co. (1927) 29 Ll. L. Rep. 12.................................................................... 23.5
Suwalki, The (Polish Steamship Co. v. Williams Fuels) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 511 ................................................. 2.31
Suzuki & Co. v. J. Beynon & Co. (1926) 42 T.L.R. 269 (H.L.).............................................................................. 85.271
Svendsen v. Wallace (1885) 10 App. Cas. 404; (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 69......................................................................... 20.9
Svenska Lloyd v. Niagassas (1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 500 ................................................................................................... 1.7
Svenska Traktor Akt. v. Maritime Agencies (Southampton) [1953] 2 Q.B. 295 ............................ 85.72, 85.232, 85.243
Svenssons Travaruaktiebolag v. Cliffe SS. Co. [1932] 1 K.B. 490.......................... 6.35, 11.49, 11.50, 14.22, 15.6, 29.2
Swan, The [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 5 ............................................................................................................... 2.2, 2.9, 2.16
Swiss Bank v. Lloyds Bank [1979] Ch. 548............................................................................................................. 21.141
Swiss Bank Corporation. v. Brink’s-Mat [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 99........................................................................ 85.387
Swiss Bank Corporation v. Novorossiysk Shipping Co. (The Petr Shmidt) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 202.................... 51.2
Sylvia Shipping v. Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd (The Sylvia) [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 555 (C.A.);
[2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81 (H.L.) ..........................................................................................................................21.30
Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd. v. Rambler Cycle Co. Ltd. [1959] A.C. 576 (P.C.).................. 18.162, 18.163, 18.168, 18.169
T.A. Shipping v. Comet Shipping (The Agamemnon) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 675................................................... 15.31
T&N v. Royal and Sun Alliance (No. 2) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 106 .......................................................................... 1.75
TCN Channel 9 Pty v. Hayden Enterprises (1989) 16 N.S.W.L.R. 130 ...................................................................... 21.9
T.F.L. Prosperity, The (Tor Line A.B. v. Alltrans Group of Canada Ltd.) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 123; [1982]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 617 ................................................................................................ 11.69, 11.78, 11.79, 11.80, 21.118
TICC Ltd v. COSCO (UK) Ltd. (C.A., 5 December 2001) (2002) L.M.L.N. 578 .................................................... 18.78
TRM Copy Centres v. Lanwall [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1375 ............................................................................................18.118
TTMI Sarl v. Statoil ASA (The Sibohelle) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 220 ........................................................1.3, 2.3, 2.14
Tabb & Burletson v. Briton Ferry Works (1921) 6 Ll. L. Rep. 181 ............................................................................ 25.4
Tafaka, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 536...................................................................................................................... 52.10
Tagart Beaton v. Fisher [1903] 1 K.B. 391 (C.A.) ..................................................................................................... 23.11
Tage Berglund v. Montoro Shipping Corp. (The Dagmar) [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 563............................ 5.83, 5.84, 5.97
Talbot Underwriting v. Nausch, Hogan & Murray (The Jascon 5) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.195 ...................................2.14
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. ST-CMS Electric Co. [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 93 .....................................................1.58
Tamvaco v. Simpson (1866) L.R. 1 C.P. 363.................................................................................................. 13.90, 17.28
Tandrin Aviation Holdings v. Aero Toy Store [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 668 .............................................................21.132
Tapley v. Martins (1800) 8 T.R. 451 .......................................................................................................................... 13.60
Targe Towing v. Marine Blast [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 721 .............................................................. 2.14, 2.23, 2.24, 2.34
Target, The (BP Oil International Ltd v. Target Shipping Ltd) [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 245 ..........................13.17, 13.18
Tarrabochia v. Hickie (1856) 1 H. & N. 183.................................................................................................................. 4.4
Tasman Discoverer, The (Dairy Containers v. Tasman Orient Line) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 528 (N.Z.C.A.);
[2003] 3 N.Z.L.R. 353; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 647 ................... 1.112, 85.2, 85.86, 85.223, 85.226, 85.238, 85.371
Tasman Orient Line v. New Zealand China Clays (The Tasman Pioneer) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 12 .........85.9, 85.269,
85.280, 85.423
Tassos N, The (Ricargo Trading v. Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 648.............. 15.74, 15.72
Tatem v. Gamboa [1939] 1 K.B. 132 ........................................................................................................................... 22.9
Tatra, The (Arctic Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Mobilia A.B. and Others) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 51 ................................... 2.31
Tatry, The (Owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship Tatry v. The owners of the ship Maciej
Rataj) [1994] E.C.R. I–5439................................................................................................................................ 85.27
Tatton v. Ferrymasters [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 203 ........................................................................ 85.386, 85.395, 85.426
Taylor v. Briggs (1827) M. & M. 28 .......................................................................................................................... 13.60
Taylor v. Dunbar (1869) L.R. 4 C.P. 206 ................................................................................................................. 85.297
Tehran-Europe v. Belton (Tractors) [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 37.................................................................................... 2.13
Tele2 International Card Co. v. Post Office Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 9 ...............................................................21.7, 21.9
Telfair Shipping Corp. v. Inersea Carriers S.A. (The Caroline P.) [1985] 1 W.L.R. 553; [1984]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 466 ........................................................................................ 13.118, 18.225, 18.244, 18.246, 85.212
Temple v. Sovfracht (1945) 79 Ll. L. Rep. 1 ............................................................................................................. 26.53
Tennant Radiant Heat v. Warrington Development Corp. [1988] 1 E.G.L.R. 41 (C.A.)....... 21.42, 21.64, 21.69, 85.463
Tenos, The (1968) W.N. 395 .................................................................................................................................... 85.275
Tesco v. Natrass [1972] A.C. 153............................................................................................................................... 11.56
Teutonia, The (Duncan v. Koster) (1871) L.R. 4 P.C. 171 .................. 5.51, 5.54, 5.55, 5.65, 5.67, 5.103, 12.12, 85.358
xci
Texaco Melbourne, The (Attorney-General of the Republic of Ghana v. Texaco Overseas Tankships)
[1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 473 (H.L.); [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 471 (C.A.); [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 303 .............. 21.119,
21.130, 85.386, 85.389, 85.391, 85.392, 85.393, 85.394, 85.400, 85.413
Thai Maparn Trading Co. v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 704 ......................................4.19
Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co. v. Hamilton Fraser & Co. (The Inchmaree) (1887) 12 App.
Cas. 484................................................................................................................................................. 85.281, 85.286
Thames Iron Works v. Patent Derrick Co. (1860) 2 L.T. 508 ................................................................................... 17.28
Thanassis A., The (Olbena S.A. v. Psara Maritime Inc.) (1982) L.M.L.N. 68................................................. 57.16, 58.8
Tharsis Sulphur v. Morel [1891] 2 Q.B. 647.............................................................................................................. 15.34
Theodegmon, The [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 5................................................................................................................ 85.95
Theraios, The (Lodza Compania de Navigacione S.A. v. Government of Ceylon) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 209 ...... 15.12
Thermo Engineers v. Ferrymasters [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1470 ...................................................................................... 85.410
Thiess Brothers (Queensland) Pty. v. Australian Steamships Pty. [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 459................................ 12.20,
12.26, 12.39, 85.360
Thin v. Liverpool (1901) 18 T.L.R. 226 ..................................................................................................................... 18.33
Thin v. Richards [1892] 2 Q.B. 141 ........................................................................................................................... 11.51
Thode (Johs.) v. Vda. de Gimeno y Compania S.L. (The Steendiek) [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 .................. 5.16, 19.23
Thomas v. Clarke (1818) 2 Slack 450 ............................................................................................................. 21.19, 21.20
Thomas v. Harrowing SS. Co. [1915] A.C. 58 (H.L.); at first inst. Harrowing SS. Co. v. Thomas [1913]
2 K.B. 171................................................................................................................................................. 13.19, 13.24
Thomas v. Portsea SS. Co. [1912] A.C. 1 ............................................................................................ 18.50, 18.51, 85.10
Thompson v. Brocklebank [1918] 1 K.B. 655.............................................................................................................. 3.20
Thompson v. Gillespy (1855) 5 E. & B. 209 ................................................................................................ 13.99, 13.104
Thompson (W.T.) v. Robinson (Gunmakers) [1955] Ch. 177.................................................................................. 85.393
Thomson v. Louis Dreyfus (1936) 56 Ll. L. Rep. 44.................................................................................. 18.218, 18.225
Thorburn v. Barnes (1867) L.R. 2 C.P. 384 ................................................................................................................. 82.1
Thoresen & Co. v. Fathom Marine [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 622................................................................................... 1.18
Thorley v. Orchis [1907] 1 K.B. 660............................................................................................................... 12.30, 12.38
Thorman v. Dowgate [1910] 1 K.B. 410 .................................................................................................................... 1.110
Thornett & Fehr, Re [1921] 1 K.B. 219...................................................................................................................... 21.19
Thorsa, The [1916] P. 257 ............................................................................................................................... 11.32, 85.95
Thrige v. United Shipping (1924) 18 Ll. L. Rep. 6 .................................................................................................. 18.163
Thrunscoe, The [1897] P. 301................................................................................................................................... 85.263
Thyssen v. Calypso Shipping Corp. [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243 ................................................................ 85.187, 85.190
Tibermede v. Graham (1921) 7 Ll. L. Rep. 250....................................................................................................... 21.115
Tidebrook Maritime Corp. v. Vitol (The Front Commander) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 251................................ 9.5, 15.32,
15.52, 15.56, 56.2, 57.1, 57.2
Tigress, The (1863) 32 L.J.P.M. & A. 97................................................................................................................. 18.159
Tillmanns v. Knutsford. See Knutsford v. Tillmanns
Tilly Russ [1984] E.C.R. I–2417 ................................................................................................................................ 85.27
Tilly Russ v. Haven [1985] Q.B. 931 ....................................................................................................................... 85.190
Timawra, The (Medora Shipping v. Navix Line Ltd. and Navios Corporation) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 166 ............ 21.5,
21.47
Timberwest Forest v. Gearbulk Pool [2003] B.C.L.R. (4th) 327 (B.C.C.A.); 2004 I.M.C.L.Y. 44.......................... 85.72
Timna, The (Zim Israel Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Tradax Export S.A.) [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 91; [1970]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 409 ................................................................................................................................. 5.110, 21.101
Tindefjell, The (Falconbridge Nickel Mines v. Chimo Shipping) [1969] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277; [1973]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 253 (Can. Ct.) ............................................................................................................. 85.374, 85A.36
Tinsley v. Milligan [1994] 1 A.C. 340 ......................................................................................................................... 1.63
Tito v. Waddell (No. 2) [1977] Ch. 106 ................................................................................................................... 21.144
Tjaskemolen, The [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 465..................................................................................................... 2.42, 2.46
Todd v. Adams [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 293 .............................................................................................................. 85.473
Toepfer (Alfred C.) Schiffahrtsgesellschaft G.m.b.H. v. Tossa Marine Co. Ltd. (The Derby) [1985]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325; [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 635.............................................................. 11.34, 11.40, 11.66, 21.113
Toisa Pisces, The (Sealion Shipping Ltd v. Valiant Insurance) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.108 ......................................21.42
Tokio Marine & Fire Incsurance Co. v. Retla SS. Co. [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 91 .....................................................18.17
Toledo, The [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 40 ............................................................................................... 11.28, 85.95, 85.254
Tor Line A.B. v. Alltrans Group of Canada Ltd. (The T.F.L. Prosperity) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 123;
[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 617 .................................................................................... 11.69, 11.78, 11.79, 11.80, 21.118
Torch Offshore LLC v. Cable Shipping Inc. [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 446 ....................................................................3.40
Torenia, The (Akt. de Danske Sukkerfabrikker v. Bajamar Compania Naviera S.A.) [1983]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 210................................................................ 11.81, 18.118, 85.109, 85.125, 85.129, 85.261, 85.262
xcii
Torepo, The [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 535 .............................................. 11.26, 11.34, 11.39, 18.55, 85.95, 85.113, 85.271
Torni, The [1932] P. 78............................................................................................................................................... 85.25
Torvald Klaveness v. Arni Maritime Corp. (The Gregos) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ............................. 1.108, 5.111, 6.47
Total Liban v. Vitol Energy [2001] Q.B. 643........................................................................................................... 85.213
Total Transport Corp. v. Amoco Trading Co. (The Altus) [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 423......................... 16.3, 16.14, 54.7,
54.8, 54.9, 57.14, 57.22, 57.24, 60.7, 65.7
Total Transport v. Arcadia Petroleum (The Eurus) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 351 (C.A.); aff’g [1996]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 408........... 5.12, 5.18, 11.6, 11.64, 18.245, 21.37, 21.80, 21.119, 57.11, 59.4, 64.8, 85.448, 85.461
Tourraine, The [1928] P. 58...................................................................................................................................... 85.280
Towse v. Henderson (1850) 4 Exch. 890........................................................................................................................ 6.4
Tradax Export S.A. v. Italgrani di Francesco Ambrosia [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 112 .................................................... 7.2
Tradax Export S.A v. Volkswagenwerk A.G. [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 494 .................................................................. 17.8
Trade and Transport v. Iino Kaiun Kaisha (The Angelia) [1973] 1 W.L.R. 210; [1972] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 154 ............ 9.2,
22.21, 22.26, 85.315
Trade Fortitude, The (Exmar BV v. National Iranian Tanker Co.) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 169................................ 13.64
Trade Green Shipping v. Securitas Bremer (The Trade Green) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 451.............................. 5.2, 20.14
Trade Green, The (Trade Green Shipping v. Securitas Bremer) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 451............................. 5.2, 20.14
Trade Nomad, The [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 723 ............................................................................................................ 52.2
Trade Star Line v. Mitsui (The Arctic Trader) [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449 (C.A.) .......................... 18.89, 18.23, 18.181,
18.191, 18.183, 85.144
Tradigrain v. King Diamond Shipping (The Spiros C.) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 319 (C.A.); rev’g
[1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 91 .......................... 13.43, 13.44, 13.45, 13.55, 15.13, 18.55, 18.62, 18.193, 18.237, 85.112
Trafigura Beheer BV v. Golden Stavraetos Maritime (The Sonia) [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 201................................. 85.2,
85.198, 85.200, 85.201
Trafigura Beheer BV v. Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A. (The MSC Amsterdam) [2007]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 622 ........................................................................10.20, 18.164, 18.166, 21.36, 85.4, 85.24, 85.31,
85.42, 85.88, 85.115, 85.230
Trafigura Beheer v. Ravennavi SpA (The Port Russel) [2013] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 57 ....................................................15.31
Tramp Shipping Corp. v. Greenwich Marine Inc. (The New Horizon) [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 314; [1975]
1 W.L.R. 1042........................................................................................................................................... 25.4, 85.324
Trane v. Hanjin Shipping (The Hanjin Marseilles) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 735 (H.K.) ............................................ 85.42
Trans Trust v. Danubian Trading [1952] 2 Q.B. 297 ................................................................................................. 21.30
Transfield Shipping v. Mercator Shipping (The Achilleas) (2006) L.M.L.N. 706 ........................... 21.32, 21.39, 21A.23
Transgrain Shipping v. Global Transporte Oceanico (The Mexico I) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 507 ............... 15.31, 15.42,
15.50, 15.51, 15.52
Transocean Liners v. Euxine Shipping (The Imvros) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 848 ................................. 1.113, 6.35, 6.36,
11.10, 11.17, 11.31, 14.43, 14.44
Transoceanic Petroleum Carriers v. Cook Industries Inc. (The Mary Lou) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 272 ................... 5.52,
5.74, 5.93, 5.96
Transoceanica Francesca, The, and the Nicos V [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 155............................................. 21.130, 85.414
Transoceanica v. Shipton [1923] 1 K.B. 31 ............................................................................................. 6.57, 6.59, 14.21
Transoceanica Societa Italiana di Navigazione v. H. S. Shipton & Sons [1923] 1 K.B. 31 ...................................85.431
Transpetrol Maritime Services Ltd v. SJB (Marine Energy) BV (The Rowan) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 564 .............3.29,
3.30, 3.31, 3.40, 11.27
Transworld Oil Ltd. v. North Bay Shipping (The Rio Claro) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 173 ...... 4.15, 11.74, 21.30, 21.121
Transworld Oil (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Minos Compania Naviera (The Leni) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 48............ 85.185, 85.192
Trasporti Castelletti v. Hugo Trumpy [1999] E.C.R. I–1597................................................................................... 85.190
Travers v. Cooper [1915] 1 K.B 73 ............................................................................................................................ 1.113
Treglia v. Smiths Timber (1896) 1 Com. Cas. 360 ........................................................................................... 5.60, 5.109
Tres Flores, The (Compania de Naviera Nedelka v. Tradax International) [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 247;
[1974] Q.B. 264.......................................................................................... 15.39, 15.41, 15.42, 15.127, 19.16, 19.18
Trevarrack, The (Hain SS. Co. v. S.A. Comercial de Exportacion e Importacion) (1934) 49 Ll. L. Rep. 86 .......... 15.19
Triton v. Vitol (The Nikmary) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 55; [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 ........................ 6.1, 7.1, 7.10, 15.14,
15.25, 15.47, 19.4, 33.4, 53.9, 57.12, 68.2
Triton Lark, The (Pacific Basin IHX Ltd v. Bulkhandling Handymax AS) [2012] Lloyd’s Rep. 151 .............44.4, 44.5,
44.13, 77.2
Tromp, The [1921] P. 337........................................................................................................................................... 18.17
Tropical Reefer, The (Den Norske Bank v. Acemex Management) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 .................................... 2.36
Tropwave, The [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 159 ............................................................................... 17.10, 17.12, 17.29, 17.42
Trucks & Spares v. Maritime Agencies (Southampton) [1951] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 345............................................... 18.165
Trustor AB v. Smallbone [2001] 1 W.L.R. 1177 ................................................................................................ 2.42, 2.43
Tsakiroglou v. Noblee Thorl [1962] A.C. 93 (H.L.) ............................................................................ 22.14, 22.15, 22.29
xciii
Tsukuba Maru, The (Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. S.A. Marocaine de l’Industrie du Raffinage) [1979]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 459.................................................................................... 57.6, 57.24, 57.25, 57.64, 58.2, 58.6, 65.7
Tudor Marine v. Tradax (The Virgo) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 135 (C.A.)............................................. 2.1, 2.2, 2.11, 2.12
Tully v. Terry (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 679 ........................................................................................................... 13.12, 85.151
Turner v. Haji Goolam [1904] A.C. 826 .................................................................... 18.67, 18.199, 18.208, 18.215, 83.2
Turner, Nott v. Bristol Corporation (1928) 31 Ll. L. Rep. 359.................................................................................. 10.19
Tychy, The [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 11 ............................................................................................................... 1.1, 85.224
Tychy, The (No. 2) [2001] Lloyd’s Rep. 10; rev’d [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 403................................................... 1.1, 2.36
Tynedale SS. Co. v. Anglo Soviet Shipping (1936) 41 Com. Cas. 206....................................................................... 52.2
UB Tiger, The (P. & O. Nedlloyd v. Arab Metals Co.) (No. 2) Com Ct., 5 October 2006 .................................... 21.143
U.B.C. Chartering v. Liepaya Shipping Co. (The Liepaya) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 649 ........... 4.19, 11.19, 21.52, 85.96
U.K. Mutual Steamship Association v. Nevill (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 110 ......................................................................... 2.15
U.S. Shipping Board v. Bunge y Born (1926) 42 T.L.R. 174; (1924) 41 T.L.R. 473 (C.A.) ....................... 12.19, 12.20,
12.33, 12.35
U.S. Shipping Board v. Masters (1923) 14 Ll. L. Rep. 208....................................................................................... 12.28
Ullises Shipping Corporation v. Fal Shipping Co. Ltd (The Greek Fighter) [2006] 2 C.L.C. 497 ............................5.31,
5.46, 5.48, 5.67, 6.58
Ulyanovsk, The (Novorossisk Shipping v. Neopetro Co.) [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 425..................................... 5.10, 5.14,
5.69, 21.33, 21.122, 57.11, 59.4
Unicoopjapan and Marubeni-Iida Co. v. Ion Shipping Co. (The Ion) [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 541 ............ 85.228, 85.243
Unifert International v. Panous Shipping Co. (The Virginia M.) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 603 . 15.40, 15.41, 15.42, 19.19
Uni-Ocean Lines v. C-Trade (The Lucille) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 244 (C.A.)....................................... 5.87, 5.95, 21.38
Union Amsterdam, The (Blue Anchor Line v. Alfred C. Toepfer International G.m.b.H.) [1982]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 432.............................................................................. 11.67, 15.8, 15.72, 26.28, 57.26, 58.4, 85.173
Union Castle Mail SS. Co. v. Borderdale Shipping Co. [1919] 1 K.B. 612 ............................ 11.14, 14.23, 14.24, 14.53
Union Discount v. Zoller [2002] 1 W.L.R. 1517........................................................................................................ 21.89
Union of India v. Compania Naviera Aeolus (The Spalmatori) [1964] A.C. 868; [1962]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 175 ............................................................................................................................ 15.26, 16.3, 25.6
Union of India v. E.B. Aaby’s Rederi [1975] A.C. 797 ............................................................. 20.52, 20.53, 20.54, 39.2
Union of India v. N.V. Reederij Amsterdam (The Amstelslot) [1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223 (H.L.)............ 85.98, 85.121,
85.257
Union Transport v. Continental Lines [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 229 ................................................................................ 3.6
Unique Mariner, The [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 438......................................................................................................... 1.68
Unique Mariner, The (No. 2) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 ............................................................................................ 1.124
United Carriers v. Heritage Food Group [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 269 .......................................................................... 13.1
United Nations/Food and Agriculture Organisation-World Food Programme v. Caspian Navigation Inc.
(The Jay Ganesh) [1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 358............................................................................................ 15.39, 33.8
United Scientific Holdings v. Burnley Council [1978] A.C. 904................................................................................. 19.6
United States Steel Products v. G.W. Ry [1916] 1 A.C. 189................................................................................... 18.160
Unitramp v. Garnac Grain Co. Inc. (The Hermine) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 212 (H.L.)........................... 5.74, 5.89, 5.90,
5.91, 5.92, 5.93, 5.112, 27.4
Universal Bulk Carriers v. Andre et Cie [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 459........................................................................... 56.6
Universal Cargo Carriers v. Citati [1957] 2 Q.B. 401; aff’d [1957] 1 W.L.R. 979; rev’d on other
grounds [1958] 2 Q.B. 254 .................................................................................... 7.5. 9.2, 16.12, 22.11, 22.15, 34.3
Universal Steam Navigation Co. v. James McKelvie [1923] A.C. 492; [1922] 1 K.B. 518 .............................. 2.7, 85.61
Universe Tankships of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers’ Federation [1983] A.C. 366 ......................... 1.92
Upper Egypt Produce Exporters v. “Santamana” (The Santamana) (1923) 14 Ll. L. Rep. 159 .................... 14.23, 14.25
Ursula Bright, The (1903) 8 Com. Cas. 171............................................................................................................... 13.17
VTB Capital v. Nutritek International Corp. [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 313; [2013] 2 W.L.R. 398 ....2.38, 2.40, 2.42, 2.43
VTC v. PVS [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 527 .............................................................................................................68.2, 68.3
Vagres Compania Maritima v. Nissho-Iwai American Corp. (The Karin Vatis) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 330 (C.A.); rev’g [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 361 .................................................. 13.8, 13.20, 13.56, 13.112, 31.2
Vainqueur José, The [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 557.......................................................................................................... 68.2
Vancouver Strike Cases (Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) [1963]
A.C. 691; [1962] 1 Q.B. 42; [1960] 1 Q.B. 439 ........................... 5.8, 5.20, 5.24, 5.37, 7.17, 7.19, 7.23, 7.24, 7.25,
7.26, 7.27, 7.28, 15.11, 15.16, 15.26, 15.27, 15.55, 85.304, 85.315
Vanderspar v. Duncan (1871) 8 T.L.R. 30 ................................................................................................................... 6.45
Vantage Navigation v. Suhail and Saud Bahwan Building Materials (The Alev) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 ......... 1.88,
1.90
Vardinoyannis v. The Egyptian General Petroleum Corp. (The Evaggelos Th.) [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 200 ........... 5.40,
5.54, 5.68, 5.74
Varenna, The (Skips A/S Nordheim v. Syrian Petroleum) [1984] 1 Q.B. 599 ........................ 1.134, 18.49, 18.51, 18.53
xciv
Varing, The (Fornyade Red. Commercial v. Blake & Co.) [1931] P. 79 ....................................................... 5.103, 14.62
Varnish (W.R.) v. The Kheti (Owners) (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 525............................................................................ 85.15
Varverakis v. Compania Naviera Artico (The Merak) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 250............................................ 1.22, 1.26
Veba Oil Supply and Trading v. Petrotrade [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 295. .................................................................... 68.2
Vechscroon, The (McCarren v. Humber International Transport) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301............. 85.6, 85.24, 85.44
Velox, The [1955] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 376 ......................................................................................................................... 5.63
Venezelos v. Soc. Commerciale de Cereales (The Prometheus) [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 350 ............................ 5.20, 7.18
Venezuela, The [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 393................................................................................................................ 18.71
Vergottis v. Ford (1918) 34 T.L.R. 234........................................................................................................................ 1.78
Vergottis v. William Cory & Son Ltd. [1926] 2 K.B. 344............................................................................................. 7.1
Versloot Dredging BV v. HDI-Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG (The DC Merwestone) [2013]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 131 .............................................................................85.98, 85.285, 85.286, 85.287, 85.288, 85.291
Vic Mill, Re [1913] 1 Ch. 465 .................................................................................................................................. 21.125
Vicky I, The (2008) L.M.C.L.Q. 255 21.6
Victoria Feuer Versicherung v. Expeditiebedrijf Frans Maas (27.11.86) Schip en Schade No. 97 [1988], p. 278 .... 1.41
Victoria Laundry v. Newman Industries [1949] 2 K.B. 528 (C.A.) .................................................... 21.27, 21.34, 21.39
Vikfrost, The (Fletcher v. Sigurd Haavik) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 560 ............................ 18.178, 18.203, 18.204, 18.205
Vine, The (Emeraldian Ltd Partnership v. Wellmix Shipping Ltd) [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 301; [2011]
L.M.C.L.Q. 23 ..............................................................................5.15, 5.64, 5.93, 5.116, 15.14, 15.28, 15.30, 15.49
Vinmar International Ltd. v. Theresa Navigation, S.A. (The Atrice) [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1
(Q.B. (Com. Ct.))................................................................................................ 21.41, 21.52, 21.73, 21.124, 21A.39
Vinson The (Quark v. Chiquita Unifrutti Japan) (2005) 677 L.M.L.N. 1 (Com. Ct. 26 April 2005) ....................... 18.64
Virani v. Manuel Revert y Cia [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 14........................................................................................ 21.130
Virginia M., The (Unifert International v. Panous Shipping Co.) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 603 ..................... 15.40, 15.41,
15.42, 19.19
Virgo, The (Tudor Marine v. Tradax) [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 135 (C.A.)................................................... 2.1, 2.11, 2.12
Visurgis, The [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 218........................................................................... 6.35, 11.8, 11.11, 11.32, 14.22
Vita Food Products v. Unus Shipping [1939] A.C. 277 (P.C.) ........................... 1.30, 1.53, 14.22, 85.25, 85.26, 85.133,
85.217, 85.488
Vitesse v. Spiers [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 179 ................................................................................................................ 3.34
Vitol v. Norelf (The Santa Clara) [1996] A.C. 800 ......................................................................................................21.7
Vlassopoulos v. Ney Shipping (The Santa Carina) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 478 ................................................... 2.4, 23.9
Vlierbloom v. Chapman (1844) 13 M. & W. 230 ...................................................................................................... 13.27
Voaden v. Champion (The Baltic Surveyor) [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 623 ....................................................... 21.57, 21.59
Voc Gallant, The (Bulk & Metal Transport v. Voc Bulk Ultra Handymax) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 418 ................85.195
Vorras, The (Dow Chemical (Nederland) v. B.P. Tanker Co.) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 579 (C.A.) .......................... 15.16
Vortigern, The [1899] P. 140 ...................................................................................................................................... 11.51
Vosnoc v. Transglobal Projects [1998] 1 W.L.R. 101.............................................................................................. 85.196
Waddle v. Wallsend Shipping Co. [1952] 2 Lloyd’s Rep., 105 ...............................................................................85.109
Wadi Sudr, The (National Navigation Co. v. Endesa Generacion S.A.) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 193 .......................18.48
Wagon Mound, The [1961] A.C. 388 ......................................................................................................................... 21.28
Walford v. Miles [1992] A.C. 128 ................................................................................................................................ 1.10
Wall v. Rederiaktiebolaget Luggude [1915] 3 K.B. 66............................................................................... 21.134, 21.135
Wallems v. Muller [1927] 2 K.B. 99 ............................................................................................................... 12.14, 21.94
Walton v. Fothergill (1835) 7 C. & P. 392 ............................................................................................................... 21.121
Waterfront Shipping Co. v. Trafigura AG (The Sabrewing) [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 286 .................................16.21, 60.3
Watkins v. Rymill (1883) 10 Q.B.D. 178 ................................................................................................................... 18.45
Watson v. Fireman’s Fund [1922] 2 K.B. 355 ........................................................................................................... 20.21
Watson v. Swann (1862) 11 C.B.(N.S.) 756................................................................................................................. 2.33
Watson, Ex parte (1877) 5 Ch. D. 35 ....................................................................................................................... 18.157
Watts, Watts & Co. v. Mitsui & Co. [1917] A.C. 227 (H.L.)........................................................ 21.117, 21.134, 85.312
Waugh v. Morris (1873) L.R. 8 Q.B. 202..................................................................................................................... 1.57
Wave, The [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 521 ............................................................................................ 21.7, 2.31, 21.9, 21.56
Wavertree Sailing Ship v. Love [1897] A.C. 373 .................................................................................. 20.49, 20.52, 74.5
Wehner v. Dene Shipping Co. [1905] 2 K.B. 92.......................... 13.42, 17.31, 18.67, 18.192, 23.1, 23.11, 23.12, 23.13
Weir & Co. v. Girvin [1900] 1 Q.B. 45 (C.A.)................................................................... 13.108, 13.109, 13.115, 21.94
Weir v. Dobell [1916] 1 K.B. 722 .................................................................................................... 21.99, 21.100, 21.129
Wenjiang, The (No. 2) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 400 .................................................................................................... 22.13
Wertheim (Sally) v. Chicoutimi Pulp Co. [1911] A.C. 301 (P.C.) ................................................................... 21.1, 21.27
Westacre Investments v. Jugoimport-S.D.P.R. Holdings [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 65 ................................................... 1.61
Westcoast Food Brokers v. The Ship Hoyanger [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 79 (Can. Fed. Ct.) ...................... 85.335, 85.336
Westerdok, The (M.D.C. Ltd. v. N.V. Zeevaart Maatschappij “Beursstraat”) [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 180 .............. 11.19
xcv
Western Sealanes Corp. v. Unimarine S.A. (The Pythia) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 160 ................................................ 3.15
Westport Coal Co. v. McPhail [1898] 2 Q.B. 130 ................................................................................................... 85.265
Westralia, The (Westralian Farmers v. Dks. Orient A/S) (1939) 65 Ll. L. Rep. 105................................................ 26.37
Westralian Farmers v. Dks. Orient A/S (The Westralia) (1939) 65 Ll. L. Rep. 105................................................. 26.37
Westralian Farmers v. King Line (1932) 43 Ll. L. Rep. 378 ..................................................................................... 13.52
Wetherall v. The London Assurance [1931] 2 K.B. 448............................................................................................ 20.29
Whaite v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. (1874) L.R. 9 Ex. 67 ............................................ 85.373, 85.410
Whistler International v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (The Hill Harmony) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 147;
[2000] 3 W.L.R. 1954 (H.L.) ...................................... 9.5, 9.7, 12.1, 12.5, 85.261, 85.269, 85.270, 85.271, 85.272,
85.273, 85.359, 85.360
White v. Furness Withy [1895] A.C. 40 ................................................................................................................... 18.112
White v. Granada (1896) 13 T.L.R. 1 ......................................................................................................................... 12.19
White v. Turnbull Martin (1898) 3 Com. Cas. 183 .................................................................................................... 24.16
White & Carter v. McGregor [1962] A.C. 413........................................................................................................... 21.55
Whitechurch (George) Ltd. v. Cavanagh [1902] A.C. 117 ........................................................................................ 18.28
Whitehead v. Anderson (1842) 9 M. & W. 518 ....................................................................................................... 18.158
Whitesea Shipping and Trading v. El PasoRio Clara (The Mariella Bolten) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 648 ...................................................................................................................................85.223, 85.224, 85.229
Wibau Maschinenfabrik Hartman S.A. v. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (The Chanda) [1989]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 494 ........................................................ 6.31, 12.45, 85.71, 85.119, 85.232, 85.368, 85.401, 85.423
Wilhelm Schmidt, The (1871) 25 L.T. 34 .................................................................................................................. 12.12
William Holyman & Sons Pty. v. Foy & Gibson Pty. (1945) 73 C.L.R. 622.......................................................... 85.232
Williams v. Agius [1914] A.C. 510 .......................................................................................................................... 21.100
Williams v. Canton Insurance Co. [1901] A.C. 462...................................................................................... 13.21, 18.212
Williams v. Manissalian Frères (1923) 29 Com. Cas. 42............................................................................................. 6.22
Williams v. Roffey Bros. [1991] 1 Q.B. 1.................................................................................................................... 1.90
Williams Bros. (Hull) v. N.V. W.H. Berghuys Kolenhandel (1915) 21 Com. Cas. 253 ......................................... 85.324
Willie (Charles M.) Shipping v. Ocean Laser (The Smaro) [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 225......................................... 85.196
Wilomi Tanana, The (Mendala III Transport v. Total Transport Corp.) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 41 ............. 18.39, 18.40,
18.41
Wilson v. Bank of Victoria (1867) L.R. 2 Q.B. 203 ....................................................................................... 20.12, 20.13
Wilson v. Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage [1956] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 346 ................................................. 85.471
Wilson v. Hicks (1857) 26 L.J. Ex. 242 ..................................................................................................................... 21.92
Wilson & Sons v. Owners of Cargo per The Xantho (The Xantho) (1887) 12 App. Cas. 503 (H.L.) .................. 85.285,
85.287, 85.288
Wilson (Paal) v. Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal (The Hannah Blumenthal) [1983] 1 A.C. 854 ......................... 22.2
Wilson Smithett v. Bangladesh Sugar [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 378 .............................................................................. 1.14
Wilston Seamship Co. v. Andrew Weir (1925) 22 Ll. L. Rep. 521........................................................................... 18.67
Windfall, The (Nigerian National Shipping Lines v. Mutual) [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 664 ....................................... 21.50
Winkfield, The [1902] P. 42 ............................................................................................................. 18.91, 18.125, 21.128
Winson, The (China Pacific v. Food Corporation of India) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 117; [1982] A.C. 939 ............. 17.38,
18.123, 22.36
Wondrous, The (Ikerigi Compania Naviera v. Palmer) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 400................................................ 85.310
Wood v. Atlantic Transport (1900) 5 Com. Cas. 121............................................................................................... 21.143
Woolf v. Collis [1948] 1 K.B. 11 ............................................................................................................................... 12.35
Woolfson v. Strathclyde Regional Council [1978] S.L.T. 159 (H.L) .......................................................................... 2.40
Wordsworth, The (1898) 88 Fed. Rep. 313 ................................................................................................................ 20.21
World Beauty, The [1970] P. 144; rev’g in part [1969] P. 12 ............................................. 21.47, 21.50, 21.105, 21.106
World Navigator, The (Kurt A. Becher v. Roplak Enterprises) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 23 (C.A.) ............... 15.35, 15.47,
21.5, 21.11, 21.19,
21.21, 21.23, 21.25
Wren, The (Glory Wealth Shipping v. Korea Line Corp.) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 370 ...............................................21.7
Wye Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Compagnie du Chemin de Fer Paris-Orléans (1922) 10 Ll. L. Rep. 85 .................... 8.1, 32.6
X v. Y [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 694 ............................................................................................................................85.196
Xantho, The (Wilson & Sons v. Owners of Cargo per The Xantho) (1887) 12 App. Cas. 503 (H.L.) ................. 85.285,
85.287, 85.288
Xiamen Xindaan Trade Co. Ltd v. North China Shipping Co. Ltd (The Michalakis) [2009] EWHC
588 (Comm) 18.62
Xing Su Hai, The [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 15 ................................................................................................................ 2.39
Yam Seng Pte Ltd v. International Trade Corporation [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 526 ....................................................21.3
Yamatogawa, The (Kuo International v. Daisy Shipping) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 39........................... 11.29, 85.102, 85.
109, 85.257, 85.335, 85.346, 85.347
xcvi
Yanxilas, The (Stinnes Interoil G.m.b.H. v. Halcoussis & Co.) (No. 1) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445 .......................... 2.4,
21.28, 21.31, 21.121, 61.3
Yanxilas, The (Stinnes Interoil G.m.b.H. v. Halcoussis & Co.) (No. 2) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 676 ...................... 21.31,
21.121, 61.3
Yasin, The [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 45 ....................................................................................................................... 85.250
Yearworth v. North Bristol NHS Trust [2010] Q.B. 1 .............................................................................................18.118
Yellow Star, The (Mabanaft v. Erg Petroli) [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 637 16.21
Yelo v. Machado [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 181 ........................................................................................................... 85.135
Yoho Maru, The [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 409 .............................................................................................................. 13.15
Yonge v. Toynbee [1910] 1 K.B. 215........................................................................................................................... 2.34
Youell v. Bland Welch (The Superhulls Cover Case) (No. 2) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 431 .............. 21.64, 21.72, 85.463
Young v. Canning Jarrah (1899) 4 Com. Cas. 96 ...................................................................................................... 21.94
Young v. Moller (1855) 5 E. & B. 755 ...................................................................................................................... 13.74
Ypatianna, The (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Greenstone Shipping S.A.) [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 286 .................. 84.3
Ythan, The [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 457 ................................................................................... 18.81, 18.85, 18.97, 18.104
Yukong Lines v. Rendsburg Investments (The Rialto) (No. 2) [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 322.................... 2.23, 2.40, 2.42,
2.43, 2.47
Yuzhny Zavod Metall Profil LLC v. Eems Beheerder B.V. (The Eeems Solar) Queen’s Bench Division,
Admiralty Court, 5 June 2013 ................................................................................................................14.39, 85.100
“Z” SS. Co. v. Amtorg (1938) 61 Ll. L. Rep. 97 ............................................................................................ 15.19, 17.10
Zarati SS. Co. v. Frames Tours [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 278 ............................................................................... 1.15, 1.16
Zebrarise v. de Nieffe [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 154........................................................................................................ 1.38
Zenovia, The (IMT Shipping & Chartering v. Chansung Shipping) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 139 ...............................4.19
Zhi Jiang Kou, The (P.S. Chellaram v. China Ocean Shipping Co.) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 493
(Aust. Ct.) ................................................................................................................................ 85.205, 85.243, 85.245
Zim Israel Navigation v. Israel Phoenix Insurance [1999] L.M.C.L.Q. 352 ........................................................... 85.288
Zim Israel Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Tradax Export S.A. (The Timna) [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 91; [1970]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 409 ................................................................................................................................. 5.110, 21.101
Zivnostenska Banka v. Frankman [1950] A.C. 57 ....................................................................................................... 1.59
Zodiac Maritime Agencies v. Fortescue Metals Group (The Kildare) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 360 ...........................21.7,
21.9, 21.12, 21.13, 85.393
Zographia M., The [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 382........................................................................................................... 13.57
Zuiho Maru, The (Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Sardoil S.p.A.) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 552 ............................... 21.94, 22.25
xcvii
Table of U.S. Cases
All references are to paragraph number. References in bold indicate where the details of a case are set out.
1,600 Tons of Nitrate of Soda v. McLeod, 61 F. 849 (9th Cir. 1894) ...................................................................15A.154
10,082 Oak Ties, In re, 87 F. 935 (D.N.J. 1898)......................................................................................................15A.14
407 E. 61st Garage Inc. v. Savoy Fifth Ave. Corp., 23 N.Y. 2d 275, 296 N.Y.S. 2d 338 (1968) ...........21A.36, 21A.77
A. & D. Properties v. Volta River, 1984 AMC 464 (E.D. La. 1983).......................................................................21A.50
Aaby v. States Marine Corp. (The Tento), 181 F.2d 383, 1950 AMC 947 (2d Cir. 1950), cert. denied
340 U.S. 829 (1950)...............................................................................................................................................3A.3
Aaby v. States Marine Corp., 107 F.Supp. 484 (S.D.N.Y. 1951).............................................................................21A.31
Accinanto v. Ludwig Mowinckels (The Ocean Liberty) [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 38 (4th Cir.).................................85.438
Acwoo Int’l Steel Corp. v. Toko Kaiun Kaish, Ltd., 840 F.2d 1284, 1988 AMC 2922 (6th Cir. 1988) ...............85A.17
Ada, The, 250 F. 194 (2d Cir. 1918); aff’g 239 F. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1916) ................................................................21A.64
Adamello, The, 19 F.2d 388 (E.D. Va. 1927); aff’d sub nom. Lloyd Adriatico Societa di Navigazione
v. Consolidation Coal Co., 23 F.2d 579 (4th Cir. 1928) ......................................................................19A.1, 21A.76
Ainsworth Coal & Iron Co. v. Traf. Grangesberg Oxelosund, 287 F. 291 (4th Cir. 1923).....................................21A.31
Akt. Dampsk. Thorbjorn v. Harrison & Co., 260 F. 287 (S.D.N.Y. 1918) ...............................................17A.20, 17A.22
Akt. Fido v. Lloyd Brasileiro, 267 Fed. 733 (S.D.N.Y. 1919); aff’d 283 Fed. 62 (2d Cir. 1922);
cert. denied 260 U.S. 737 (1922) ...........................................................................................6A.22, 15A.24, 15A.53
Akt. Korn-Og Foderstof Kompagniet v. Rederiaktiebolaget Atlanten, 252 U.S. 313 (1920);
aff’g 250 F. 935 (2d Cir. 1918)..........................................................................................................................21A.89
Alcoa SS. Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 421 (1949) ..............................................................................................13A.27
All Pacific Trading, Inc. v. Vessel M/V Hanjin Yosu, 7 F.3d 1427, 1994 AMC 365, (9th Cir. 1993) .................85A.54
Allanwilde Transport Corp. v. Vacuum Oil Co., 248 U.S. 377 (1919) .........................................13.12, 13A.31, 13A.40
Allied Chemical v. Companhia de Navegaçao Lloyd Brasileiro, 775 F.2d 476 (2d Cir. 1985) ................................10A.3
Almacen Boyaca Cia. v. Gran Golfo Express, 771 F. Supp. 354 (S.D. Fla. 1991) ................................................85A.11
Amerada Hess v. Mobil Apex, 1979 AMC 2406 (2d Cir. 1979) .............................................................................20A.14
American Asiatic v. Robert Dollar Co., 282 F. 743 (9th Cir. 1922); cert. denied 261 U.S. 615 (1923);
app. after remand 25 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1928); cert. denied 278 U.S. 639 (1928) ..........................21A.34, 21A.76
American Bureau of Shipping v. Tencara Shipyard S.P.A., 170 F.3d 349 (2d Cir. 1999) ........................................2A.32
American Cyanamid Co. v. Booth SS. Co. (The West Point) 195 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1952); aff’g 99
F.Supp. 232 (S.D.N.Y. 1951) ...............................................................................................................12A.9, 12A.24
American Dornier Mach. Corp. v. MSC Gina, 2002 AMC 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)...................................................12A.56
American Fuel Corp. v. Utah Energy Dev. Co., 122 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 1997) ..........................................................2A.11
American Hoesch v. Aubade [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 123 (U.S. Dist. Ct.)..................................................................10.23
American Home Assurance Co. v. Wallenius Wilhelmsen Lines A.S, 445 Fed. App’x 371, 2011
AMC 2968 (2d Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................................................85A.41
American Home Assurance Co. v. Zim Jamaica, 418 F. Supp. 2d 537, 2006 AMC 1148 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) .........85A.15
American List Corp. v. News & World Report Inc., 75 N.Y. 2d 38, 550 N.Y.S. 2d 590 (1989) ...........................21A.82
American President Lines Ltd. v. United States, 208 F.Supp. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1961)..............................................21A.56
American Steel Barge Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Coal Agency Co., 115 F. 669, 672 (1st Cir. 1902) .....13A.2, 17A.5,
17A.13, 17A.14, 17A.15, 17A.20, 17A.22
Amoco Cadiz, The, 1984 AMC 2124 (N.D. Ill. 1984) ...............................................................................................2A.25
Amoco Transport Co. v. SS. Mason Lykes, 768 F.2d 659 (5th Cir. 1985)................................................13A.51, 13A.54
Anthony Shipping Co. v. Hugo Neu Corp., 482 F.Supp. 965 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) ......................................................13A.63
Antria Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Triton Int’l Carriers Ltd., 1980 AMC 678, (S.D.N.Y. 1976)........................................17A.8
Antria Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Triton Int’l Carriers Ltd., 1980 AMC 681 (E.D. Pa. 1978); aff’g without
opinion 609 F.2d 500 (3rd Cir., 1979)...............................................................................................................17A.24
Arctic Bird, The, 109 Fed. 167 (N.D. Cal. 1901) .....................................................................................................13A.45
Arizpa, The, 63 F.2d 42, 1933 AMC 224 (4th Cir.); cert. denied 290 U.S. 648 (1933) ..........................17A.54, 17A.55
xcviii
TABLE OF U.S. CASES
Arktis Sky, The (Assoc. Metals & Minerals Corp. v. The Arktis Sky) 1991 AMC 1499 (S.D.N.Y.
1991), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 978 F.2d 47, 1993 AMC 509 (2d Cir. 1992)
.......................................................................................................................................11A.30, 85.86, 85.114, 85.322
Armada Parcel Services Ltd. v. Inachos Shipping Co. Ltd., 1994 AMC 346 (D. Minn. 1993) ..............................17A.15
Ashburner v. Balchen, 7 N.Y. 262 (1852) ....................................................................................................................3A.9
Assicurazioni Generali v. D’Amico, 766 F.2d 485, 1986 AMC 1051 (11th Cir. 1985) .........................................85A.10
Associated Bulk Trading Inc. v. Lyondell Petrochemical Co. (The Hyphestos) 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
10200, No. 89 Civ. 2853 (J.F.K.), slip op. (7 August 1990, S.D.N.Y.) ..............................................................59.21
Associated Metals v. M/V Star Skarven, 1995 AMC 505 (S.D. Fla. 1994) .............................................................85A.5
Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. The M/V Arktis Sky (The Arktis Sky), 1991 AMC 1499
(S.D.N.Y. 1991), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 978 F.2d 47, 1993 AMC 509
(2d Cir. 1992) ..............................................................................................................11A.30, 85.86, 85.114, 85.322
Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. The Jasmine, 983 F.2d 410, 1993 AMC 957 (2d Cir.
1993) .....................................................................................1A.1, 10A.1, 11A.18, 11A.57, 68A.28, 68A.30, 72A.2
Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. M/V Lumbe, 1993 AMC 700 (D. N.J. 1991) ............................................85A.5
Association Technique Internationale de Compagnies d’Assurances Maritime et Transports v. Cast Eur.
(1983) Ltd., 662 F. Supp. 1443, 1988 AMC 305 (N.D. Ill. 1987) .....................................................................85A.5
Assyria, The, 98 F. 316 (5th Cir. 1899) ..................................................................................................................15A.144
Astra Oil Co., Inc. v. Rover Navigation, Ltd. (The Emerald), 344 F.3d 276, 2003 A.M.C. 2514
(2d Cir. 2003) .........................................................................................................................................2A.30, 2A.33
Asturiana de Zinc Marketing v. La Salle Rolling Mills, 20 F.Supp. 2d 670 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)..................................81A.2
Athos I, (The Frescati Shipping Company, Ltd.), In re,718 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2013) ...................................5A.7, 5A.11,
5A.15, 59A.1, 84A.4
Atkins v. Fibre Disintegrating Co., 2 Fed. Cas. 78 (E.D.N.Y. 1868) (No. 601); aff’d 85 U.S.
(18 Wall.) 272 (1873) ...............................................................................................................................5A.9, 5A.13
Atlantic Coast Yacht Sales, Inc. v. M/V Leon, 2003 AMC 1871 (D. Md. 2003) ....................................12A.54, 12A.58
Atlantic Monarch, The, 1975 AMC 1991 ....................................................................................................................57.65
Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co. v. Poseidon Schiffahrt, 313 F.2d 872 (7th Cir. 1963); cert.
denied 375 U.S. 819 (1963) ..................................................................................................12A.51, 21A.69, 85A.43
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Good Hope Refineries, 604 F.2d 865, 1980 AMC 470 (5th Cir.
1979) ........................................................................................................................................17A.15, 17A.18, 79A.3
Aurora Maritime Co. v. Abdullah Mohamed Fahem & Co., 85 F.3d 44, 1996 AMC 1755
(2d Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................................................................................17A.14
B.M.A. Indus., Ltd. v. Nigerian Star Line, Ltd., 1986 AMC 1662, 786 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1986) ..........................12A.53,
12A.57, 12A.58
Baltimore, The, 75 U.S. 377 (1809)............................................................................................................................21A.2
Banglar Kakoli, The, 588 F. Supp. 1134 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) .........................................................12A.21, 12A.43, 12A.44
Bank One Louisiana N.A. v. M/V Mr. Dean, 293 F.3d 830, 2002 AMC 1617 (5th Cir. 2002) ..............17A.37, 17A.45
Barnard v. Adams, 51 U.S. (10 How.) 270 (1850) ................................................................20A.1, 20A.5, 20A.7, 20A.8
Barretto Peat, Inc. v. Luis Ayala Colon Successors, Inc., 896 F.2d 656, 660 (1st Cir. 1990) ...............................85A.10
Bell v. Stewart, 31 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1929) ................................................................................................................16A.1
Beresford Metals Corp. v. S/S Salvador, 1986 AMC 874, 779 F.2d 841 (2d Cir. 1985) ..........................12A.58, 85A.48
Bergesen d.y. A/S v. Lindholm, 1991 AMC 2839, 760 F.Supp. 979 (D. Conn. 1991) .............................................2A.20
Berkshire Fashions Inc. v. M/V Hakusan II, 954 F.2d 874 (3d Cir. 1992)..............................................................12A.11
Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Solleveld, 11 F.2d 80 (4th Cir. 1926)...............................................................16A.1
Beverly Hills National Bank & Trust Co. v. Compania de Navegacion Almirante S.A. Panama
(The Searaven), 437 F.2d 301 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 402 U.S. 996 (1971)...........................................17A.30
Binladen BSB Landscaping v. M/V “Nedlloyd Rotterdam,” 759 F.2d 1006, 1985 AMC 2113
(2d Cir. 1985) ......................................................................................................................................85A.45, 85A.54
Bird of Paradise, The, 72 U.S. 545 (1867)..................................................................................................................17A.9
Birdsall, Inc. v. Tramore Trading Co., 771 F. Supp. 1193 (S.D. Fla. 1991) ..........................................................85A.24
Black Sea & Baltic General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. The Hellenic Destiny, 575 F.Supp. 685 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) ................21A.85
Blandon, The, 287 F. 722 (S.D.N.Y. 1922) ..............................................................................................................12A.19
Bloomer Choc. v. Nosira Sharon Ltd., 963 F.2d 1522, 1994 AMC 1807 (2d Cir. 1992); aff’g 1994
AMC 1807, 776 F.Supp. 760 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) .................................................................................................11A.25
Bold Venture, The, 638 F.Supp. 87, 1987 AMC 182 (W.D. Wash. 1986) ..............................................................17A.44
Bonanno (Vincenzo) v. The Tweedie Trading Co., 1952 AMC 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)............................................21A.33
Bosung Industrial Co. v. M/V Aegis Sonic, 590 F.Supp. 908 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)......................................................21A.68
Botic, The M/V, 1993 AMC 240 (E.D. Pa. 1992)....................................................................................................11A.18
Bottachi (A.) S.A. v. Philipp Brothers Latin America Corp., 410 F.Supp. 375, 1976 AMC 315
(S.D.N.Y. 1976) .................................................................................................................................................20A.19
Brauer v. Compania, 168 U.S. 104 (1897); aff’g 61 Fed. 860 (S.D.N.Y. 1894)......................................................13A.45
xcix
TABLE OF U.S. CASES
Brazil Oiticica, Ltd. v. The Bill, 55 F. Supp. 780 (D. Md. 1944) aff’d sub nom 145 F.2d 470
(4th Cir. 1944) (per curiam) .............................................................................................................................85A.37
Bremen v. Zapata Off Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972) ...................................................................................................2A.2
Bris, The, 248 U.S. 392 (1919) ....................................................................................................13A.28, 13A.31, 13A.40
Brittan v. Barnaby, 16 U.S. (21 How.) 527, 62 L. Ed. 177 (1858) ............................................................................13A.1
Brown & Root, Inc. v. M/V Peisander, 648 F.2d 415, 1982 AMC 929 (5th Cir. 1981) ........................................85A.45
Buck (Leonard J.) & Co. v. M/V Susanna, No. 84–0153P (D. Me. 1986) (slip op.) ..............................................11A.46
Bunge Corp. v. M/V Furness Bridge, 558 F.2d 790, 1977 AMC 2109 (5th Cir. 1977); cert. denied
435 U.S. 924 (1978).............................................................................................................................................5A.14
Bunge Edible Oil Corp. v. M/V Torm Rask, 949 F.2d 786, 1992 AMC 2227 (5th Cir. 1992); cert.
denied 505 U.S. 1207 (1992) ...............................................................................................................12A.52, 85A.24
Bunn v. Global Marine Inc., 428 F.2d 40, 1970 AMC 1539 (5th Cir. 1970) ............................................................17A.4
Bybyk v. Paine Webber, Inc., 81 F.3d 1193 (2d Cir. 1996).......................................................................................81A.2
C.A. Articulos Nacionales de Goma Gomaven v. M/V Araguer, 756 F.2d 1156 (5th Cir. 1985) ...........12A.46, 12A.57
Cabot Corp. v. S.S. Mormacscan, 441 F.2d 476, 1971 AMC 1130 (2d Cir. 1971) ................................................85A.10
Caemint Food, Inc. v. Lloyd Brasileiro Companhia de Navegacao, 647 F.2d 347 (2d Cir. 1981) .........................11A.70
Caledonia, The, 157 U.S. 124 (1895)..........................................................................................................................11A.3
California & Eastern SS. Co. v. 138,000 Feet of Lumber, 23 F.2d 95 (D. Md. 1927)............................................17A.25
California & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. Columbia SS. Co., 510 F.2d 542 (5th Cir. 1975) (per curiam);
aff’g 391 F.Supp. 894 (E.D. La. 1972) ..............................................................................................................11A.16
Calmaquip Engineering West Hemisphere Corp. v. West Coast Carriers Ltd., 650 F.2d 633, 1984
AMC 839 (5th Cir. 1981)...................................................................................................................................12A.53
Caloo Villano, The, 18 F.2d 220 (2d Cir. 1927).......................................................................................................21A.69
Cardinal Shipping Corp. v. M/S Seisho Maru, 744 F.2d 461 (5th Cir. 1984) ...........................................................83A.1
Carle & Montanari, Inc. v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, 275 F. Supp. 76, 1667 AMC 1637
(S.D.N.Y. 1967), aff’d, 386 F.2d 839 (2d Cir. 1967)
Carlisle, The, 771 F.2d 80, 1986 AMC 305 (3d Cir. 1985) ........................................................72A.15, 72A.21, 72A.28
Carman Tool & Abrasives, Inc. v. Evergreen Lines, 871 F.2d 897, 1989 AMC 913 (9th Cir. 1989) ...................85A.46
Carnival Cruise Lines Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 113 L.Ed. 2d 622, 1991 AMC 1697 (1991) ...............................2A.2
Caterpillar Overseas, S.A. v. Marine Transp. Inc., 1991 AMC 75, 900 F.2d 714 (4th Cir. 1990) ...........12A.51, 85A.11
Centerchem Products Inc. v. A/S Rederiet Odfjell (The Oak) 1972 AMC 373 (E.D. Va. 1971)............................72A.17
Cerro Sales Corp. v. Atlantic Marine Enters., 403 F. Supp. 562, 1976 AMC 375 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) ..................... 85A.24
Chantier Naval Voisin v. M/Y Daybreak, 677 F.Supp. 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1988)........................................................21A.85
Chembulk Trading LLC v. Chemex Ltd., 2003 AMC 1441 (E.D. La. 2003)..........................................................17A.16
China Trade & Devel. Corp. v. The Choong Yong, 837 F.2d 33, 1988 AMC 880 (2d Cir. 1987)...........................2A.13
Choctaw Generation Ltd. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 271 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. 2001) .............................................2A.31
Cholita Corp. v. MSC Mandraki, 2011 AMC 1417 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) .....................................................................85A.15
Christina Pezas, 149 F.Supp. 678, 1958 AMC 240 (S.D.N.Y. 1957) ..........................................................................3A.5
Christman v. Maristella Compania Naviera, 468 F.2d 620 (2d Cir. 1972); aff’g 349 F.Supp. 845
(S.D.N.Y. 1972) .................................................................................................................................................21A.33
Circuit City Stores Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 2001 LEXIS 2459 (2001) ........................................................15A.158
Cities Service Transp. Co. v. Gulf Refining Co., 79 F.2d 521, 1935 AMC 1513 (2d Cir. 1935) ...............................5A.1
Citta di Messina, The, 169 F. 472 (S.D.N.Y. 1909) ....................................................................................12A.2, 12A.31
Columbian Ins. Co. v. Catlett, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 383, 6 L. Ed. 664 (1827)........................................................12A.32
Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp., 314 U.S. 104 (1941) ...............................11A.61, 11A.62
Compagnia di Navigazione Mauritius Rome v. Kulukundis, 182 F.Supp. 258 (E.D.N.Y. 1959) ............15A.147, 57A.4
Compania Estrella Blanca Ltda. v. SS. Nictric, 247 F.Supp. 161 (D. Ore. 1965) ...............................................17A.68x8
Compania Naviera Asiatic S.A. v. Burmah Oil, 1977 AMC 1538 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)...................................................3A.5
Compania Naviera Epsilon S.A., In re Complaint of, 506 F.2d 1395 (2d Cir. 1974); aff’g 1974 AMC
2608 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) .........................................................................................................................13A.27, 13A.31
Compania Naviera Puerto Madrin S.A. v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 1962 AMC 147 (S.D.N.Y. 1961) ..................15A.24,
15A.44, 15A.147, 15A.148, 57A.4, 72.22
Constable v. National SS. Co., 154 U.S. 51 (1894)....................................................................................................10A.2
Constructores Tecnicos v. Sea-Land Service Inc., 945 F.2d 841, 1992 AMC 1284 (5th Cir. 1991) ....................12A.54,
12A.55, 85A.43
Continental Grain Co. v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 22 F.Supp. 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1938) ..............................15A.5, 15A.153
Continental Grain Co. v. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Auth., 972 F.2d 427 (1st Cir. 1992) .............................11A.30
Contship Containerlines, Ltd. v. PPG Industries, Inc. 2006 AMC 686, 442 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2006)..........6A.24, 85A.58
Contship v. Howard, 309 F.3d 910, 2002 AMC 2727 (6th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................1A.1
Cook Industries Inc. v. Barge UM–308, 622 F.2d 851 (5th Cir. 1980) ...................................................................21A.66
Cornish Shipping Ltd. v. International Nederlanden N.V., 53 F.3d 499, 1995 AMC 2582 (2d Cir.), 516
U.S. 867 (1995) ..................................................................................................................................................17A.22
c
TABLE OF U.S. CASES
Corus UK Ltd. v. Waterman Steamship Co., 251 Fed. App’x 873 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) ..........................85A.29
Corvus, The, 288 F. 973 (4th Cir. 1923); aff’g 282 F. 939 (D. Md. 1922) ................................................15A.5, 16A.21
Costello v. 734,700 Laths, 44 F. 105 (E.D.N.Y. 1890) ............................................................................................17A.19
Craig v. Lake Asbestos of Quebec Ltd., 843 F.2d 145 (3d Cir. 1988) ......................................................................2A.25
Cranston v. A Cargo of 250 Tons of Coal, 22 F. 614 (D.N.J. 1884) .......................................................................17A.18
Crisp v. United States & Australasia SS. Co., 124 Fed. 748 (S.D.N.Y. 1903) ..........................................................59A.5
Crossman v. Burrill, 179 U.S. 100 (1900) ...................................................15A.134, 15A.135, 15A.136, 17A.58, 57A.4
Culliford v. Comila, 128 U.S. 135 (1888) ................................................................................................................21A.13
Cullman Ventures, Inc. v. Conk, 252 A.D.2d 222, 682 N.Y.S.2d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) ................................2A.29
Czarnikow-Rionda Co. v. Federal Sugar Ref. Co., 255 N.Y. 33, 173 N.E. 913......................................................21A.13
D.G. Harmony, In re M/V, 2005 AMC 2528, 394 F. Supp. 2d 649 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ..............................................6A.25
Dalbeattie SS. Co. v. Card, 57 F. 304 (E.D.S.C. 1893)..............................................................................................19A.8
Dampskibs Akt. Jan v. Cargo of Jute Butts, 298 F. 164 (S.D.N.Y. 1923)...............................................................21A.65
Dampskibselskabet Norden v. Gano Moore Co., 1923 AMC 398 (S.D.N.Y. 1923) ...............................................25A.10
Daval Steel Products v. M/V Acadia Forest, 683 F. Supp. 444, 1988 AMC 1669 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) .......................85A.5
Davidson S.D.S. Co. v. 119,254 Bushels of Flaxseed, 117 F. 283 (W.D.N.Y. 1902) .............................................17A.18
Davis v. Prendergast, 7 F.Cas. 161 (No. 3,647 C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1879) .......................................................................15A.96
Davis v. Smokeless Fuel Co., 196 F. 753 (2d Cir. 1912); cert. denied 229 U.S. 617 (1912) .................................17A.16
Davison v. Von Lingen, 113 U.S. 40 (1885) ................................................................................................................4A.1
De Laval Turbine, Inc. v. West India Indus., 502 F.2d 259, 1974 AMC 1156 (3d Cir. 1974) ................85A.10, 85A.11
DeLaRama SS. Co. Inc. v. Ellis, 149 F.2d 61 (9th Cir. 1945) .................................................................................13A.52
Delaware, The, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 579 (1871).........................................................................................................12A.54
Deloitte Noraudit A/S v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, U.S., 9 F.3d 1060 (2d Cir. 1993) .............................................2A.32
Delphi-Delco Electronics Systems v. M/V Nedlloyd Europa, 324 F. Supp. 2d 403, 2004 AMC 1217
(S.D.N.Y. 2004) ................................................................................................................................................85A.49
Delphinus Maritima S.A., In re Complaint of, 1982 AMC 796 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) ...................................................13A.49
Delta Commodities Inc. v. The Jo Oak, 1990 AMC 820 (E.D. La. 1989).................................................................5A.14
Deutsche Bank Filiale Nurnberg v. Humphrey, 272 U.S. 517 (1926)......................................................................21A.85
Deutsche Shell v. Placid Ref. Co., 1992 AMC 196 (E.D. La. 1991) ........................................................20A.16, 20A.19
Dewar v. Mowinckel, 179 F. 355 (9th Cir. 1910); 173 F. 544 (N.D. Cal. 1909) ......................................................16A.9
Diana Compania Maritime S.A. of Panama v. Subfreights of the SS. Admiralty Flyer, 280 F.Supp.
607, 1968 AMC 2093 (S.D.N.Y. 1968)...............................................................................................................17A.8
Dibrell Bros. v. Prince Line, 58 F.2d 959, 1932 AMC 896 (2d Cir. 1932) .............................................................20A.30
Dietrich v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 9 F.2d 733 (2d Cir. 1925)...............................12A.19
Director General of India Supply Mission v. SS. Maru, 459 F.2d 1370 (2d Cir. 1972) ..........11A.18#, 11A.60, 11A.64
Dixie Plywood Co. v. Federal Lakes, 404 F.Supp. 461 (S.D. Ga. 1975); aff’d 525 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. 1975);
cert. denied 425 U.S. 974 (1976).......................................................................................................................21A.68
Domingo de Larrinaga, The 1928 AMC 64.................................................................................................................20.31
Dorsid Tradng Co. v. SS. Rose, 343 F. Supp. 617, 1973 AMC 457 (S.D. Tex. 1972) ..........................................85A.17
Dougherty (P.) Co. v. 2,471 Tons of Coal, 278 F. 799 (D. Mass. 1922) ...............................................................15A.165
Dow Chemical Pacific Ltd. v. Rascator Maritime S.A., 782 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1986) ..............................................2A.10
Drew Ameroid International v. M/V Green Star, 681 F.Supp. 1056 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ...............13A.3, 13A.18, 13A.26,
13A.37
Du Pont de Nemours Int’l S.A. v. The Mormacvega (The Mormacvega) [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 267
(U.S. Dist. Ct.); 493 F.2d 97, 1974 AMC 67 (2d Cir. 1974) 6.29, ..................................................................12A.55
E.A.S.T. Inc. v. Alaia, 1989 AMC 2024 (5th Cir. 1989) ..............................................................................17A.4, 17A.8
Eagle Courier, The (Eagle Terminal Tankers Inc. v. Insurance Company of U.S.S.R. (Ingosstrakh) Ltd.)
1981 AMC 137 (2d Cir. 1981) .......................................................................20A.5, 20A.7, 20A.9, 20A.11, 20A.12
Eagle Terminal Tankers Inc. v. Insurance Company of U.S.S.R. (Ingosstrakh) Ltd. (The Eagle Courier)
1981 AMC 137 (2d Cir. 1981) .......................................................................20A.5, 20A.7, 20A.9, 20A.11, 20A.12
Earn Line SS. Co. v. Manati Sugar Co., 269 F. 774 (2d Cir. 1920) ........................................................................21A.13
East Asiatic Trading Co. v. Navibec Shjipping Ltd., 1979 AMC 1043 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) .......................................17A.24
Eastern Transportation Co. v. East Carolina Lumber Co., 262 Fed. 195 (E.D. Pa. 1920) ......................................53A.16
Eclipse, The Steamer, 135 U.S. 599 (1890)..............................................................................................................21A.95
Edso Exporting LP v. Atlantic Container Line AB, 471 Fed. App’x 8, 2012 AMC 1811 (2d Cir. 2012) .............85A.41
Edward T. Stotesbury, The, 187 F. 111 (2d Cir. 1911) ...............................................................15A.25, 15A.26, 15A.32
Egg Harbor, The (Standard Oil Co. of California v. U.S.) 59 F.Supp. 100 (S.D. Cal. 1945); aff’d
156 F.2d 312 (9th Cir. 1946) ................................................................................................................72A.2, 72A.17
El Zorro, The, 1981 AMC 2883 (5th Cir. 1981).......................................................................................................68A.27
Electro-Tec Corp. v. S/S Dart Atlantica, 1985 AMC 1606, 598 F. Supp. 929, 932–933 (D. Md. 1984) ...............12A.51
Eliza Lines, The, 61 F. 308 (C.C.D. Mass. 1894) .......................................................................17A.46, 17A.52, 17A.53
Elizabeth Bandi, The, 1926 AMC 839 (E.D.N.Y. 1926)..........................................................................................21A.48
ci
TABLE OF U.S. CASES
Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. The President Harding, 288 F.2d 288 (2d Cir. 1961); aff’g 187 F.Supp. 948
(S.D.N.Y. 1960) 21A.26, 21A.39
Elliott (B.) (Canada) Ltd. v. John T. Clark & Son, 704 F.2d 1305, 1983 AMC 1742, (4th Cir. 1983)
Elmac, The, 285 F. 665 (S.D.N.Y. 1922)..................................................................................................................19A.14
Elvers v. W.R. Grace & Co., 244 F. 705 (9th Cir. 1917).........................................................................................17A.48
Ely, The, 110 F. 563 (S.D.N.Y. 1901); aff’d 122 F. 447 (2d Cir. 1903); cert. denied 189 U.S. 514 (1903)............83A.1
Emerald, The (Astra Oil Co., Inc. v. Rover Navigation, Ltd.), 344 F.3d 276, 2003 A.M.C. 2514
(2d Cir. 2003).......................................................................................................................................... 2A.30, 2A.33
Emily S. Malcolm, The, 278 F. 943 (3d Cir. 1922)......................................................................................................3A.9
Empire Transportation Co. v. Philadelphia & R.C. & I. Co., 77 F. 919 (8th Cir. 1896)...........................................15A.8
Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v. SS. Hong Kong Producer, 422 F.2d 7, 1969 AMC 1741 (2d Cir. 1969);
cert. denied 397 U.S. 964 (1970).......................................................................................................................12A.53
English Elec. Valve Co. v. M/V Hoegh Mallard, 814 F.2d 84, 1987 AMC 1351 (2d Cir. 1987).............12A.54, 85A.43
Esso Nederland v. M.T. Trade Fortitude (The Trade Fortitude) 573 F.2d 1296 (2d Cir. 1977); aff’g
1977 AMC 2144 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) ......................................................................................................72A.16, 72A.28
European-American Banking Corp. v. M/S Rosaria, 486 F.Supp. 245 (S.D. Miss. 1978) .........................17A.4, 17A.36
Evans v. Famous Music Corp., 1 N.Y.S.3d 452 (2004). ...............................................................................................2.88
Evra Corp. v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co., 673 F.2d 951 (7th Cir. 1982) ...............................21A.13
FMC Corporation v. S.S. Marjorie Lykes, Inc., 851 F.2d 78, 1988 AMC 2113 (2d Cir. 1988) 85A.39, 85A.40, 85A.41
Fadex Chemical Corp. v. Lorentzen, 44 N.Y.S.2d 789, 1944 AMC 940 (Mun. Ct. N.Y. 1943) ............................12A.29
Fahnestock & Co. and Waltman, In re Arbitration between, 935 F.2d 512 (2d Cir. 1991) ....................................72A.47
Farrell Lines, Inc. v. Ceres Terminals Inc., 161 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1998)................................................................21A.95
Farrell Lines, Inc. v. Highlands Ins. Co., 696 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1982); aff’g 532 F.Supp. 77 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) .....10A.2,
10A.3
Federal Insurance Co. v. Sabine Towing & Transp. Co., 783 F.2d 347, 1986 AMC1860 (2d Cir. 1986)..............21A.38
Fedmet Corp. v. M/V Buyalyk, 194 F.3d 674, 2000 AMC 337 (5th Cir. 1999) ....................................................85A.23
Fermar v. Peninsular Ship, 1993 AMC 1803 (E.D. La. 1992) ...................................................................................23A.1
Fernales Shipping Co. v. Bonaire Petroleum Corp., 733 F.2d 381 (5th Cir. 1984) .................................................11A.34
Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Sea Phoenix, 447 F.3d 212, 2006 AMC 1217 (3d Cir. 2006) ...........................................85A.46
Ferrostaal, Inc. v. The Sersou, 1999 AMC 2352 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ............................................................................12A.4
Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd., 2003 AMC 1795 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2003)............12A.30
Firestone International Co. v. Isthmian Lines Inc., 1964 AMC 1284 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) .............13A.36, 13A.43, 13A.46
Fisser v. International Bank, 282 F.2d 231 (2d Cir. 1960)...........................................................................................2A.7
Folger Coffee Co. v. Olivebank, 201 F.3d 632, 2000 AMC 844 (5th Cir. 2000)....................................................20A.22
Fort Fraser, The, 1992 AMC 1575 (E.D. La. 1991) .................................................................................................68A.27
Francosteel Corp.. v. M/V Deppe Eur., 1990 AMC 2962 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) .............................................................85A.5
Frederick Luckenbach, The, 15 F.2d 241 (S.D.N.Y. 1926) .........................................................................12A.8, 12A.19
Frescati Shipping Company, Ltd. (The Athos I), In re, 718 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2013) .......................5A.7, 5A.11, 5A.15,
59A.1, 84A.4
Fri, The, 154 F. 333 (2d Cir. 1907), cert. denied 210 U.S. 431 (1908) ...................................................................11A.21
G&G Shipping Co. Ltd. of Anguilla, In re Complaint of, 767 F. Supp. 398 (D. P.R. 1991) ................................85A.27
G.F. Co. v. Pan Ocean Shipping Co., 23 F.3d 1498, 1994 AMC 1739 (9th Cir. 1994) .........................................85A.17
Galban Lobo Trading Co. S.A. v. The Diponegaro, 103 F.Supp. 452, 1952 AMC 181 (S.D.N.Y. 1951)..............17A.39
Gans SS. Line v. Wilhelmsen, 275 F. 254 (2d Cir. 1921); cert. denied 257 U.S. 655 (1921) ................................21A.64
Garcia & Diaz v. Maguire Inc., 1936 AMC 136 (E.D. Pa. 1936)............................................................................21A.49
Garrity v. Lyle Stuart Inc., 40 N.Y.2d 354 (1976) ...................................................................................................72A.46
Gazelle, The, 128 U.S. 474 (1888) ................................................................................................................5A.1, 21A.41
Gemini Navigation Inc. v. Philipp Bros., 1974 AMC 1122 (2d Cir. 1974) .............................................................20A.23
General Elec. Co. v. M/V Nedlloyd, 817 F.2d 1022, 1987 AMC 1817 (2d Cir. 1987) .........................................85A.45
General Elec. Co. Int’l Sales Div. v. The Nancy Lykes (The Nancy Lykes), 706 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1983) ..........12A.14,
12A.49
Georg Dumois, The, 88 F. 537 (E.D.N.Y. 1898)......................................................................................................21A.14
George E. Warren Corporation v. Britain SS. Co., 100 F.2d 283 (1st Cir. 1938) .................................................15A.129
George v. Kramo Transportation, 1993 AMC 748 (E.D. La. 1992)...........................................................................2A.22
Gerber (J.) & Co. v. S.S. Sabine Howaldt, 437 F.2d 580, 1971 AMC 539 (2d Cir. 1971) ....................................85A.29
Getty Oil Co. v. Norse Management Co. (Pte.) Ltd., 711 F.Supp. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)............................................2A.4
Gibson v. Brown, 44 F. 98 (S.D.N.Y. 1890) ..............................................................................................................13A.7
Gilbert Transportation Co. v. Borden, 170 F. 706 (1st Cir. 1909) ..............................................................15A.9, 15A.13
Gilda, The, 790 F.2d 1209 (5th Cir. 1986) ....................................................................................72A.2, 72A.13, 72A.26
Giovannella D’Amico, The, 1970 AMC 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) .....................................68A.27, 72A.19, 72A.23, 72A.26
Giulia, The (1914) 218 F 744 (2nd Cir.)....................................................................................................................85.288
Giulio, The, 34 F. 909 (S.D.N.Y. 1888) ....................................................................................................17A.18, 17A.19
cii
TABLE OF U.S. CASES
Glidden Co. v. Hellenic Lines Ltd., 315 F.2d 162, 1963 AMC 2006 (2d Cir. 1963)..............................................21A.32
Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. United States (The Zaca) 105 F.2d 160, 1939 AMC 912 (2d Cir. 1939) ..........12A.45
Gloria SS. Co. v. India Supply Mission, 288 F.Supp. 674 (S.D.N.Y. 1968) ...........................................................16A.15
Gluck v. Isbrandtsen Co., 1961 AMC 1549 (City Ct. 1960) ....................................................................................12A.29
Good Hope Chemical Corp., Re, 747 F.2d 806 (1st Cir. 1984); cert. denied 471 U.S. 1102 (1985)......................21A.85
Goodpasture Inc. v. M/V Pollux, 602 F.2d 84, 1979 AMC 2515; reh’g denied 606 F.2d 321
(5th Cir. 1979) ......................................................................................................................................................17A.9
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. The Boeing Co., 998 F.2d 68
(2d Cir. 1993) .......................................................................................................................................................2A.29
Gowen, Inc. v. F/V Quality One, 2001 AMC 1478, 1483 (1st Cir. 2001)...............................................................17A.38
Grace (W.R.) & Co. v. Hanson, 273 F. 486 (9th Cir. 1920) 15A.141, 15A.144
Grace (W.R.) & Co. v. S.C. Loveland Co., 1990 AMC 2515 (4th Cir. 1990).........................................................21A.90
Grace (W.R.) & Co. v. Toyo Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha, 7 F.2d 889 (N.D. Cal. 1925); aff’d 12 F.2d 519
(9th Cir. 1926); cert. denied 273 U.S. 717 (1926) .................................................................................12A.6, 12A.7
Gracie D. Chambers, The, 248 U.S. 387; aff’g 253 F. 182 (1919) ..............................13A.25, 13A.27, 13A.28, 13A.29,
13A.30, 13A.31, 13A.40, 13A.51
Granheim, The (United States Steel International Inc. v. The Granheim), 540 F.Supp. 1326,
1982 AMC 2770 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) ........................................................................................68A.28, 68A.31, 72A.15
Granite & Quartzite Centre Inc. v. The Virma, 374 F.Supp. 1124 (S.D. Ga. 1974)................................................21A.69
Great Republic, The, 1979 AMC 379 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) ...........................................................................................72A.25
Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003) .................................................................................................2.86
Greenpack of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. American President Lines, 684 F.3d 20, 27 (1st Cir. 2012) ............................85A.46
Hagerman v. Norton, 105 F. 996 (5th Cir. 1901) ........................................................................15A.98, 15A.102, 25A.5
Hall Corp. v. Cargo ex Steamer Mont Louis, 62 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1933) ..............................................................17A.20
Halligan v. Piper Jaffray, Inc., 148 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 1998).........................................................................................2.87
Hans Leonhardt, The, S.M.A. 2820 (1991) ............................................................................................................15A.144
Hans Maersk, The, 266 F. 806 (2d Cir. 1920) .............................................................15A.17, 15A.19, 15A.140, 17A.54
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Calmar SS. Corp., 404 F.Supp. 442 (W.D. Wash. 1975).................................................11A.18
Hatton v. De Belaunzaran, 26 F. 780 (S.D.N.Y. 1885) ............................................................................................15A.66
Hayes-Leger Associates, Inc. v. M/V Oriental Knight, 765 F.2d 1076, 1986 AMC 1724 (11th Cir. 1985) .........85A.54
Hellenic Lines v. Commodities Bagging & Shipping, 611 F.Supp. 665 (D.N.J. 1985) ..........................................16A.21
Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. United States, 512 F.2d 1196, 1975 AMC 697 (2d Cir. 1975) ............................12A.22, 12A.42,
13A.24, 13A.48
Hellenic SS. Co. v. Archibald McNeil & Sons Co., 273 F. 290 (D. Md. 1921)....................................................15A.155
Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee, 36 F.3d 143, 1995 AMC 1047 (1st Cir. 1994) .....................................................85A.46
Herd (Robert C.) & Co. v. Krawill Machinery Corp., 359 U.S. 297, 1959 AMC 879 .................................85A.1, 85A.9
Hicks v. Guinness, 269 U.S. 71 (1925).....................................................................................................................21A.85
Hidrocarburos y Derivados C.A. v. Lemos, 453 F.Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) ..........................................................2A.4
Higgins v. Anglo-Algerian S.S. Co., 248 F. 386 (2d Cir. 1918) .............................................................................85A.47
Himoff Indus v. Seven Seas Shipping Corp., 1976 AMC 1030 (N.Y. Sup. 1976)......................................................4A.1
Hinckley v. Wilson Lumber Co., 205 F. 974 (D. Me. 1913) ...................................................................................21A.48
Hirsch Lumber Co. v. Weyerhaueser SS. Co., 233 F.2d 791 (2d Cir. 1956) ............................................13A.27, 13A.55
Hobson v. Lord, 92 U.S. 397 (1876)...........................................................................................................................20A.7
Hojgaard & Schultz A/S v. Transamerican SS. Corp., 762 F.2d 990 (2d Cir. 1985); 590 F.Supp.
916 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ..........................................................................................................................................21A.66
Hokkai Maru, The, 1937 AMC 2890 (E.D.N.Y. 1937) ............................................................................................72A.28
Holborn Oil Trading Ltd. and Interpetrol Bermuda Ltd., Matter of Arbitration between, 747
F.Supp. 840, 1992 AMC 819 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) ......................................................................................2A.10, 2A.17
Holzman (Phillip) A.L. v. The Hellenic Sunbeam, 1977 AMC 1731 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) ...........................21A.83, 21A.85
Horn v. Cia. de Navegacion Frico S.A., 404 F.2d 422 (5th Cir. 1968) ......................................11A.16, 11A.24, 11A.34
Hornbeck Offshore Operators Inc. v. Ocean Line of Bermuda Inc., 1994 AMC 1716 (E.D. Va. 1994) ................17A.14
Howland v. Greenway, 63 U.S. 491 (1860)................................................................................................................23A.5
Hughes v. J.S. Hoskins Lbr. Co., 136 F. 435 (D.N.J. 1905) ....................................................................................15A.97
Hurlbut v. Turnure, 81 F. 208 (2d Cir. 1897) ...........................................................................................................12A.12
Hyphestos, The (Associated Bulk Trading Inc. v. Lyondell Petrochemical Co.) 1990 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 10200, No. 89 Civ. 2853 (J.F.K.), slip op. (7 August 1990, S.D.N.Y.) ..................................................59.21
Hyundai Corp. v. Hull Insurance Proceeds of M/V Vulcan, 800 F.Supp. 124 (D.N.J. 1992) ...................................83A.1
I/S Stavborg v. National Metal Converters Inc., In re, 500 F.2d 424, 1974 AMC 1021 (2d Cir. 1974) ................17A.67
Iligan Integrated Steel Mills, Inc. v. SS. John Weyerhaeuser, 1975 AMC 33, 507 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1974) ...........12A.57
Ilva U.S.A., Inc. v. .M/V Botic 1993 AMC 240 (E.D. Pa. 1992), aff’d mem., 998 F.2d 1003, 1993
AMC 2445 (3d Cir. 1993) ..................................................................................................................................85A.5
India, The, 49 F. 76 (5th Cir. 1891) ...........................................15A.19, 15A.66, 15A.105, 15A.106, 15A.109, 15A.154
ciii
TABLE OF U.S. CASES
Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative Association Inc. v. SS. Sovereign Faylenne (The Sovereign
Faylenne) 1978 AMC 1514 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) .....................................................................................11A.35, 17A.67
Indrapura, The, 171 F. 929 (D. Ore. 1909) ..................................................................................................12A.2, 12A.45
Indus. Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. Emo Trans, Inc., 962 P.2d 983 (Col. Ct. App. 1997) ....................................................12A.51
Ingersoll Milling Machine Co. v. M/V Bodena, 829 F.2d 293, 1988 AMC 223 (2d Cir. 1987);
cert. denied 484 U.S. 1042 (1988).......................................................................................................12A.54, 85A.43
Institute of London Underwriters v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 881 F.2d 761, 1989 AMC 2516 (9th Cir.
1989) ..................................................................................................................................................................85A.46
Insurance Co. of North America v. M/V Imperial, 1987 AMC 1480 (E.D. La. 1987) ..........................................85A.21
Insurance Co. of North America v. M/V Tokyo Sinator, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2553 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)................6A.22
Intercontinental Transportation Co. v. India Supply Mission, 261 F.Supp. 757 (S.D.N.Y. 1966) ...........15A.17, 16A.17
International Barges Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 1979 AMC 450 (10th Cir. 1978)....................................................68.33
Interocean Shipping Co. v. M/V Lygaria, 1981 AMC 2244 (D. Md. 1981)............................................................17A.36
Irrawaddy, The, 171 U.S. 187 (1898) .......................................................................................................................20A.20
Italia di Navigazione, S.p.A. v. M.V. Hermes I, 724 F.2d 21, 1984 AMC 1676 (2d Cir. 1983)
(per curiam) ......................................................................................................................................................85A.24
Itel Containers v. Atlanttrafik Exp. Service Ltd., 909 F.2d 698 (2d Cir. 1990).........................................................2A.10
Itel Container Corp. v. M/V Titan Scan, 139 F.3d 1450, 1998 AMC 1965 (11th Cir. 1998) ..................................85A.6
Itoh (C.) & Co. (America) Inc. v. Hellenic Lines Ltd., 470 F.Supp. 594 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) .....................12A.44, 21A.66
J.C.B. Sales Ltd. v. Wallenius Lines, 124 F.3d 132, 1997 AMC 2705 (2d Cir. 1997) ............................................85A.5
Jackie Hause, The (N.H. Shipping Corp. v. Freights of the Jackie Hause) 81 F.Supp. 165, 1961
AMC 83 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) ...................................................................................................................17A.15, 17A.18
Jamaica Nutrition Holdings Ltd. v. United Shipping Co., 643 F.2d 376, 1981 AMC 2883 (5th Cir. 1981) ..........21A.85
James N. Kirby, Pty. Ltd. v. Norfolk Southern Railway, 300 F.3d 1300, 2002 AMC 2113 (11th Cir. 2002),
rev’d, 543 U.S. 14, 2004 AMC 2705 (2004) ....................................................................................................85A.12
Jason, The, 225 U.S. 32 (1912) .................................................................................................................................20A.22
Jebsen v. A Cargo of Hemp, 228 F. 143 (D. Mass. 1915) ............................................................17A.9, 17A.12, 17A.24
Jenkins Towel Service v. Tidewater Oil Co., 422 Pa. 601 (1966) ...............................................................68A.10, 68.25
Jindo v. Tolten, 2003 AMC 1312 (C.D. Cal. 2001) .................................................................................................12A.57
JLM Industries, Inc. v. Stolt-Nielsen SA, 387 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2004) .......................................................................2.86
John F. Dillon & Co., LLC v. Foremost Maritime Corp., 2004 AMC 1677 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ................................80A.2
Jones v. Flying Clipper, 116 F.Supp. 386, 1954 AMC 259 (S.D.N.Y. 1953)..........................................................12A.49
Joo Seng Hong Kong Co. v. SS. Unibulkfir, 493 F.Supp. 35 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).........................................................83A.1
Karran v. Peabody, 145 F. 166 (2d Cir. 1906)............................................................................................................19A.3
Kate, Freights of The, 63 F. 707 (S.D.N.Y. 1894) ...................................................................................................17A.15
Kemsley, Milbourn & Co. v. United States, 19 F.2d 441 (2d Cir. 1927) .................................................12A.32, 21A.69
Keokuk, The, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 517 (1870) ...............................................................................................................17A.8
Kerr-McGee Refining Corp. v. La Libertad (La Libertad), 529 F.Supp. 78 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) ..................21A.56, 72A.2,
72A.17, 72A.28
Kerr-McGee Refining Corp. v. M/T Triumph, 740 F.Supp. 288 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); rev’d 924
F.2d 467 (2d Cir. 1991); cert. denied 502 U.S. 821, 112 S.Ct. 81 (1991) .......................................................72A.49
Keystone Shipping Co. and Chas. Kurz Co., Inc., In the Matter of the Arbitration between, 762
F. Supp. 28 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) ..............................................................................................................................80A.2
Kimball, The, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 37 (1835) ................................................................................................13A.24, 17A.15
Kingsbury Navigation Ltd. v. Koch Shipping Inc., 2012 AMC 2137 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .........................................21A.24
Kirno Hill Corp. v. Holt, 618 F.2d 982 (2d Cir. 1980) .................................................................................2A.10, 23A.1
Knott v. Botany Worsted Mills, 179 U.S. 69 (1898) .................................................................................................85A.3
Komatsu, Ltd. v. States Steamship Co., 674 F.2d 806, 1982 AMC 2152 (9th Cir. 1982) .....................................85A.45
Korea (Office of Supply, Government of the Republic of) v. N.Y. Navigation Co., Inc., 469 F.2d 377,
1973 AMC 1238 (2d Cir. 1972) ..........................................................................................................................72A.5
Krauss Brothers Lumber Co. v. Dimon SS. Corp., 290 U.S. 117 (1933) ..................................................................17A.8
Kroll v. Silver Line, 116 F.Supp. 443 (N.D. Cal. 1953) ..........................................................................................12A.27
Krupp Int’l, Inc. v. Federal Atl. Lake Lines, 1982 AMC 1799 (E.D. Mich. 1981) ................................................85A.43
Larsen v. 150 Bales of Sisal Grass, 147 F. 783 (S.D. Ala. 1906) ...............................................17A.15, 17A.20, 17A.22
Larsen v. A.C. Carpenter Inc., 800 F.2d 1128 (2d Cir. 1986); aff’g 620 F.Supp. 1084 (E.D.N.Y.
1985) .....................................................................................................11A.21, 11A.66, 15A.147, 15A.148, 16A.20
Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N.Y. 268 (1859) .......................................................................................................................85A.9
Leather’s Best, Inc. v. S.S. Mormaclynx, 451 F.2d 800, 815, 1971 AMC 2383, 2403 (2d Cir. 1971) ..................85A.54
Leblond v. McNear, 123 F. 384 (9th Cir. 1903); aff’g 104 F. 826 (N.D. Cal. 1900) .................................21A.2, 21A.41
Lehigh Valley Coal Co. v. Ionia Transp. Co., 174 F. 798 (8th Cir. 1909) ................................................................16A.2
Lewis v. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115, 1976 AMC 1275 (5th Cir. 1976); reh’g denied 545 F.2d 1299
(5th Cir. 1977) ....................................................................................................................................................21A.95
civ
TABLE OF U.S. CASES
Libertad, La (Kerr-McGee Refining Corp. v. La Libertad), 529 F.Supp. 78 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) .................21A.56, 72A.2,
72A.17, 72A.28
Liberty Navigation & Trading Co. Inc. v. Kinoshita & Co., 285 F.2d 343 (2d Cir. 1960); cert.
denied 366 U.S. 949 (1961) .................................................................................................................21A.2, 21A.13
Liebes (H.) & Co. v. Klengenberg, 23 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1928); cert. denied 277 U.S. 596 (1928)......................21A.69
Lighter (W.A.) & Co. v. U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation, 1928 AMC 1237 (E.D. La.) .........21A.63
Lindsay, Gracie & Co. v. Cusimano, 12 F. 503 (C.C.E.D. La. 1882)........................................................................16A.2
Lloyd Adriatico Societa di Navigazione v. Consolidation Coal Co. See Adamello, The
Lloyd Royal Belge v. American Coal Exporting Co., 23 F.2d 846, 1927 AMC 1397 (S.D.N.Y. 1927) ................17A.48
Loizos v. Compania Naviera Ltda., 94 F.Supp. 111, 1951 AMC 134 (E.D. Pa. 1950)...........................................17A.40
Lombard SS. Co. v. Lanasa & Goffe SS. & Importing Co., 163 F. 433 (D. Md. 1908) ...........................................21A.3
Lorentzen v. Brazil Oiticica, Ltd., 145 F.2d 470 (4th Cir. 1944) (per curiam) ......................................................85A.37
Lorenzo Halcoussi, The, 1984 AMC 1608 (E.D. La. 1983) ........................................................72A.18, 72A.21, 72A.28
Lossiebank, The, 1938 AMC 1033 ................................................................................................................................6.28
Louis Dreyfus Corp. v. 27,946 Long Tons of Corn, 830 F.2d 1321 (5th Cir. 1987) ................13A.35, 13A.43, 13A.46,
13A.47, 21A.16
Louise, The, 58 F.Supp. 455 (D. Md. 1945) ....................................................12A.40, 13A.33, 13A.43, 13A.46, 13A.51
Lovell v. Davis, 101 U.S. 451 (1879) ...........................................................................................................................4A.1
Lucky-Goldstar Int’l (America), Inc. v. S.S. California Mercury, 750 F. Supp. 141, 1991 AMC
1018 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) .......................................................................................................................................85A.11
M/V DG Harmony, In re, 533 F.3d 83, 2008 AMC 1848 (2d Cir. 2008) 85A.58
McAndrews v. Thatcher, 70 U.S. 347 (1865) ...........................................................................................................20A.27
McKernin (B.F.) & Co v. United States Lines Inc., 416 F.Supp. 1068 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) ........................21A.73, 21A.74
Maharshi Dayanand, The (Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Sun Oil Co.) 1986 AMC 2752
(E.D. Pa. 1983) ..................................................................................................57A.36, 57A.49, 57.92, 57.95, 58.34
Maid of Psara, The, 1926 AMC 1256 (S.D.N.Y. 1926) ...........................................................................................15A.99
Maine, The, 8 F.2d 291 (S.D.N.Y. 1924) ..................................................................................................12A.17, 12A.34
Malcolm Baxter Jr., The, 277 U.S. 323, 1928 AMC 960 (1928) ...............................................12A.39, 13A.40, 13A.43,
13A.44, 13A.45, 13A.46, 13A.47
March, The, 25 F. 106 (D. Md. 1885).......................................................................................................................19A.17
Mare del Nord, The (Misano di Navigazione S.p.A. v. United States of America),
968 F.2d 273 (2d Cir. 1992) ...............................................................................................................68A.18, 68A.24
Mare Schiffahrtskontor G.m.b.H. & Co. v. M/V Oceanhaven, 763 F.2d 633 (4th Cir. 1985) ................................13A.37
Marine Fuel Supply & Towing Inc. v. The Ken Lucky, 859 F.2d 1405, 1989 AMC 390 (9th Cir. 1988) .............17A.42
Marine Sulphur Queen, The, 460 F.2d 89, 1972 AMC 1122 (2d Cir. 1972); cert. denied 409
U.S. 982 (1972) .....................................................................................................................11A.17, 11A.18, 11A.63
Marine Traders Inc. v. Compania de Navegacion Almirante S.A. Panama (The Searaven),
437 F.2d 301 (9th Cir. 1971); cert. denied 402 U.S. 996 (1971)......................................................................17A.18
Marine Traders Inc. v. Seasons Navigation Corp., 422 F.2d 804, 1970 AMC 1494 (2d Cir. 1970) ........17A.17, 17A.20
Marine Transport Lines v. Publicker International Inc., 1969 AMC 446 (E.D. Pa. 1969) ..........................68A.10, 68.25
Maritime Ventures Int’l Inc. v. Caribbean Trading & Fidelity Ltd., 689 F.Supp. 1341 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ................2A.19
Marpesia, The, 292 F. 957, 1923 AMC 1110 (2d Cir. 1923) ......................................................................17A.48, 57A.4
Marvirazon Compania Naviera S.A. v. H.J. Baker & Bros., 674 F.2d 364 (5th Cir. 1982)......................................23A.6
Mary Eddy, The, 72 U.S. 486 (1867) ........................................................................................................17A.11, 17A.27
Master Petros, The, 979 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1992); aff’g 790 F.Supp. 70 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)........................................72A.5
Master Shipping Agency Inc. v. The Farida, 571 F.2d 131, 1978 AMC 1267 (2d Cir. 1978)..................................20A.1
Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U.S. 52 (1995) ......................................................................72A.46
Mazza v. J.G. White Engineering Co., 274 F. 990 (S.D.N.Y. 1921) .....................................................................15A.161
Mencke v. A Cargo of Java Sugar, 187 U.S. 248 (1902) ................................................................................5A.1, 59A.5
Mendes Junior International Co. Inc v. The Sokai Maru, 758 F.Supp. 1169 (S.D. Tex. 1991);
vacated 978 F.2d 920 (5th Cir. 1992)..................................................................................................................23A.4
Merchants Corp. of America v. 9,655 Long Tons, 238 F.Supp. 572 (S.D. Tex. 1965) ............................13A.27, 13A.37
Mesocap Industries Ltd. v. Torm Lines, 194 F.3d 1342, 2000 AMC 370 (11th Cir. 1999) ...................................85A.24
Metallgesellschaft A.G. v. M/V Capitan Constante, 790 F.2d 280, 1986 AMC 1817 (2d Cir. 1986) ..................13A.16,
13A.21, 13A.23, 53A.11
Metropolitan Coal Co. v. Howard, 155 F.2d 780 (2d Cir. 1946) .............................................................................11A.18
Milburn v. 35,000 Boxes of Oranges and Lemons, 57 F. 236 (2d Cir. 1893) ...........................................................16A.6
Mincio, The (Navigazione Generale Italiana v. Spencer Kellogg & Sons Inc.) 92 F.2d 41, 1937
AMC 1506 (2d Cir.); cert. denied 302 U.S. 751 (1937) ........................................................................20A.1, 20A.5
Ministry of Commerce v. Marine Tankers Corp., 194 F.Supp. 161, 1961 AMC 320 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) .................17A.63
Misano di Navigazione S.p.A. v. United States of America (The Mare del Nord), 968 F.2d 273
(2d Cir. 1992) ......................................................................................................................................68A.18, 68A.24
cv
TABLE OF U.S. CASES
Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd. v. Société Purfina Maritime, 133 F.2d 552 (9th Cir. 1942); cert.
denied 318 U.S. 781 (1943) ................................................................................................................13A.27, 13A.31
Mitsui & Co. v. American Export Lines, 636 F.2d 807, 1981 AMC 331, (2d Cir. 1981) .....................................85A.54
Mitsui Marine Fire & Ins. Co. v. Direct Container Line, Inc., 2002 AMC 190, 119 F. Supp. 2d 412
(S.D.N.Y. 2000) , aff’d mem., 21 Fed. App’x 58 (2d Cir. 2001)........................................................12A.58, 85A.49
Mobil Sales & Supply Corp. v. The Banglar Kakoli, 588 F. Supp. 1134 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ........12A.21, 12A.43, 12A.44
Montauk Oil Transp. Corp. v. Sonat Marine Inc., 871 F.2d 1169 (2d Cir. 1989) ......................................15A.19, 25A.3
Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. v. Hellenic Lines Ltd., 1984 AMC 1074 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).........................................17A.38
Mormacsea, The, 1983 AMC 1524 (2d Cir. 1983)...................................................................................................72A.28
Mormacvega, The (Du Pont de Nemours Int’l S.A. v. The Mormacvega) [1973] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 267 (U.S. Dist. Ct.); 493 F.2d 97, 1974 AMC 67 (2d Cir. 1974) 6.29, ..................................................12A.55
Morris v. Dept. of Taxation and Finance, 82 N.Y. 2d 135; 603 N.Y.S. 2d 807, 623 N.E. 2d 1157 (1993) .............2A.11
Morrisey v. SS. A. & J. Faith, 252 F.Supp. 54 (N.D. Ohio 1965) ...........................................................................13A.37
Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Co., 460 U.S. 1 (1983) .........................................................72A.47
N.H. Shipping Corp. v. Freights of the Jackie Hause (The Jackie Hause), 181 F.Supp. 165, 1961 AMC 83
(S.D.N.Y. 1960) ..................................................................................................................................17A.15, 17A.18
Nancy Lykes, The (General Elec. Co. Int’l Sales Div. v. The Nancy Lykes) 706 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1983) ..........12A.14,
12A.49
Nassau Glass Co. v. Noel Roberts, Ltd., 249 F. Supp. 116 (S.D. Fla. 1965) ..........................................................12A.51
National Packaging Corp. v. N.Y.K. Line [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 46 (U.S. Dist. Ct.) ...............................................10.23
Naviera Despina Inc. v. Cooper Shipping Co. Inc., 1987 AMC 2380 (S.D. Ala. 1987) ...........................................23A.6
Navigazione Generale Italiana v. Spencer Kellogg & Sons Inc. (The Mincio) 92 F.2d 41, 1937 AMC 1506
(2d Cir.); cert. denied 302 U.S. 751 (1937) ...........................................................................................20A.1, 20A.5
Nebco International v. M/V National Integrity, 752 F.Supp. 1207 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) ................................................10A.3
Nemeth v. Gen. SS. Corp., 1983 AMC 885, 694 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1982)...............................................12A.51, 85A.45
Neptune, The (1867) 16 L.T. 36 (Dist. Ct. N.Y) ...........................................................................................................6.28
New York and Cuba Mail SS. Co. v. Guayaquil and Q.R. Co., 270 F. 200 (2d Cir. 1920)....................................21A.46
Nichimen Co. v. M/V Farland, 462 F.2d 319, 1972 AMC 1592 (2d Cir. 1972) .....................................................11A.35
Nicolaas D.C., The, 1982 AMC 1489 (5th Cir. 1982)................................................................................................6A.23
Nicopolis, The, 1992 AMC 663 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) ......................................................................................................81A.1
Nissho-Iwai Co. v. The Stolt Lion, 1986 AMC 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); on remand 617 F.2d 907
(2d Cir. 1980) ......................................................................................................................................11A.18, 21A.85
Nitram, Inc. v. Cretan Life 599 F.2d 1359 (5th Cir. 1979) .....................................................................................85A.15
Niver (W.K.) Coal Co. v. Cheronea SS. Co., 142 F. 402 (1st Cir. 1905); cert. denied 201 U.S. 647 (1906) ........15A.7,
15A.12, 15A.32, 15A.36, 15A.110, 15A.156, 15A.157, 15A.165, 15A.171
Nivose, The, 291 F. 412 (D. Md. 1923); aff’d 298 F. 1022 (4th Cir.); cert. denied 266 U.S. 606 (1924) ...........15A.136
Norfolk Southern Railway v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd, 543 U.S. 14, 2004 AMC 2705, (2004) 125 S.
Ct. 385 85.50, ........................................................................................................................85A.12, 85A.52, 85A.59
North Atlantic and Gulf SS. Co., In re, 320 F.2d 628 (2d Cir. 1963); aff’g 204 F.Supp. 899, 1963
AMC 871 (S.D.N.Y. 1962) ................................................................................................................................17A.22
Northern Tankers (Cyprus) Ltd. v. Backstrom, 967 F.Supp. 1391 (D. Conn. 1997) ....................................2A.10, 2A.24
Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Galin, 1988 AMC 878 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) ................................................................85A.24
Oak, The (Centerchem Products Inc. v. A/S Rederiet Odfjell) 1972 AMC 373 (E.D. Va. 1971)...........................72A.17
Ocean Liberty, The (Accinanto v. Ludwig Mowinckels) [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 38 (4th Cir.)................................85.445
Oceanic Trading Corp. v. The Freights of The Diana, 423 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1970) ..................................................17A.20
Oceano, The, 148 F. 131 (S.D.N.Y. 1906)................................................................................................................17A.32
Office of Supply, Government of the Republic of Korea v. New York Navigation Co. Inc., 469 F.2d. 377,
1973 (2d Cir. 1972)................................................................................................................................72A.5, 85A.23
Oliver v. Maryland Ins. Co., 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 487, 3 L. Ed. 414 (1812) ............................................................12A.32
Olivier Straw Goods Corp. v. Osaka Shosen Kaisha, 47 F.2d 878, 1931 AMC 528 (2d Cir. 1931) .....................85A.47
Oluf, The, 19 F. 459 (C.C.E.D. La. 1883) ..................................................................................................................16A.2
Olympic Sponsor, The, SMA 3711 (2001); 2002 AMC 266, 2A.3, 2A.32, 5A.8
Orduna S.A. v. Zen-Noh Grain Corp., 913 F.2d 1149, 1991 AMC 346 (5th Cir. 1990) ................................5A.4, 5A.5,
5A.7, 5A.9, 5A.10
Ore SS. Corp. v. D/S A/S Hassel, 137 F.2d 326 (2d Cir. 1943) ..............................................................................11A.24
Oregon, The, 55 F. 666 (6th Cir. 1893) .........................................................................................21A.2, 21A.25, 21A.64
Orient Mid-East Lines v. Orient Transporter, 1974 AMC 2593 (5th Cir. 1974) ..........................20A.5, 20A.13, 20A.24
Orient Shipping Rotterdam B.V. v. Hugo Neu & Sons Inc., 104 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 1996); aff’g 918 F.Supp.
806 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ......................................................................................15A.167, 15A.168, 15A.169, 15A.170,
15A.171, 15A.172, 15A.173
Orsino, The, 24 F. 918 (D. Md. 1885) ......................................................................................................................19A.17
Osaka Shosen Kaisha v. Pacific Export Lumber Co., 260 U.S. 490, 1923 AMC 55 (1923) ..........17A.4, 17A.8, 17A.25
cvi
TABLE OF U.S. CASES
Otal Investments Ltd., In re, 2008 AMC 1561 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), aff’d in part, vacated in part on
other grounds, 673 F.3d 108, 2012 AMC 913 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) ...................................................85A.26
Oxford Paper Co. v. The Nidarholm, 282 U.S. 681 (1931) ..........................................................11A.3, 11A.34, 11A.36
Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (2013) ....................................................................................2A.36
P. & E. Shipping Corp. v. Empresa Cubana Exportadora e Importadora de Alimentos (The Ruth
Ann), 335 F.2d 678, 1964 AMC 2006 (1st Cir. 1964) .......................................................................12A.21, 12A.25
P.P.G. Industries Inc. v. Ashland Oil Co. Thomas Petroleum Transit Div., 592 F.2d 138
(3d Cir. 1978); cert. denied 444 U.S. 830 (1979) .............................................................................................21A.83
Paal Wilson & Co. A/S v. Louisiana Pacific Corp., 1986 AMC 840 (D. Ore. 1984)..............................................15A.68
Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. M/V Gloria 767 F.2d 229 (5th Cir. 1985) 85A.7
Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. M/V Mini Lass, 1983 AMC 2196 (E.D. La. 1982), aff’d mem.,
721 F.2d 817 (5th Cir. 1983 .............................................................................................................................85A.21
Pacol (Canada) Ltd. v. M/V Minerva, 523 F.Supp. 579 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) ...............................................................21A.70
Palmco v. American President Lines, 1978 AMC 1715 (D. Ore. 1977 and 1978)..................................................72A.28
Pan American World Airways v. California Stevedore & Ballast Co., 559 F.2d 1173, 1978 AMC 1834
(9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) .............................................................................................................................85A.45
Pan Cargo Shipping Corp. v. United States, 234 F.Supp. 623 (S.D.N.Y. 1964); aff’g 373 F.2d 525;
cert. denied 389 U.S. 836 (1967).......................................................................................................................15A.48
Paragon Oil Co. v. Republic Tankers, S.A., 310 F.2d 169, 171 (2d Cir. 1962) .......................................................5A.11
Park SS. Co. v. Cities Service Oil Co., 188 F.2d 804, 1951 AMC 851 (2d Cir. 1951); cert. denied 342
U.S. 801 (1951) ......................................................................................................................................................5A.6
Passalacqua (Wm.) Builders v. Resnick Developers South Inc., 933 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1991) ..................2A.12, 2A.13,
2A.17, 2A.18
Pedersen v. Eugster, 14 F. 422 (E.D. La. 1882) ........................................................................................15A.97, 15A.98
Pemeno Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Louis Dreyfus Corp., 238 Fed. App’x 6 (5th Cir. 2007) ........................................85A.56
Pennsylvania R.R. Co.v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 370 F.2d 430 (2d Cir. 1966) ....................................15A.17, 57A.4
Phillips Oklahoma, The, 1983 AMC 1528 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) .........................................72A.15, 72A.21, 72A.26, 72A.28
Pino v. Protection Maritime Ins. Co. Ltd., 599 F.2d 10, 1979 AMC 2459 (1st Cir. 1979);
cert. denied 444 U.S. 900 (1979); on remand 490 F.Supp. 277 (D. Mass. 1980)............................................21A.95
Pioneer Fuel Co. v. McBrier, 84 F. 495 (8th Cir. 1897) ..........................................................................................17A.19
Pitria Star Navigation Co. v. Monsanto Co., 1986 AMC 2966 (E.D. La. 1984) .......................................................6A.27
Polar SS. Co. v. Inland Overseas SS. Corp., 136 F.2d 835 (4th Cir. 1943); cert. denied 320
U.S. 774 (1943) .......................................................................................................................21A.6, 21A.13, 21A.64
Pool Shipping Co. v. Samuel, 200 F. 36 (3d Cir. 1912)...........................................................................................16A.23
Portland Flouring Mills Co. v. British & Foreign Marine Ins. Co., 130 F. 860 (9th Cir.);
cert. denied 195 U.S. 629 (1904).......................................................................................................................13A.59
Poznan, The, 276 F. 418 (S.D.N.Y. 1921) ..............................................................................................................15A.159
Prairie Grove, The, 1977 AMC 2139 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) ...................................................72A.4, 72A.16, 72A.19, 72A.28
Promotora de Navegacion, S.A. and Sea Containers Ltd., In re Arbitration between, 131 F.Supp.
2d 412 (S.D.N.Y 2000) ..........................................................................................................................................2A.6
Pyman SS. Co. v. Mexican Cont. Ry., 169 F. 281 (2d Cir. 1909) .........................................................................15A.160
Queensmore, The (1893) 53 Fed. Rep. 1022 ...............................................................................................13.113, 13.114
Rainbow Line Inc. v. The Tequila, 480 F.2d 1024, 1973 AMC 1431 (2d Cir. 1973) ..................17A.4, 17A.33, 17A.45
Ralli v. Troop, 157 U.S. 386 (1895) ..............................................................................................................20A.1, 20A.6
Red “R” SS. Co. v. North American Transport Co., 91 F. 168 (2d Cir. 1898) .......................................................16A.22
Republic Corp. v. Procedyne Corp., 401 F.Supp. 1061 (S.D.N.Y. 1975) ..................................................................21A.5
Robins Dry Dock & Repair Company v. Flint et al., 275 U.S. 303 (1927).............................................................21A.13
Robinson v. Noble’s Admrs., 33 U.S. 181 (1834) ....................................................................................................21A.47
Rockwell International Corp. v. M/V Incontrans Spirit, 1994 AMC 71 (5th Cir. 1993) ..........................12A.57, 12A.59
Rohm & Haas Co. v. American President Lines, 1989 AMC 420 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ..............................................85A.24
Ropner (Sir R.) & Co. v. Emmons Coal Mining Corp., 31 F.2d 948, 1927 AMC 113 (3d Cir. 1929)...................17A.48
Rosalia, The (1920) 264 F. 285 (2nd Cir.).................................................................................................................85.288
Rosenbruch v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines Inc., 543 F.2d 967, 1976 AMC 487 (2d Cir. 1976),
cert. denied 429 U.S. 939, 1976 AMC 2684 (1976) .........................................................................................12A.49
Ross Industries Inc. v. M/V Gretke Oldendorff, 483 F.Supp. 195, 1980 AMC 1397 (E.D. Tex. 1980).................12A.23
Rotterdamsche Lloyd v. Gosho Co., 298 F. 443 (9th Cir. 1924); cert. denied 266 U.S. 621 (1924)......................21A.64
Royal Ins. Co. v. Sea-Land Service Inc., 50 F.3d 723, 1995 AMC 1189 (9th Cir. 1995) .....................................85A.46
Royal Ins. Co. v. Westwood Transpacific Service, 1991 AMC 1028 (W.D. Wash. 1990), aff’d mem.,
988 F.2d 121 (9th Cir. 1993) ............................................................................................................................85A.11
Royal Typewriter Co. v. M/V Kulmerland, 483 F.2d 645, 1973 AMC 1784 (2d Cir. 1973) .................................85A.54
Rupp v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 479 F.2d 674, 1973 AMC 1093 (2d Cir. 1973) ........................................85A.10
Rupprecht v. Delacamp, 169 F. 1022 (2d Cir. 1909); aff’g 165 F. 381 (S.D.N.Y. 1908) .........................................19A.8
cvii
TABLE OF U.S. CASES
Ruth Ann, The (P. & E. Shipping Corp. v. Empresa Cubana Exportadora e Importadora de Alimentos)
335 F.2d 678, 1964 AMC 2006 (1st Cir. 1964) .................................................................................12A.21, 12A.25
S.C.A.C. Transport (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Danaos, 845 F.2d 1157 (2d Cir. 1988) ...........................................................11A.74
SS. Co. of 1912 v. C.H. Pearson & Son Hardwood Co., 30 F.2d 770 (2d Cir. 1929) .............................15A.10, 21A.46
SS. Rutherglen Co. v. Howard Houlder & Partners, 203 F. 848 (2d Cir. 1913) .........................15A.1, 15A.12, 15A.13,
15A.160, 15A.167, 15A.169, 17A.63
Sabine Towing & Transp. Co. v. Merit Ventures Inc., 575 F.Supp. 1442 (E.D. Tex. 1983) .......................2A.20, 2A.22
Saigon Maru, The, 267 F. 881 (D. Ore. 1920); aff’d 272 F. 799 (9th Cir. 1921); rev’d on other grounds
200 U.S. 490 (1923)...........................................................................................................................................21A.65
Samuel W. Hall, The, 49 F. 281 (S.D.N.Y 1892).......................................................................................................19A.3
San Giuseppe, The, 122 F.2d 579 (4th Cir. 1941) ...........................................................................12A.3, 12A.6, 12A.13
Sanday v. United States, 6 F.2d 384 (2d. Cir); cert. denied 269 U.S. 556 (1925).....................................................19A.1
Santiago v. Sea-Land Service Inc., 366 F.Supp. 1309 (D.P.R. 1973) .......................................................21A.66, 21A.70
Sarnia, The, 278 F. 459 (2d Cir. 1921) ......................................................................................................12A.48, 12A.53
Saturnus, The, 250 F. 407 (2d Cir. 1918); cert. denied 247 U.S. 521 (1918) ..............................17A.4, 17A.16, 17A.25
Scapa Forming Fabrics v. Blue Anchor Line, 243 Fed. App’x 846, 2007 AMC 2108 (5th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam) 85A.43
Schmidt v. Keyser, 88 F. 799 (5th Cir. 1988)...........................................................................................................17A.48
Schnell v. The Vallescura, 293 U.S. 296, 1934 AMC 1573 (1934) .........................................................................72A.22
Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg-American Line, 294 U.S. 454, 1935 AMC 423 (1935) ..........................................21A.95
Scholle v. Cuban-Venezuelan Oil Voting Trust, 285 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1960)........................................................21A.81
Schooner Freeman, The, v. Buckingham, 59 U.S. 182 (1856) ....................................................................17A.4, 17A.34
Seaford, The, 1975 AMC 1553, SMA 951 (1975) ....................................................................................11A.10, 11A.64
Sea-Land Service v. Aetna Ins. Co., 1976 AMC 2164 (2d Cir. 1976) .......................................20A.14, 20A.15, 20A.21
Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Lozen International, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 2002 AMC 913 (9th Cir. 2002)................... 85A.42
Sealift Bulkers Inc. v. Republic of Armenia, 96 F.Supp. 2d 1, 2000 AMC 1650 (D.D.C. 2000) ...........................20A.31
Searaven, The (Beverly Hills National Bank & Trust Co. v. Compania de Navegacion Almirante S.A.
Panama), 437 F.2d 301 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 402 U.S. 996 (1971)......................................................17A.30
Searaven, The (Marine Traders Inc. v. Compania de Navegacion Almirante S.A. Panama) 437
F.2d 301 (9th Cir. 1971); cert. denied 402 U.S. 996 (1971).............................................................................17A.18
Searoad Shipping Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 361 F.2d 833, 1966 AMC 1405 (5th Cir.
1966); cert. denied 385 U.S. 973 (1966) ...........................................................................................................12A.50
Sears v. Wills (4,885 Bags of Linseed) 66 U.S. 35 (1861) .......................................................................17A.11, 17A.26
Secrest Machine Corp. v. S.S. Tiber, 450 F.2d 285, 1972 AMC 815 (5th Cir. 1971) (per curiam)
Sedco Inc. v. The Strathewe, 800 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1986) .............................................12A.33, 12A.51, 12A.57, 12A.58
Seguros Banvenez S.A. v. The Oliver Drescher, 761 F.2d 855, 1985 AMC 2168 (2d Cir. 1985)..........................12A.54
Senator Linie GmbH & Co. KG v. Sunway Line, Inc. (2002) 291 F.3d 145, 2002 AMC 1217 (2d Cir.) .............6A.20,
6A.21, 6A.24, 85.443, 85A.56, 85A.57, 85A.58
Servicios-Expoarna C.A. v. Industrial Marine, Inc., 135 F.3d 984 (5th Cir. 1998)...................................................72A.5
Shaw Savill & Albion Co. v. The Fredericksburg, 189 F.2d 952 (2d Cir. 1951) ....................................................21A.85
Sheldon (G.W.) & Co. v. Hamburg Amer. P.-A.-G., 28 F.2d 249 (3d Cir. 1928).....................................................12A.2
Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Sun Oil Co. (The Maharshi Dayanand), 1986 AMC 2752 (E.D. Pa. 1983) .......57A.36,
57A.49, 57.92, 57.95, 58.34
Sigmoil Resources N.V. v. Burmpac Transport and Trading Co., 1989 AMC 2874 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)...................21A.19
Silva v. Bankers Commercial Corporation, 163 F.2d 602 (2d Cir. 1947)................................................................13A.37
Silver Lady, The, 618 F.Supp. 132, 1987 AMC 2318 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) ....................................................................81A.1
Six Hundred Tons of Iron Ore, 9 F. 595 (D.N.J. 1881)............................................................................................17A.19
Skomvaer, The, 297 F. 746, 1924 AMC 507 (2d Cir. 1924) .......................15A.21, 15A.23, 15A.75, 15A.141, 15A.143
Sky Reefer see Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer
Smith (J. Howard) v. The Maranon, 1974 AMC 1553 (2d Cir. 1974).....................................................................20A.22
Smith/Enron Cogeneration Ltd. v. Smith Cogeneration Int’l, Inc., 198 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999) ...............................2A.31
Solhaug, The, 2 F.Supp. 294 (S.D.N.Y. 1931) ..........................................................................................17A.20, 17A.24
Son Shipping Co. Inc. v. DeFosse & Tanghe et al., 199 F.2d 687, 1952 AMC 1931 (2d Cir. 1952) ......58A.17, 72A.5,
85A.23
Sonja, The, 732 F.Supp. 1276, 1990 AMC 2491 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)................. 72A.15, 72A.21, 72A.25, 72A.26, 72A.29
Sorensen v. Keyser, 52 F. 163 (5th Cir. 1892) ........................................................................................15A.98, 15A.154
Sovereign Faylenne, The (Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative Association Inc. v. SS. Sovereign Faylenne)
1978 AMC 1514 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) ......................................................................................................11A.35, 17A.67
Spartus Corp. v. The Yafo, 590 F.2d 1310, 1979 AMC 2294 (5th Cir. 1979) .........................................12A.28, 12A.49
SPM Corp. v. M/V Ming Moon, 1992 AMC 2409, 965 F.2d 1297 (3d Cir. 1992).................................................12A.51
Squillante & Zimmerman Sales Inc. v. Puerto Rico Marine Management Inc., 685 F.2d 421 (1st Cir.
1982); aff’g 516 F.Supp. 1049 (D.P.R. 1981) .....................................................................................................21A.4
cviii
TABLE OF U.S. CASES
St. Bernard, The, 105 F. 994 (S.D.N.Y. 1901) .........................................................................................................15A.25

St. Ioannis Shipping Corp. v. Zidell Explorations Inc., 336 F.2d 194 (9th Cir. 1964); aff’g 222 F.Supp.
299 (D. Ore. 1963) ..............................................................................................................................15A.24, 15A.67
St. John’s N.F. Shipping Corp. v. S.A. Companhia Geral Commercial do Rio de Janeiro, 263 U.S.
119, 1923 AMC 1131 (1923) ..................................................................................................12A.47, 12A.53, 85.71
Stainless Sales, Inc. v. Evergreen America Corp., 2006 WL 1328845 at *11 n. 15 (E.D. Mich. 2006) ................85A.56
Standard Electrica S.A. v. Hamburg Sudamerikanische Dampfschiffahrts G.m.b.H. [1967]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 193 (2d Cir.) ................................................................................................................85.375, 85.377
Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States (The Egg Harbor), 59 F.Supp. 100 (S.D. Cal. 1945);
aff’d 156 F.2d 312 (9th Cir. 1946) .......................................................................................................72A.2, 72A.17
Star of Hope, The, 76 U.S. 203 (1869) .......................................................................................................................20A.7
Status Int’l S.A. v. M. & D. Maritime Ltd, 994 F.Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ............................................2A.10, 2A.11
Steel Coils, Inc. v. M/V Lake Marion, 331 F.3d 422, 2003 AMC 1408 (5th Cir. 2003) .......................................85A.15
Stevedoring Services of America v. Ancora Transport N.V., 59 F.3d 879, 1995 AMC 2688 (9th Cir. 1995) .........2A.24
Stevenson (T.J.) & Co. Inc. v. 81,193 Bags of Flour, 449 F.Supp. 84 (S.D. Ala. 1976); aff’d in part,
rev’d in part, 629 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1980) .....................................................................................13A.53, 15A.147
Stirnimann v. The San Diego, 148 F.2d 141 (2d Cir. 1945) ...................................................................................85A.38
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds International Corp., 435 F. Supp. 2d 382 (2006), 548 F.3d 85
(2d Cir. 2008), 559 U.S. 662 (2010) .......................................................................................................2A.34-2A.36
Stolt-Nielsen SA, Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group Ltd., Odfjell ASA, Odfjell Seachem AS, Odfjell
USA, Inc., Jo Tankers BV, Jo Tankers, Inc., and Tokyo Marine Co., Ltd. v. Animalfeeds
International Corp. and KP Chemical Corp., 435 F. Supp. 2d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) .......................1A.1, 2.85, 2.86
Stone & Webster, Inc. v. Triplefine International Corp., 118 Fed. Appx. 546; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS
26535 (2d Cir. 2004)............................................................................................................................................81A.2
Stylianos Restis, The, 1974 AMC 2343 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) ..........................................................................................6A.28
Styling Plastics Co. v. Neptune Orient Lines, 666 F. Supp. 1406, 1988 AMC 351 (N.D. Cal. 1987) ..................85A.24
Styria, The, 186 U.S. 1027 (1901) .............................................................................................................13A.51, 13A.52
Sucrest Corp. v. M/V Jennifer, 455 F.Supp. 371, 1978 AMC 2520 (D. Me. 1978) ............6A.26, 11A.7, 11A.8, 11A.9,
11A.21, 11A.35, 11A.57, 11A.64
Sugar Products Co. v. Mobile & Gulf Navigation Co., 268 F. 815 (5th Cir. 1920) ................................................16A.16
Swift & Company Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, 339 U.S. 684 (1950)............................................2A.9
Ta Chi Navigation (Panama) Corp., In re, 677 F.2d 225, 1982 AMC 1710 (2d Cir. 1982)......................................76A.4
Tai Shan, The, 218 F.2d 822 (2d Cir. 1955); aff’g 1953 AMC 887, 111 F.Supp. 638 (S.D.N.Y. 1953) .............12A.26,
12A.45
Taisho Kaiun Kabushiki Kaisha v. Gano Moore Co., 14 F.2d 985 (D. Del 1926) ....................................................16A.3
Taiwan Int’l Line Ltd. v. Matthew Ship Chartering Ltd., 546 F.Supp. 826 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) ..................17A.16, 17A.25
Tan Hi v. United States, 94 F.Supp. 432 (N.D. Cal. 1950) ...........................................................................10A.2, 10A.3
Tapco Nigeria Ltd. v. M/V West Wind, 702 F.2d 1252 (5th Cir. 1983)....................................................................10A.3
Tarstar Shipping v. Century Shipping Ltd., 597 F.2d 837, 1979 AMC 1096 (2d Cir. 1979); aff’g
451 F.Supp. 317, 1979 AMC 1011 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) ........................................................................................17A.23
Tecomar S.A., In re, 765 F. Supp. 1150, 1991 AMC 2432 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) 85A.29
Tento, The (Aaby v. States Marine Corp.), 181 F.2d 383, 1950 AMC 947 (2d Cir. 1950), cert. denied
340 U.S. 829 (1950)...............................................................................................................................................3A.3
Terman Foods Inc. v. Omega Lines, 707 F.2d 1225 (11th Cir. 1983) .....................................................................21A.66
Tessler Brothers (B.C.) v. Italpacific Line, 494 F.2d 438, 1974 AMC 937 (9th Cir. 1974) ...................................85A.45
Texaco Export Inc. v. Overseas Tankship Corp., 573 F.2d 717 (2d Cir. 1978).........................................................21A.6
Thebideau v. Cairns, 171 F. 233 (D. Me. 1909) .......................................................................................................21A.31
Thiti Lert Watana Co. v. Minagratex Corp., 105 F. Supp. 2d 1077, 2001 AMC 80 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ..................85A.11
Thyssen, Inc. v. S/S. Eurounity, 21 F.3d 533, 1994 AMC 1638 (2d Cir. 1994) ....................................................85A.29
Tide Crown, The, 1985 AMC 189 (S.D. Tex. 1983) ...................................................................72A.15, 72A.16, 72A.28
Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co. v. Retla Steamship Co., 426 F.2d 1372, 1970 AMC 1611
(9th Cir. 1970) ..................................................................................................................................................85A.16
Towers Charter & Marine Corp. v. Cadillac Ins. Co., 894 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1990) ...............................................21A.82
Toyomenka Pacific Petroleum Inc. v. Hess Oil Virgin Oil Islands Corp., 771 F.Supp. 63 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) ...........15A.5
Trade Fortitude, The (Esso Nederland v. M.T. Trade Fortitude), 573 F.2d 1296 (2d Cir. 1977); aff’g 1977
AMC 2144 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) ...............................................................................................................72A.16, 72A.28
Trans-Asiatic Oil Ltd. S.A. v. Apex Oil Co., 804 F.2d 773 (1st Cir. 1986) ............................................................17A.61
Trans-Oceanic Peace Corp. v. India Supply Mission, 325 F.Supp. 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1971).......................................13A.56
Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. M/V “OOCL Inspiration,” 137 F.3d 94, 1998 AMC 1327
(2d Cir. 1998) ....................................................................................................................................................85A.15
Transpacific Lines Inc. v. Marianas Maritime Corp., 1979 AMC 1467 (D. Marianas Is. 1978).............................21A.64
Tri-Bullion Smelting & Development Co. v. Jacobson, 233 F. 646 (2d Cir. 1916) ................................................21A.78
cix
TABLE OF U.S. CASES
Tubacex Inc. v. MV Risan (1995) 45 F.3d. 951 (5th Cir.) 85.86, 85.114, 85.322
Turret Crown, The, 297 F. 766, 1924 AMC 253 (2d Cir. 1924); 284 F. 439 (4th Cir. 1922).................................12A.41
Tweedie Trading Co. v. Barry, 205 F. 721 (2d. Cir 1913) .......................................................................................15A.25
Tweedie Trading Co. v. Pitch Pine Lumber Co., 156 F. 88 (D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1907) ...................15A.98, 15A.99, 15A.102
Tweedie Trading Co. v. Strong & Trowbridge Co., 195 F. 929 (2d Cir. 1912) ........................................................16A.9
U.S. Gypsum Co. v. SS. Karmoy, 54 F.2d 1086 (2d Cir. 1931); aff’g 48 F.2d 376 (E.D.N.Y. 1930)......................19A.1
U.S. Titan Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co. Ltd., 241 F.3d 135, 2001 AMC 2080 (2d Cir. 2001) ...........1A.1
Ulrich Ammann Building Equipment Ltd. v. M/V Monsun, 1985 AMC 1965 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) .......................... 85A.39
Union Industrielle et Maritime v. Nimpex International Inc., 459 F.2d 926, 1972 AMC 1494
(7th Cir. 1972) .....................................................................................................................................17A.17, 17A.22
United States v. Atlantic Refining Co., 112 F.Supp. 76, 1953 AMC 554 (D.N.J. 1951) ............15A.4, 15A.143, 25A.3,
57A.4
United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 141 L.Ed. 2d 43 (1998).............................................................................2A.26
United States v. Bowring & Co., 63 F.2d 224 (2d Cir. 1933)..................................................................................15A.23
United States v. Freights of the Mt. Shasta, 274 U.S. 466, 1927 AMC 943 (1927) .................................17A.18, 17A.21
United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1 (1997) ......................................................................................................... 85A.12
United States v. Ira S. Bushey & Sons Inc., 363 F.Supp 110 (D. Vt. 1973); aff’d 487 F.2d 1393 (2d Cir.
1973); cert. denied 417 U.S. 976 (1974) .............................................................................................................2A.25
United States v. Isthmian SS. Co., 359 U.S. 314, 1959 AMC 1332 (1959) ............................................................17A.14
United States v. Jon. T. Chemicals Inc., 768 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1985) .....................................................................2A.25
United States v. Middleton, 3 F.2d 384 (6th Cir. 1924) ...........................................................................................21A.74
United States v. Nuestra Senora De Regla, 108 U.S. 92 (1882) ..............................................................................21A.13
United States v. The Lucie Schulte, 343 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1965) ...........................................................................17A.42
United States v. Wessel, Duval & Co., 115 F.Supp. 678 (S.D.N.Y. 1953) ...............................................................72A.2
United States Steel International Inc. v. The Granheim (The Granheim), 540 F.Supp. 1326, 1982
AMC 2770 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) .................................................................................................68A.28, 68A.31, 72A.15
United Transport Co. v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 13 F.2d 282 (2d Cir. 1926) .............................21A.2, 21A.7
Universal American Barge Corp. v. J-Chem. Inc., 946 F.2d 1131 (5th Cir. 1991) .................................................11A.75
Universal Leaf Tobacco Co. v. Companhia de Navegacao Maritima Netumar, 1993 AMC 2439, 993
F.2d 414 (4th Cir. 1993) ......................................................................................................................12A.57, 85A.54
Valmar, The, 38 F.Supp. 618, 1941 AMC 872 (E.D. Pa. 1941) ................................................................................17A.4
Valtellina, The, 25 F.2d 590 (4th Cir. 1928) ..............................................................................................................19A.1
Varian Assocs. v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 1980 AMC 450, 149 Cal. Rptr. 534 (Cal.
Ct. App. 1978)....................................................................................................................................................12A.51
Venore Transportation Co. v. Oswego Shipping Corp., 498 F.2d 469, 1974 AMC 827 (2d Cir. 1974);
cert. denied 409 U.S. 998.......................................................................................................................................5A.4
Venore Transportation Co. v. President of India, 1973 AMC 1301 (S.D.N.Y. 1972).............................................15A.50
Venus Shipping Co. v. Wilson, 152 F. 170 (2d Cir. 1907) ........................................................................................21A.7
Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer., 515 U.S. 528, 1995 AMC 1817 (1995) ............85A.1, 85A.23
Vision Air Flight Serv., Inc. v. M/V National Pride, 1999 AMC 1168, 155 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 1998) ..12A.57, 85A.43
Waalhaven, The, 36 F.2d 706 (2d Cir. 1929); cert. denied 281 U.S. 747 (1930)....................................................12A.16
Walker (F.J.) Ltd. v. M/V Lemoncore, 561 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir. 1977) .....................................................................10A.2
Wasson v. Stetson Cutter & Co., 214 F. 329 (D. Mass. 1914).................................................................................15A.15
Waterspring S.A. v. Trans Marketing Houston Inc. 717 F.Supp. 181 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)............................................82A.1
Watts v. Camors, 115 U.S. 353 (1885) (Sup. Ct.) ................................................................................1A.1, 3.49, 21A.88
Wemhoener Pressen v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc., 5 F.3d 734, 1993 AMC 2842 (4th Cir. 1993) ..................85A.11
Wellman v. Morse, 76 F. 573 (1st Cir. 1986)...........................................................................................................17A.12
West Africa Navigation Ltd. v. Ore & Ferro Corp., 192 F.Supp. 651, 1961 AMC 2366 (S.D.N.Y. 1960);
199 F.Supp. 771 (S.D.N.Y. 1961) ......................................................................................................16A.21, 16A.22
West Arrow, The, 80 F.2d 853 (2d Cir. 1936)............................................................................................................21A.2
West India Industries v. Vance & Sons AMC-Jeep, 671 F.2d 1384 (5th Cir. 1982).................................................23A.1
West India SS. Co. v. Field Line, 196 F. 591 (S.D.N.Y. 1910) ...............................................................................16A.22
West Point, The (American Cyanamid Co. v. Booth SS. Co.) 95 F.2d 529 (2d Cir. 1952);
aff’g 99 F.Supp. 232 (S.D.N.Y. 1951) ..................................................................................................12A.9, 12A.24
Western Bulk Carriers (Australia) Pty. Ltd. v. P.S. International Inc., 1984 AMC 1881 (S.D. Ind. 1984) ............17A.20
Westmoreland, The, 86 F.2d 96 (2d Cir. 1936) ........................................................................................................68A.30
Willcox, Peck & Hughes v. American Smelting & Ref. Co., 210 F. 89 (S.D.N.Y. 1913) ........................................20A.4
Willdomino, The (Willdomino v. Citro Chemical Co.) 272 U.S. 718 (1927), 1927 AMC 129 (1927) ...12A.42, 12A.46
Willdomino v. Citro Chemical Co. (The Willdomino) 272 U.S. 718 (1927), 1927 AMC 129 (1927) ....12A.42, 12A.46
William H. Beard Dredging Co. v. Hughes, 113 F. 680 (S.D.N.Y. 1902); aff’d 121 F. 808 (2d Cir. 1903) ..........21A.56
William J. Quillan, The, 180 Fed. 681 (2d Cir. 1910); cert. denied 218 U.S. 682 (1910) ........................................6A.22
Wood v. Keyser, 84 F. 688 (N.D. Fla. 1897)..........................................................................................................15A.102
cx
TABLE OF U.S. CASES
Wordsworth, The, 88 F. 313 (S.D.N.Y. 1898)............................................................................................................20A.3

World Wide Steamship Co. v. India Supply Mission, 316 F.Supp. 190 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) ......................................12A.44
Wuerttembergische v. M/V Stuttgart Express, 711 F.2d 621, 622, 1984 AMC 2738 (5th Cir. 1983)
(per curiam) ......................................................................................................................................................85A.45
Yang Machine Tool Co. v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 58 F.3d 1350, 1995 AMC 2153 (9th Cir. 1995) ...................85A.46
Yone Suzuki v. Central Argentine Railway, 27 F.2d 795, 1928 AMC 1521 (2d Cir. 1928); cert. denied
278 U.S. 652 (1929) ..............................................................................15A.4, 15A.38, 15A.99, 15A.153, 15A.157,
16A.20, 17A.50, 17A.62, 25A.3
Zaca, The (Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. United States) 105 F.2d 160, 1939
AMC 912 (2d Cir. 1939)....................................................................................................................................12A.45
cxi
Table of Arbitrations
United Kingdom 3/96, L.M.L.N. 426.................................................1.20

London Arbitration— 12/96, L.M.L.N. 445...............................................1.20
3/79, L.M.L.N. 2.....................................................6.59 14/96, L.M.L.N. 446 ..................................3.39, 14.51
5/79, L.M.L.N. 2...................................................25.15 9/97, L.M.L.N. 460 ......................................5.55, 5.64
10/80, L.M.L.N. 12.................................................6.62 11/97, L.M.L.N. 463 ...........................5.8, 5.70, 15.65
13/80, L.M.L.N. 14...............................................14.51 29/97, L.M.L.N. 473...............................................4.19
28/80, L.M.L.N. 27.................................................62.4 4/98, L.M.L.N. 481...............................................16.21
14/82 L.M.L.N. 71................................................15.59 13/98, L.M.L.N. 488 ..................................6.18, 14.36
17/82, L.M.L.N. 76 ............................. 6.2, 52.14, 54.7 20/98 L.M.L.N. 493................................................57.6
18/82, L.M.L.N. 77...................................................8.2 4/99, L.M.L.N. 504.................................................23.4
1/83, L.M.L.N. 85...................................................14.9 7/99, L.M.L.N. 505...............................................13.50
4/83, L.M.L.N. 91 ......................................25.13, 78.3 11/99, L.M.L.N. 510...............................................62.1
5/83, L.M.L.N. 94.................................................25.12 12/99, L.M.L.N. 511...............................................5.19
4/85, L.M.L.N. 139.................................................6.18 13/99, L.M.L.N. 511...........................................18.207
10/85, L.M.L.N. 155...............................................57.4 15/99, L.M.L.N. 519.............................................14.40
I/86, L.M.L.N. 161 .............................................85.371 9/00, L.M.L.N. 541.................................................68.4
12/86, L.M.L.N. 179.................................................6.7 10/00, L.M.L.N. 545.................................................9.4
18/86, L.M.L.N. 181.................................................5.8 12/00, L.M.L.N. 546.............................................27.21
4/87, L.M.L.N. 188...............................................14.37 16/00, L.M.L.N. 547...........................................18.236
10/87, L.M.L.N. 201.............................................14.51 8/03, L.M.L.N. 615 .........................15.57, 15.63, 57.4
12/87, L.M.L.N. 204.................................................9.1 9/03 L.M.L.N. 616..................................................58.7
13/87, L.M.L.N. 205.............................................17.38 27/04, L.M.L.N. 651...............................................56.2
2/88, L.M.L.N. 225.................................................6.56 3/05, L.M.L.N. 659.................................................23.7
3/89, L.M.L.N. 243.................................................6.14 16/05, L.M.L.N 672..............................................15.29
18/89 L.M.L.N. 254..............................................16.21 17/05, L.M.L.N. 674...............................................60.5
2/90, L.M.L.N. 267 ......................................58.3, 58.9 2/06, L.M.L.N. 684.................................................21.5
7/90, L.M.L.N. 285.................................................6.17 3/06, L.M.L.N. 685 .......................................5.70, 54.8
12/90, L.M.L.N. 286.................................................9.3 7/06, L.M.L.N. 688 ...........................24.4, 24.5, 24.13
2/91, L.M.L.N. 299...................................................9.1 12/06, L.M.L.N. 698 .............................................57.4
5/91, L.M.L.N. 299...............................................17.26 13/06, L.M.L.N. 698 .......................13.70, 13.72, 53.9
11/91, L.M.L.N. 304...............................................61.1 14/06, L.M.L.N. 698 ...........................................10.19
17/91, L.M.L.N. 307.............................................17.25 18/06, L.M.L.N. 702 ..........................1.18, 3.23, 3.24
22/91, L.M.L.N. 316...............................................13.2 8/07, L.M.L.N. 718 .............................................13.12
6/92, L.M.L.N. 321...................................................9.1 12/07, L.M.L.N. 719 ...............................................9.1
23/92, L.M.L.N. 332...............................................68.2 21/07, L.M.L.N. 725 .............................................23.8
3/93 L.M.L.N. 351................................................15.59 2/08, L.M.L.N. 734 ...............................................62.4
4/93 L.M.L.N. 351..................................................15.8 3/08, L.M.L.N. 734 ....................................13.72, 53.9
7/93, L.M.L.N. 353...............................................17.14 6/08, L.M.L.N. 744 ....................................11.12, 15.8
8/93, L.M.L.N. 354...............................................14.37 11/08, L.M.L.N. 749 ....................................25.4, 58.7
14/93, L.M.L.N. 358...............................................61.1 20/10, L.M.L.N. 807 ............................................. 69.4
15/93, L.M.L.N. 359...............................................4.12 9/11, L.M.L.N. 833 .............................................15.30
1/94, L.M.L.N. 383.................................................4.20 2/13, L.M.L.N. 870 ......................................40.1, 62.2
2/94, L.M.L.N. 387...................................................1.3 7/13, 872 L.M.L.N. 833 ...............................1.16, 2.31
5/94, L.M.L.N. 386...............................................15.17
12/94, L.M.L.N. 387.................................................1.3 United States
5/95, L.M.L.N. 405.................................................52.7 AOT Ltd v. Caribbean Petroleum Corp., SMA
9/95, L.M.L.N. 408.............................................13.106 2010 (2010) ..................................................56A.21
17/95, L.M.L.N. 414...............................................5.19 A.P.J. Priti, The, SMA 2605 (1989) ........................5A.19
cxii
TABLE OF ARBITRATIONS
Abdel Moumen, The, SMA 1583 (1981) ............15A.90, Amaryllis, The, SMA 3046 (1994) ......11A.50, 15A.146,
15A.91 16A.17, 21A.11, 21A.61
Abu Yussuf, The, SMA 1834 (1983) .....12A.36, 21A.91 Amelia, The, SMA 2463 (1987) ............56A.10, 56A.14,
Abul Kalam Azad, The, SMA 2228 (1986) ..........63A.1, 68A.24
72A.26 Amelia Grimaldi, The, SMA 2326 (1986) ............63A.1,
Accord Sherwin Alumina, LP v. Western Bulk 72A.18, 72A.26, 72A.33
Carriers KS, SMA 4148 (2011) ...................14A.11 American Anthracite & Bituminous Coal
Achilles, The, SMA 2156 (1985) ..........57A.11, 57A.16, Corp. v. Ilios Shipping & Trading Corp.
57A.33, 57A.64, 60A.15 S.A., 1957 AMC 24 (Arb. at N.Y. 1956) .....53A.16
Acmi, The, SMA 1988 (1984) ...............................21A.61 American Chemical, The, SMA 3099 (1994)..........62A.2
Adamas, The, SMA 3194 (1995) ............60A.15, 60A.16 American Chemist, The, SMA 3189 (1995)..........84A.15
Adamastos, The, 1999 AMC 1879, SMA 3416 American Energy, The, SMA 3141 (1995) ...........84A.15
(1999) ..............................................................81A.2 An An, The, SMA 3792 (2003) ..............16A.16, 21A.60
Adonis T., The, SMA 1824 (1983)......................21A.101 Anadria, The, SMA 2392 (1987) ...........................17A.64
Adventure I, The, SMA 3835 (2004) ....15A.46, 15A.62, Anangel Prosperity, The, SMA 2764 (1991).......15A.117
15A.65, 15A.67 Anastasia II, The, SMA 1903 (1983) ....................11A.45
Aegean Glory, The, SMA 4093 (2010) ....72A.2, 72A.15 Andros Sea, The, SMA 979 (1975) .......57A.12, 57A.20,
Aegis Topic, The, SMA 1308 (1979) ................15A.124, 57A.65
15A.125 Anera-Domino of California/Jefferson Trading,
Aghios Spindon, The, 1967 AMC 1902, SMA The, SMA 3115 (1994) ...................................72A.5
194 (1966) .....................................................25A.10 Anett II, The, SMA 3433 (Arb. at N.Y. 1997)...... 5A.26,
Agnette Dania, The, SMA 2512 (1988) ..................27A.2 20A.1
Agrifos Fertilizer and Transammonia, Inc., In re Angearctic, The, SMA 1901 (1983) ....................15A.129
Arbitration between, SMA 4049 (2009) ......56A.20 Angelic Spirit and Petriana, The, SMA 3160
Ajax, The, and the Mina, SMA 1947 (1984).........15A.63 (1995) ............................................................13A.20
Akmi, The, SMA 2022 (1984) ................13A.67, 13A.69 Angelica, The, SMA 693 (1972) .............................3A.13
Akti, The, SMA 1165 (1977).................................72A.16 Angelina F, The, SMA 3911 (2006) .........7A.22, 16A.16
Al Deerah, The, SMA 3244 (1996) .......................53A.18 Aniara, The, SMA 3319 (1996) ..............56A.13, 57A.10
Al Saudia, The, SMA 1865 (1983) .........72A.35, 72A.38 Aniara, The, SMA 3574 (1999) .............................64A.11
Aladin, The, SMA 2697 (1990) ...........................15A.143 Anodad Naree, The, SMA 3526 (1999) ..................25A.8
Alagoas, The, SMA1400 (1980)..............................54A.2 Anson, The, SMA 1360 (1979) ..................62A.1, 79A.2
Alam Teguh, The, SMA 3008 (1993) ..........7A.15, 7.71, Antalya, The, SMA 2595 (1989) .......15A.153, 15A.158,
54A.14 15A.159, 16A.20
Alaska, The, SMA 3290 (1996)...............................58A.3 Antonios Demades, The, SMA 1370 (1979) .......13A.61,
Albatross, The, SMA 2606 (1989) ............3A.20, 13A.9, 13A.65
15A.67, 25A.11 Aphrodite Transoceanic, The, SMA 1461
Alexander Valentin, The, SMA 3084 (1994) ......15A.131 (1980) ...............................................56A.6, 56A.14
Alexandria IV, The, SMA 1917 (1983).................57A.39 Aquagem, The, SMA 1436 (1980) ........................16A.16
Alfios, The, SMA 296 (1968) ................................17A.68 Aralda, The, SMA 1883 (1983)..................... 4A.3, 4A.6,
Alicampos, The, SMA 2543 (1989) ..................15A.107, 56A.6, 72A.33
15A.112, 15A.113 Araneta M.A.-A.O., The, SMA 889 (1974) ............25A.4
Alkaios, The, SMA 2084 (1985) ...........................13A.22 Arapaho, The, SMA 1562 (1981) ........................57A.39,
Alkaios, The, SMA 3582 (1999) ...........................57A.11 57A.40, 58A.6,
Alkyonia, The, SMA 1813 (1983) .........................13A.12 58A.14, 59A.2
Alkyonis, The, SMA 3014 (1993) .......................15A.141 Arcadia, The, SMA 934 (1975) .............................57A.55
Allegiance, The, SMA 1980 (1984).........................54A.5 Archangelos Michail, The, SMA 1306 (1979) ..15A.155,
Allegiance, The, SMA 2262 (1985) ...........54A.3, 54A.6 16A.20
Almare Quinta, The, SMA 1537 (1981) ................56A.9, Archangelos Michail, The, SMA 1626 (1982) ......15A.84
57A.9, 57A.39 Archon/Prinkipos, The, SMA 1501 (1980) .........57A.34,
Almare Terza, The, SMA 2027 (1984) .................56A.9, 57A.66
57A.58, 58A.7 Ardea, The, 1955 AMC 871 (Arb. at N.Y.
Alpheos, The, SMA 3763 (2002) ...............................7.70 1953)..............................................................25A.11
Altair, The, SMA 3338 (1997)...............................56A.13 Argo Navis, The, SMA 145 (1966) .....................15A.109
Altus, The, SMA 2620 (1990) ...............25A.11, 57A.39, Argofax, The SS., 1962 AMC 2378 (Arb.
57A.51, 57A.60, 58A.1, at N.Y. 1962) ......................................3A.10, 13A.9
58A.10 Argonaftis, The, SMA 3291 (1996) ........72A.33, 84A.12
Alumina Transport Corp. amd Occidental Aristidis, The, 2001 AMC 1954, SMA 3686
Chemical Co., In re Arbitration between, (2001) ......................................5A.8, 5A.25 11A.76
SMA 2136 (1985) ...................7A.24, 7.72, 21A.35 Arizona, The, SMA 1259 (1978) ...........................21A.57
Alvorada, The, SMA 2131 (1985) ...........................3A.43 Armonikos, The, SMA 3867 (2004)......................11A.65
Amalia del Bene, The, SMA 3533 (1999) ............4A.14, Arosa, The, SMA 2725 (1990) ..............................13A.12
19A.16 Ascension, The, SMA 2861 (1992) .......................21A.80
cxiii
Asian Glory, The, SMA 2035 (1984) ......55A.7, 72A.18, Bei Ji Xing, The, SMA 3702 (2001) .........3A.36, 6A.15,
72A.33, 72A.38, 72A.40, 72A.43 16A.15
Astra Lift, The, SMA 3270 (1996) ............................1A.1 Belle Haven, The, SMA 3307 (1996)....................58A.20
Astramar II, The, SMA 2572 (1989) ......57A.15, 68A.23 Berge Bonde, The, SMA 1845 (1983) ....56A.4, 57A.63,
Astro, The, SMA 1816 (1983) ...............................72A.18 57A.65
Astro Altair, The, SMA 3841 (2004) ....................57A.48 Berge Bragd, The, SMA 3478 (1998) ...................21A.14
Athena, The, SMA 1229 (1978) ............................15A.43 Berrak N, The, SMA 3850 (2004) .......................15A.154
Athena, The, SMA 1874 (1983) ............................72A.38 Beryl, The, SMA 2779 (1991) .................................53A.5
Athena, The, SMA 2178 (1985) ............................58A.19 Bipasha, The, SMA 2651 (1990) .............................3A.14
Athenian, The, SMA 1279 (1978) ...........................54A.2 Biscayne Sun, The, SMA 1478 (1980)....................3A.19
Athenian Horizon, The, SMA 1197 (1977) ...........21A.59 Bjorgfjell, The, SMA 1144 (1977) ..........................72A.5
Atlantic Current, The, SMA 2567 (1989) ...........11A.37, Blanchland, The, SMA 322 (1969) ............3A.37, 3A.38
11A.77 Blue Bold, The, SMA 3718 (2002) .........7A.25, 21A.62,
Atlantic Emperor, The, SMA 2504 (1988).............2A.27, 21A.93
72A.31, 72A.37, 72A.39 Bluestone, The, SMA 2868 (1992)......................15A.102
Atlantic Empress, The, SMA 1506 (1980) ..........57A.26, Bomi, The, SMA 1485 (1980) .................................53A.9
57A.39, 57A.43 Bona Fulmar, The, SMA 3787 (2003) ......1A.1, 11A.21,
Atlantic Monarch, The, SMA 939 (1975) .............57A.35 72A.2
Atlantic, The, SMA 2870 (1992) ...........................21A.52 Boni, The, SMA 3053 (1994) ..11A.49, 13A.26, 16A.17,
Atlantic Sky, The, SMA 1774 (1983)....................21A.97 20A.18, 21A.2, 21A.15, 53A.14
Atlantis II, The, SMA 3725 (2002) .......................21A.17 Bow Antisana, The, SMA 3824 (2003) .................21A.12
Atlas, The, SMA 3553 (1999) ................21A.56, 21A.86 Bow Lady, The, SMA 3810 (2003) ..........58A.22, 82A.1
Aton V, The, SMA 3094 (1994) .............................19A.7 Bow Petros, The, SMA 3245 (1996) .......................58A.9
Atrotos, The (Compania Naviera Atrotos S.A. v. Bow Princess, The, SMA 2949 (1993)....................60A.6
Antco Shipping Ltd.) 973 AMC 2070 Bow Saturn, The SMA 3880 (2005)........................2A.29
(Arb. at N.Y. 1972)....................... 21A.51, 53A.14, Bowoon No. 7, The, SMA 2299 (1986) ..................72A.5
53A.16, 54A.2, 59A.20 Brage Vibeke, The, SMA 3073 (1994)..................68A.16
Auriga Primo, The, SMA 1096 (1977)..................21A.43 Bralanta, The, SMA 1679 (1982) ..........................58A.19
Aurora Jade, The, SMA 3121 (1994) ....................13A.21 Bralanta, The, SMA 2762 (1991) ..........................60A.15
Aurora Jade, The, SMA 3454 (1998) ....................16A.17 Brazilian Sky, The, SMA 2999 (1993) ................11A.22,
Australia–New Zealand Direct Line, et al. and 21A.71, 72A.15
Transportacion Maritima Grancancolombiana, Burmah Endeavor, The, SMA 1545 (1981) ........72A.32,
S.A., In re Arbitration between, 72A.38
SMA 3689 (2001) .........................................11A.71 Byzantion, The, SMA 2597 (1989) .......................57A.58
Avenger, The, SMA 1179 (1977) ...........72A.21, 72A.30 CSX Hawaii, The, SMA 3992 (2008) ..................11A.58
Azija, The, SMA 2845 (1992) .................................61A.3 Cabo Tamar, The, SMA 3705 (2001)....................72A.37
Aztec Maiden, SMA 4031 (2009) ..........................11A.5 Cape Grenville, The, SMA 1990 (1984) ...............17A.66
B.A.P. Talara, The, SMA 3000 (1993)..................57A.23 Cape Tankers Inc. v. Chemoil Corporation,
Bahama Spirit, The, SMA 3849 (2004) ......5A.18, 5A.35 SMA 3746 (2002) .............................................4A.3
Balbina, The, SMA 2454 (1988) .............................25A.9 Capetan Carras, The, SMA 1908 (1983) ...............53A.3,
Balbina, The, SMA 2495 (1988) .............................5A.31 57A.67, 58A.1
Balboa, The, SMA 2876 ........................................57A.16 Capira, The, SMA 2241 (1986) ...............................16A.2
Balsa, The, SMA 3308 (1996) .................................5A.29 Captain Demosthenes, The, SMA 1569 (1981).....21A.30
Balsa 9, The, SMA 2954 (1993) ...3A.16, 6A.10, 11A.34 Captain Gregos, The, SMA 2404 (1987) ..............57A.4,
Balsa 21, The, SMA 2899 (1992)..........................16A.15 58A.1, 59A.5
Baltic Mercur, The, SMA 3894 (2005) ..11A.71, 21A.66 Captain Nicholas, The, SMA 2150 (1985) ............13A.22
Baltico, The, SMA 2192 (1985) ............................57A.57 Captain P. Egglezos, The, SMA 4164 (2012) .....15A.139
Baltimore Sirius, The, SMA 3323 (1996) ...............3A.28 Cargoport Transportation, C.A. and Siderurgica
Baltimore Trader, The, SMA 2632 (1990) ..........57A.39, del Orinocco, In re Arbitration between,
57A.60, 65A.1 SMA 3701 (2001) ...........................................7A.24
Banja Luka, The, SMA 1293 (1979) .......................27A.3 Carib Sun, The, SMA 1250 (1983)..........................3A.16
Banner, The, SMA 1929 (1984) ............57A.32, 57A.65, Caribou, The, SMA 2695 (1990) ...............15A.5, 58A.1,
68A.3, 68A.8 58A.6, 60A.25, 68A.25
Barbarossa, The, SMA 2783 (1991) ......................25A.11 Carlantic, The, SMA 2315 (1986) .........................72A.10
Barge 450–11/Tug Mars, The, SMA 3466 Carolyn, The, SMA 1189 (1977) .............................62A.1
(1998) ...................21A.31, 21A.67, 60A.2, 68A.29 Cassandros, The, SMA 3114 (1994)......................21A.28
Barge Patricia Sheridan, The, SMA 3569 Cate Brovig, The, SMA 1281 (1978) ....................57A.24
(1999) ............................................................11A.13 Cayambe, The, SMA 2218 (1986).........................13A.21
Barry, The, SMA 2154 (1985).................................25A.6 Cepheus, The, 1990 AMC 1058 (Arb. at N.Y.
Bayern, The, SMA 2628 (1990) ............57A.39, 58A.22, 1990) ..................................5A.35, 12A.18, 20A.17
60A.19, 60A.29 Charleston, The, SMA 3377 (1997).......................58A.20
BBC Sealand, The, SMA 3750 (2002) ....................13A.4 Chembulk New York, The, SMA 3868 (2004) .....58A.20
cxiv
Chembulk Vancouver, The, SMA 3699 Cove Tide, The, SMA 2420 (1987) .......................57A.56
(2001) ...................................21A.13, 56A.9, 62A.2 Cradle of Liberty, The, SMA 2219 (1986)..............72A.1
Chemical Explorer, The, SMA 2554 (1989) .........68A.13 D’Artagnan, The, SMA 2685 (1992).......................15A.5
Chemical Trading Inc. and Meridian Resources Da Qing 88, The, SMA 3458 (1998) ......57A.44, 59A.18
and Development Inc., In re Arbitration Danita, The, SMA 1391, 1980 AMC 435
between, SMA 2904 (1992) ..........15A.55, 56A.12, (1979) ..................................................16A.3, 16A.4
57A.14 Dapco Trading Inc. and Del Monte Banana
Chemical Venturer, The, SMA 1331 (1979) ...........59A.7 Co., In re Arbitration between, SMA
Chemifalcon, The, SMA 3128 (1994) ......56A.8, 68A.24 1847 (1981) ...................................................15A.59
Cherry Duke, The, SMA 1467 (1980).........53A.9, 62A.3 Daphne, The, SMA 2539 (1988) ...........57A.30, 57A.34,
Cherry Lord/Viking Trader, The, SMA 1995 57A.40, 57A.61, 61A.2
(1984) ...............................................53A.10, 54A.7 Deiulemar Compagnia di Navigazione, S.p.A.
Cheshire, The M/V, SMA 3123 (1994) .......3A.3, 6A.11, and Transocean Coal Company, Inc. and
6A.14, 15A.148, 57A.56, 60A.7 Anker Trading S.A., In re Arbitration
Chimiste Sayid, The, SMA 2475 (1988) ...............58A.19 between, SMA 3775 (2003) .......7A.24, 7.72, 7.75,
Chios Charm, The, SMA 2983 (1993) ....7A.17, 16A.16, 21A.7
21A.61 Delphina, The, SMA 3508 (1999) ...........................5A.37
Chollada Naree, The, SMA 4112 (2011) ................67A.1 Demetra, The, SMA 2822 (1991) ...........58A.19, 60A.27
Christina C., The, SMA 1688 (1982) .....15A.128, 16A.3 Deneb, The, SMA 3100 (1994) .............................56A.15
Christina, The, SMA 656 (1971) ...........................20A.26 Desert Leader, The, SMA 1571 (1981) .................57A.11
Cisco, The, SMA 2993 (1993).................................81A.1 Despina, The, SMA 3540 (1999).........................15A.102
Cities Service Valley Forge, The, SMA 954 Despina A.L., The, 1977 AMC 2661, SMA
(1975) .......................57A.49, 58A.5, 59A.2, 80A.2 1136 (1977) .......................................53A.4, 55A.5,
Clairhill, The, SMA 1002 (1976).............................55A.8 55A.6, 55A.7
Clairhill, The, SMA 1226 (1978) .............56A.9, 60A.17 Diamond Park, The, and the Diamond Emerald,
Claudio R., The, SMA 2031 (1984) ............64A.3, 64A.9 SMA 3576 (1999) .........................................84A.15
Cleanthes, The, SMA 1640 (1981) ........................13A.21 Diamond Wave, The, SMA 3085 (1994) ..............68A.12
Cleveland, The, SMA 3747 (2002)......................15A.150 Dicaronia, The, 1969 AMC 2196 (Arb. at
Clipper Shipping Ltd. and Stone Consolidated N.Y. 1969) ......................................11A.72, 13A.12
Corp./Abitibi-Consolidated Inc., In re Dimitrakis, The, SMA 3150 (1995).......................11A.45
Arbitration between, SMA 3694 (2001) .......7A.24, Divine Star, The, SMA 2883 (1992) ...................60A.15,
16A.19 60A.27, 60A.30
Clipperventure L., The, SMA 3289 (Arb at Dominique, The, SMA 1088 (1977)....................15A.117
N.Y. 1996) ..........................................2A.27, 72A.1 Doris, The, SMA 1663 (1982) ...............................58A.19
Cluden, The, SMA 1765 (1982) ..............................3A.41 Dorothea, The, SMA 3895.....................................13A.13
Companhia de Navegaçao Maritima Netumar Dryad, The, SMA 703 (1972)................................21A.64
and Trans World Steel Inc., In re Arbitration Duncombe Trading S.A. and Winfield
between, SMA 2383 (1987)........................15A.113 Business S.A., In re, SMA 3361 (1997).......21A.91
Compania Naviera Atrotos S.A. v. Antco Shipping Dzintari, The, SMA 3771 (2003)...........................84A.15
Ltd. (The Atrotos), 1973 AMC 2070 (Arb. E.M. Tsangaris, The, SMA 1200 (1978) .................53A.8
at N.Y. 1972) ..................21A.51, 53A.14, 53A.16, Eagle, The, SMA 3070 (1994) ....15A.62, 57A.9, 59A.19
54A.2, 59A.20 Eagle Voyager, The, SMA 987 (1975)..................54A.12
Concord, The, SMA 2215 (1980) ..........................16A.17 Eber, The, SMA 3876 (2005) .............15A.141, 15A.147
Condor, The, SMA 3268 (1996) ...........15A.141, 84A.12 Eddie SS. Co Ltd., SMA 1051 (1976) ..................21A.27
Connecticut, The, SMA 980 (1975).........................57A.3 Edipsos, The, SMA 2177 (1985) ..............3A.41, 16A.17
Constantinos, The, SMA 932 (1975) ...................15A.124 Edlow International Co. and BBC Chartering
Continental Reliance, The, SMA 2366 (1987) ......7A.13, and Logistics GmbH & Co. K.G., In re
21A.45, 21A.58 Arbitration between, SMA 3822 (2004) .........6A.5,
Coraje, The, SMA 1686 (1982) ...............................25A.7 16A.17
Coral I, The, SMA 3287 (1996) ...............6A.19, 16A.17 Egeon, The, SMA 1208 (1978)..............................17A.61
Coral Temse, The, SMA 2677 (1990) .....56A.8, 57A.56, Eirini L., The, SMA 3366 (1996) ..........................56A.15
68A.7, 68A.15 El Amaan, The, SMA 2492 (1988)........................13A.23
Corinthian, The, SMA 1851 (1983) ........21A.80, 21A.99 El Crusader, The, SMA 2298 (1986).....................21A.65
Corta Atalaya, The, SMA 2985 (1993) ...............57A.18, Elafi, The, SMA 1860 (1983) ..................................25A.7
84A.13 Elbe Ore, The, SMA 2561 (1989) ..........21A.19, 21A.70
Costanza M., The, SMA 1919 (1983) ...................16A.17 Eldina, The, SMA 1147 (1977) ....................3A.14, 6A.9
Cove Communicator, The, SMA 1716 (1982) ......58A.19 Elektra, The, SMA 941 (1974) .................72A.5, 72A.12
Cove Leader, The, SMA 1653 (1982) ...57A.31, 57A.33, Elise Schulte, The SMA 3918 (2006)......................2A.29
57A.63, 65A.2 Elite, The, SMA 3173 (1995) .................72A.16, 72A.49
Cove Liberty, The, SMA 3131 (1994) ................15A.101 Ellinara, The, SMA 1711 (1982) ...........................13A.23
Cove Spirit, The, SMA 1769 (1982) ...................57A.39, Ellinora, The, SMA 2195 (1986) ..............6A.12, 11A.38
57A.49, 58A.22 Elmina, The, SMA 2614 (1989) .............60A.15, 60A.29
cxv
Elota, The, SMA 2432 (1987) .................25A.10, 56A.9, Finesse L. and Fantasy L., The, SMA 3213
57A.53, 57A.56, 58A.11 (1995) ....................57A.71, 59A.7, 59A.20, 60A.30
Encourager, The, SMA 3048 (1994) ...................15A.74, Finnco Victoria, The, SMA 1683 (1982) ............13A.35,
15A.75, 15A.126 13A.64
Endurance, The, SMA 3054 (1994).......................11A.56 Fiona Jane, The, SMA 1767 (1982) ..........55A.8, 64A.3,
Energy Creation, The, SMA 2025 (1984) ...........57A.27, 64A.8
57A.49, 57A.58, Flamenco, The, SMA 3477 (1998) ........................57A.39
58A.1 Fort St. John, The, SMA 2682 (1990) ....56A.10, 57A.13
Energy Explorer, The, SMA 3033 (1993) ..................7.68 Forum Pioneer, The, SMA 2640 (1990)..............15A.124
Energy Freedom, The, SMA 2545 (1989) ...........11A.48, Four Island, The SMA 3997 (2008) ....................... 55A.9
11A.49 Framura, The, SMA 3006 (1993) ..........................58A.23
Energy Resource, The, SMA 2017 (1984) ..........60A.15, Frances Hammer, The, SMA 2182 (1985) ..........60A.15,
60A.25 60A.19
Entity, The, SMA 3200 (1995) ...............72A.17, 72A.32 Fro, The, SMA 809 (1973) ......................................27A.4
Eos, The, SMA 4002 (2008) ...................11A.51, 72A.22 Frosso K., The, SMA 778 (1973) ............................3A.39
Epta, The, SMA 2837 (1990)...............................15A.117 Frota Argentina, The, SMA 2978 (1993) ............11A.10,
Eptalofos, The, SMA 2597 (1989) ..........57A.20, 61A.3, 11A.53, 11A.57, 68A.28
68A.25 Frotanorte, The, 1973 AMC 2315, SMA 694
Eptanissos, The, SMA 2201 (1985) ........60A.19, 60A.25 (1972) ...15A.24, 15A.70, 15A.83, 15A.84, 57A.22
Erisort, The, SMA 1022 (1976) .............................15A.66 Fu Chiao, The, SMA1089 (1977) ..............................3A.2
Ermis, The, SMA 2960 (1993) ...................14A.3, 62A.3 Garbis, The, SMA 1647 (1980) ..................54A.5, 54A.6
Esperanza, The, SMA 461 (1970) ..........................14A.4 Garnac Grain and Caytrans Project Services Ltd.,
Espoir, The, SMA 2254 (1986) ..................56A.5, 56A.6 In re arbitration between, SMA 3722
Esso Kumamoto, The, SMA 1637 (1982) ...............54A.9 (2002) ...................................................3A.6, 3A.34
Esso Providence, The, SMA 2079 (1985) ...........57A.58, Gaz Fountain, The, SMA 3066 (1994) ...54A.10, 58A.17
58A.21 Gaz Horizon, The, SMA 3165 (1995) .....53A.6, 53A.10,
Eugenie S. Embiricos, The, SMA 1127 (1977) 58A.8, 72A.33
.........................................................17A.68, 25A.10 Genmar Boss, The, SMA 3781 (2003) ........4A.6, 4A.11,
Eurogas, The, SMA 3005 (1993) ..............53A.6, 53A.12 53A.5, 56A.6, 56A.7, 56A.14, 81A.3
Evagelistria, The, 1969 AMC 232 (Arb. at N.Y. George Vergottis, The, SMA 1214 (1978) ..........57A.57,
1969)..............................................................19A.13 60A.2
Evgenia G., The, SMA 1657 (1982)........................3A.40 Georgian Glory, The, SMA 1628 (1981) ..............17A.68
Evros, The, SMA 1059 (1976)...............................57A.58 Georgios Xylas, The, SMA 1345 (1979).............15A.110
Evros, The, SMA 2353 (1987)...............................13A.22 Gertrud Salamon, The, SMA 4036 (2009) ...............1A.2
Excomm Mariner, The, SMA1348 (1978) ..........53A.12, Giannis, The, SMA1606 (1981)...............................3A.15
72A.30 Gigi, The, SMA 1540 (1981)...............................15A.129
Exi, The, SMA 2709 (1990) ..................................16A.17 Gilia, The, 1972 AMC 1738 (Arb. at N.Y
Express Patriot, The, SMA 3899 (2005) .................23A.7 1972) ..............................................19A.15, 56A.14
Extraco II, The, SMA 1705 (1982)..........................3A.44 Gina Juliano, The, SMA 1786 (1983) ........25A.6, 25A.7
F.P. Clipper, The, SMA 3118 (1994) .....11A.18, 11A.56 Glefi I, The M/T, SMA 3199 (1995) .....................21A.63
Faarabi, The, SMA 3696 (2001)..............................7A.26 Globe Comet, The, SMA 1610 (1981) ..................57A.13
Fabian, The, SMA 1492 (1980) .............57A.25, 57A.33, Go Go Rambler, The, SMA 2811 (1991). 68A.28, 72A.2
57A.63, 57A.64, 57A.66 Go Go Regal, The, SMA 3093 (1994) ..............15A.142,
Fairfield Venture, The, SMA 2452 (1988) ..........57A.52, 21A.9, 57A.55
57A.56 Go Go Rider, The, SMA 1877 (1983)...................13A.18
Falcon, The, SMA 3421 (1998) ..............60A.22, 60A.30 Go Go Runner, The, SMA 1746 (1982) ..................72A.1
Falcon Carrier, The, SMA 4217 (2013) ...............84A.17 Golden Breeze, The, SMA 1237 (1978)................21A.33
Fanis, The, SMA 2980 (1993) .............13A.71, 15A.105, Golden Eagle, The, SMA 2213 (1986)..................59A.13
15A.109 Golden Eagle, The, SMA 2530 (1988)....................5A.24
Fannie, The, SMA 3719 (2002) ...........................15A.137 Golden Fleece, The, SMA 641 ...............15A.76, 17A.66
Fay, The, SMA 915 (1975)....................................19A.16 Golden Light, The, SMA 1561 (1981) ...15A.37, 15A.89
Federal Calumet, The, SMA 1667 (1982) .............5A.22, Golden Nagos, The, SMA 2770 (1991) ....7A.16, 16A.15
17A.64 Golden Oak, The, SMA 2518 (1988) ....................54A.11
Fedra, The, SMA 3386 (1997).................................3A.44 Golden Oak, The, SMA 2551 (1989) ....................59A.20
Feliz Duckling, The, SMA 3611 (2000)................21A.71 Golden Polydinamos et al., The, SMA 3460
Fertexport Inc. and Agrinde Shipping Corp., (1998) ..............................................................72A.6
In re Arbitration between, SMA 1731 Golden Tenneyo, The, SMA 2381 (1987) ...........15A.102
(1982) ..........................................................15A.130 Golden Tennyo, The, SMA 3117 (1994).............15A.128
Ficus, The, SMA 2473 (1988) ....................21A.7, 56A.8 Goldmar, The, SMA 3902 (2005) ..2A.29, 2A.32, 2A.33
Fidelity L., The, SMA 3051 (1994).......................72A.18 Good Herald, The, SMA 1930 (1983) .................21A.101
Filikon L., The, SMA 1556 (1981)........................72A.38 Good Luck, The, SMA 4182 (2012) ......13A.14, 13A.15
Fina America, The, SMA 3867 (1992) ...57A.16, 84A.12 Good Pioneer, The, SMA 2317 (1986) ......7A.18, 21A.9
cxvi
Grand, The, SMA 2548 (1989) .....55A.8, 60A.28, 61A.1 Jebsen Carriers Ltd. and Gravetal Bolivia, S.A.,
Grand Brilliance, The, SMA 1960 (1984) .............58A.19 In the Matter of the Arbitration between,
Greenland Rex, The, SMA 3368 (1997)................58A.17 SMA 3525 (1999) ..................3A.35, 5A.31, 14A.2,
Gresham, The, SMA 1876 (1983) .........................72A.36 15A.49, 25A.14
Grigorpan, The, SMA 2988 (1993) 3A.1, 3A.11, 21A.65 Jerom, The, SMA 2657 (1990) ..............................60A.26
Guadalupe, The, SMA 2642 (1989) .......68A.28, 72A.15 Jin He, The, SMA 3188 (1995) ...............................57A.4
Guadalupe, The, SMA 2656 (1989).........................72A.2 Jo Anne, The SMA 3026 (1993) .............................72A.2
Guinomar and Martin Marietta Aluminium Jo Brevik, The, SMA 3919 (2006) ........................72A.15
Corp., In re Arbitration between, SMA Jo Eik, The, SMA 3905 (2005)..............................68A.33
2534 (1988) ......7A.24, 7.72, 7.75, 21A.12, 21A.35 Jo Rogn, The, SMA 2735 (1990) ..........................54A.11
Halki, The, SMA 1759 (1982) ......57A.58, 79A.1, 79A.2 Joana, The, SMA 1695 (1982).................................25A.7
Hallborg, The, SMA 2639 (1990)............................7A.23 Jodie D, SMA 3510 (1999) .....................................67A.1
Hamimi, The, SMA 3502 (1998)...........................11A.72 John K., The, SMA 1936 (1984) .........................15A.119
Hans Leonhardt, The, SMA 2820 (1991) ..........15A.144, Johnson Chemsun, The, SMA 2782 (1991) ........68A.12,
16A.17 68A.24
Hansa, The, SMA 646 (1971) .............15A.104, 15A.105 Joseph P. Grace, The, SMA 1768 (1983)................53A.8
Hansa Partner, The, SMA 2813 (1991) ...............15A.117 Jubilee Venture, The, SMA 1456 (1980) ................54A.3
Happy Empress, The, SMA 2599 (1989) ............60A.15, Judy Litrico, The SMA 3836 (2004) ......15A.46, 15A.62
60A.29, 60A.30, 61A.1 Juko Maru, The, SMA 1112 (1977) ......................54A.13
Haralabos, The, SMA 2033 (1984) ........72A.18, 72A.45 Juventia, The, SMA 2491 (1988).........................15A.113
Harold K. Hudner, The, SMA 3619 (2000)...........84A.15 Kale I, The, SMA 3516 (1999)..............................16A.17
Hartlear, The, and the Tokyo Venture, SMA Kallistratos, The, SMA 2428 (1987) ...................15A.157
1785 (1983) ....................................12A.37, 17A.66 Kampos, The, SMA 1542 (1981) ............53A.2, 53A.16,
Havbris, The, SMA 3503 (1999) .............................55A.3 72A.12
Hellenic Champion, The, SMA 1867 (1983) ........16A.15 Kandalaksha, The, SMA 3883 (2005) .....................81A.2
Hera, The, SMA 2467 (1988) ..................................7A.24 Kanok Naree, The, SMA 3557 (1999) ....................3A.20
Hoegh Fountain, The, SMA 2738 (1991)..............58A.19 Kapetan Markos N.L., The, SMA 1373 (1979) ..57A.33,
Holger Sif, The, SMA 3076 (1994) .....................15A.155 57A.36, 57A.64, 57A.66, 57A.67,
Holma, The, SMA 912 (1975) ...............................57A.33 58A.3, 59A.9, 61A.2
Holstenwall, The, SMA 871 (1974).........................25A.6 Kapitonas A. Lucka, The, SMA 3968 (2007) ......72A.17
Hose Marti, The, SMA 3172 (1995) .....53A.14, 53A.18, Kardamyla, The, SMA 3126 (1994) ........................3A.29
59A.8 Karina Danica, The, SMA 3736 (2002) ..............15A.148
Howard Vesper, The, SMA 1491 (1980) ................79A.2 Katerina P., The, SMA 3098 (1994)......................58A.20
I.T.B. Baltimore, The, SMA 4099 (2010) ............56A.11 Katingo H., The, SMA 1012 (1975) ........................53A.4
I.T.B. Zorra, The, SMA 3586 (1999) ......................5A.10 Kato, The, SMA 1521 (1981) ................................72A.32
Ibn Al Nafees, The, SMA 3512 (1998) ..................67A.1 Kent Explorer, The, SMA 3904 (2005) .................15A.70
Ilkon Tak, The, SMA 804 (1973) ...........15A.89, 15A.92 Khian Wave, The, SMA 1146 (1977)....................17A.68
In Nahala, The, SMA 1927 (undated) ...57A.20, 57A.33, Kilchem Mediterranean, The, SMA 3020
57A.55, 57A.69 (1993) ...............................................68A.2, 68A.14
In Salah, The, SMA 1576 (1978) ............53A.8, 53A.12, Kimolos, The, SMA 1999 (1984) ..........................13A.21
53A.16, 57A.39, 58A.1, 59A.5, 72A.1 King Cadmus, The, SMA 1881 (1983)....................72A.7
Inalotte Blumenthal, The, SMA 1364 (1979) ....15A.102, Kinzan Maru, The, SMA 3465 (1998) ..................16A.17
15A.111 Kissavos, The, SMA 1243 (1977) ..........57A.33, 57A.36
Independence, The, SMA 2765 (1991)..................21A.80 Kittanning, The, SMA 3056 (1994).........................2A.29
Infra, The, SMA 3105 (1994) .15A.50, 15A.156, 57A.20 Knock Taggart, The, SMA 3001 (1993) .............15A.56,
Ingeniero Huergo, The, SMA 2436 (1987) ...........53A.12 57A.30, 57A.40
Intrepid Colocotronis, The, SMA 794 (1973) .......16A.17 Konkar Indomitable, The, SMA 1394A
Ioannis Carras, The, SMA 1810 (1983) ..................62A.4 (1980) ............................................................21A.86
Ioannis Carras, The, SMA 1544 (1987) ................57A.36 Konkar Pioneer, The, SMA 1212, 1977 AMC
Ionian Mariner, The, 1971 AMC 1107 (Arb. at 1794 (1976) ...................................................15A.51
N.Y. 1971) ..........................................13A.8, 13A.9 Korinthiacos Gulf, The, SMA 1553 (1981)...........13A.22
Ira, The, SMA 3874 (2005) .................................15A.148 Kriti Akti, The, SMA 3845 (2004) ..........................2A.29
Isbrandtsen Co. v. India Supply Mission (Arb. Kriti Art, The, SMA 3838 (2004)............................2A.29
at N.Y. 1959).................................................15A.50 Krossfonn, The, SMA 933 (1975) .........................11A.41
Island Gem, The, SMA 2560 (1989) ..........7A.9, 21A.91 Kuroshio Rex, The, SMA 2513 (1988) .................11A.67
Izurza, The, SMA 2712 (1990)..............................53A.16 Kurt Illies, The, SMA 2778 (1991) .........................56A.9
Jahre Venture, The SMA 3812 (2003) ....................72A.5 Kymo, The, 1975 AMC 2643, SMA 948 (Arb.
Jamaica Commodity Trading Co. v. Connell Rice at N.Y. 1975).................................................57A.64
& Sugar Co. Inc., SMA 2643–A (1990)...........7A.1 La Guajira, The, SMA 3101 (1994) ........................56A.9
Janega, The, SMA 2461 (1987) ..................3A.5, 19A.16 Labrador, The, SMA 2472 (1988) .........................11A.42
Janus and Atlantis, The, SMA 2952 (1993) .2A8, 53A.16 Laconian, The, SMA 3063 (1994) .........................72A.15
Jarabella, The, SMA 1550 (1980)............................53A.7 Lady Dorothy, The, SMA 984 (1975) ...................58A.13
cxvii
Lady Helene, The, SMA 3457 (1998) ...................5A.19, Mar Tirreno, The, SMA 897 (1974) ......................15A.78
21A.31, 54A.8 Mara, The, SMA 3744 (2000) ...............................68A.27
Lady V, The, SMA 3071 (1994)............................20A.25 Marcos M.F., The, SMA 2107 (1985) ....15A.117, 23A.4
Lago Atitlan, The, SMA 1880 (1983) .....................5A.28 Mare Di Kara, The, SMA 3238 (1996) ....57A.70, 60A.8
Lagoven Paria, The, SMA 3052 (1994) .5A.38, 15A.145 Marhava, The, SMA 2976 (1993) .....3A.9, 6A.4, 6A.11,
Lake Ontario, The, SMA 2773 (1991) ....................3A.27 11A.14, 11A.34
Lake Palourde, The, SMA 1137 (1976) ..................57A.3 Maria A., The, SMA 3439 (1998) .........................15A.60
Las Rosas, The, SMA 3202 (1995) .......................11A.40 Maria Forsyth, The, SMA 1693 (1982) ....53A.9, 53A.14
Lauberhorn, The, SMA 2641 (1990) ......57A.40, 59A.21 Maria G.L., The, SMA 2506 (1988) .........5A.16, 5A.23,
Lauberhorn, The, SMA 2699 (1990) .....................72A.49 17A.61, 17A.66
Laurissa, The, SMA 3532 (1999) ............................72A.9 Maria Jose T., The, SMA 2205 (1986) .11A.27, 11A.28,
Leage, The, SMA 1320 (1979) ..............................13A.21 13A.69
Ledea, The, SMA 1662 (1982) .............15A.118, 17A.66 Maria K., The, SMA 795 (1973) .............................3A.39
Leira, The, SMA 3230 (1995) ...............................21A.56 Maria Lolli-Ghetti, The, 1977 AMC 953, SMA 974
Lelaps, The, SMA 2840 (1992) ...............15A.9, 15A.13, (Arb. at N.Y. 1975) ..............58A.15, 59A.6, 59A.9
15A.14, 15A.16 Maria Strathatos, The, 1952 AMC 347 (Arb. at
Lendoudis Kiki, The, SMA 2323 (1986)...............17A.29 N.Y. 1951).....................................................21A.32
Lepanto Glory, The, SMA 3492 (1998) ...4A.11, 19A.16 Maria Von Barssel, The, SMA 2673 (1990) ...........7A.20
Leprechaun Spirit, The, SMA 1056 (1976) 64A.3, 64A.4 Marilyn O., The, SMA 3163 (1995) ........................6A.18
Leslie, The, SMA 1341 (1979) ..............................21A.80 Marina di Alimuri, The, SMA 2655 (1990) ............3A.35
Leslie, The, SMA 1586 (1981) ...............21A.42, 21A.56 Marine Chemist/Ogden Charger, The, SMA 1909
Lina, The, SMA 3914 (2006)...................................19A.8 (1983) ...................................19A.7, 56A.8, 68A.26
Lion of Mykonos, The M/V, SMA 787 (1973).........8A.3 Marine Floridian, The, SMA 3575 (1999) ............54A.11
Lito, The, SMA 2740 (1991) ........6A.29, 63A.1, 72A.18 Marivic, The, SMA 1732 (1982) ...........................11A.26
Livingstone, The, SMA 2903 (1992).....................60A.15 Markos N., The, SMA 2892 (1992).........................23A.5
Llano, The, SMA 1411 (1980) ...57A.43, 57A.46, 59A.9 Marofa, The, SMA 1815 (1983) .............72A.38, 72A.40
London Confidence, The, SMA 1396 (1979) ......72A.26, Marta Z., The, SMA 2602 (1989)..........................13A.35
72A.30 Martha A., The, SMA 2584 (1989) .......................54A.11
Long Phoenix, The, SMA 1599 (1981) ..57A.40, 59A.21 Martha A., The, SMA 3352 (Arb. at N.Y. 1997) ....5A.27
Lotos, The, SMA 1949 (1984).................................56A.9 Martha A., The, SMA 3861 (2004) .............4A.7, 5A.27,
Loukas 1, The, SMA 4124 (2011) ..........................80A.2 56A.5, 57A.39, 59A.15
LPG/C Hugo N, The, SMA 4175 (2012) .72A.15, 80A.2 Mary Ann, The, SMA 1365 (1979) .........58A.15, 59A.6,
LPG/C Igloo Norse, The, SMA 4021 (2007) ........72A.2, 59A.9
72A.21 Mary Ellen Conway, The, SMA 1965 (1984) .....57A.56,
LPG/C Norgas Pilot, SMA 3984 (2007) 56A.13, 56A.17 68A.28
Lucija, The, SMA 3139 (1995)..............................57A.56 Mary S., The, SMA 1355 (1979)...........................21A.19
Luctor, The, SMA 2947 (1993) ...............................56A.7 Maryland Trader, The, SMA 676 (1972) ..............16A.17
Lugano Venture, The, SMA 3468 (1998)................72A.9 Maryland Trader, The, SMA 849 (1974) ................5A.37
Luossa, The, 1936 AMC 213 (Arb. at N.Y. Masefield Trading, AG v. Shell Oil Company,
1935) ..............................................17A.65, 17A.71 SMA 3855 (2004) .........................................84A.15
Lux Creator, The, SMA 3089 (1994) ....................11A.78 Master Petros, The, SMA 2784 (1991)....................72A.5
M. Alexand, The, SMA 1476 (1980).....................19A.16 Matten I, The, SMA 1515 (1981) ..........................13A.18
MT Vanni D, The, SMA 3903 (2005).....................2A.23 Maya Farber, The, SMA 1841 (1983) .................57A.14,
M/V Marlene Green, The, SMA 4009 (2008) ......11A.44 57A.56, 68A.8, 68A.20, 68A.23, 80A.2
Maaskant, The, SMA 2688 (1990) ........................21A.19 Medjoy, The, SMA 1707 (1982) ...........................13A.68
Maaslot, The, SMA 3167 (1995) ..................6A.5, 6A.12 Meistersinger, The, SMA 1296 (1979)..................13A.12
McAllister Brothers Inc. and A. & S. Transportation Mercandian Queen, The, SMA 2713 (1990) ...........5A.10
Co., In re Arbitration between, SMA 1989 Mercedes, The, SMA 2284 (1986) ..........................53A.3
(1984) ..........................7A.24, 7.72, 21A.9, 21A.35 Mercure, The, SMA 3785 (2003) ........................21A.14,
Machitis and Thassitis, The, SMA 1178 (1977)......23A.2 21A.19, 84A.12
Magellan Rex, The, SMA 2977 (1993) .................21A.10 Merhanik Yuryev, The, SMA 3138 (1995) ..6A.5, 6A.12
Magpie, The, SMA 3948 (2006) ..........................60A.20 Meridian Lion, The, SMA 3739 (Arb. at N.Y.
Maistros, The, SMA 1339 (1979)........................15A.117 2002)...................................................................7.69
Malmohus, The, SMA 2119 (1985) ........13A.21, 72A.33 Mesis, The, SMA 2610 (1989) ..............................16A.15
Man (E.D. & F.) Cocoa Inc. and Cross Chartering Mesologi, The, SMA 1486 (1980) ..............57A.4, 58A.1
N.V., In re Arbitration between, SMA 3909 Messiniaki Frontis, The, 1982 AMC 1241,
(2006) ..............................................................7A.24 SMA 1630 (Arb. at N.Y. 1982) ....................59A.17
Manthos, The, SMA 1500 (1980) ...........17A.67, 17A.69 Messiniaki Gi, The, SMA 1292 (1979) .................57A.59
Manthos, The, SMA 3016 (1993) .........14A.5, 15A.148, Meteora, The, SMA 2981 (1993)...........................11A.29
57A.39 Meteora/Metsovon, The, SMA 2955 (1993) ...........84A.8
Mantinia, The, SMA 2030 (1984) .........................53A.16 Michael C., The, SMA 1658 (1982) ....................57A.26,
Mantinia, The, SMA 2801 (1991) .........................60A.27 57A.41, 57A.63
cxviii
Michael C. Lemos, The, SMA 1906 (1983)............5A.37 Nicolas Kairis, The, 1962 AMC 1568 (Arb.
Michael, The, SMA 1168 (1977) ..............11A.64, 72A.2 at N.Y. 1961) ................................15A.119, 21A.51
Michael, The, SMA 1277 (1978).............................59A.7 Nicopolis, The, SMA 2745 (1991) ......................57A.43,
Midas Touch, The, SMA 2248 (1986) .....55A.8, 58A.19 60A.19, 61A.3
Milta, The, SMA 3083 (1994) ...............................21A.49 Nigma, The, SMA 1598 (1981) ....7A.10, 21A.8, 57A.57
Mini Lioness, The, SMA 1948 (1984) ..................16A.17 Nike, The, SMA 2856 (1992) ................................72A.37
Mini Loaf, The, SMA 2301 (1986) ............23A.2, 23A.3 Niki, The, SMA 3963 (2007) ................................60A.20
Mississippi Phosphates Corp. v. Unitramp Ltd., Nikos Kazantzakis, The, SMA 1728 (1982) .........57A.3,
SMA 3483 (1998) .........................................21A.13 60A.2
Mistral, The, SMA 2724 (1990) ............................17A.31 Ninfea, The, 1953 AMC 1669 (Arb. at N.Y.
Miztli, The, SMA 2165 (1985) ................................72A.8 1953) ..............................................12A.28, 12A.34
Mobil Aladdin, The, SMA 2537 (1989) ................72A.43 Nitrochem Distribution Ltd. v. Vikingshuset
Mobil Challenger, The, SMA 2758 (1991) .............62A.2 Shipping Inc, SMA 4157 (2012) .................21A.29
Monarch, The, 1976 AMC 17 (Arb. at N.Y. Nomadic Lady, The, SMA 3543 (1999) ............15A.172,
1976)..............................................................21A.42 15A.173
Moondance, The, SMA 3967 (2007) ........7A.28, 21A.55 Nora, The, 1953 AMC 1629 (Arb. at N.Y. 1953) ...14A.6
Mopa Daniel, The, SMA 3209 (1995).....................56A.9 Nord Baltic, The, SMA 3687 (2001) ......60A.25, 60A.29
Mosdale, The, SMA 740 (1972) ............................16A.17 Nordic Patriot, The, SMA 1329 (1979) ...................59A.7
Mount Athos, The, SMA 493 (1970) .....11A.26, 11A.52 Norina, The, 1968 AMC 207 (Arb. at N.Y.
Mount Vernon Victory, The, SMA 1204 (1978).....61A.4 1967)..............................................................15A.49
Mount Vernon Victory, The, SMA 1879 (1983) 58A.19, Norse Falcon, The, SMA 2324 (1986) ................57A.55,
59A.20, 65A.1 68A.6, 68A.25
Mountain Blossom, The, SMA 3067 (1994) .......57A.49, Norse Falcon, The, SMA 2562 (1989) ..................60A.21
59A.15, 68A.24 Norse Venture, The, SMA 2330 (1986) ................68A.24
Mountain Lady, The, SMA 3704 (2001) .....5A.3, 5A.31, North Countess, The, SMA 907 (1975).................15A.44
16A.4, 57A.18, 58A.18, 60A.15, 84A.12 North Princess, The, 1960 AMC 1997 (Arb.
Mountain Lady, The, SMA 3821 (2004) ...............68A.13 at N.Y. 1960)...............................................15A.111
Muhammadi Steamship Co., Ltd. v. The People’s North Wave, The, SMA 2042 (1984) ....................15A.49
Democratic Republic of Yemen, SMA Nortween Vilja, The, SMA 3058 (1994) .................3A.12
1346 (1979) .................................................... 67A.1 Noto, The, SMA 1032 (1976) ...................4A.11, 19A.16
Multiflex Orion, The, SMA 3770 (2003) ..............15A.98 Nyhammer, The, SMA 2747 (1991) .......57A.61, 59A.16
Mundogas Rio, The, SMA 2723 (1990) ..............68A.23, O.M.I. Charger, The, SMA 2621 (1989) ...............58A.22
68A.27 Oceaan Klipper, The, SMA 3939 (2006) ......3A.9, 6A.4,
Munguia, The, SMA 2342 (1986) ............57A.9, 57A.64 21A.9, 21A.50
NCC Arar, The, SMA 3837 (2004) .........21A.93, 53A.3, Ocean Commander, The, SMA 2933 (1992).........21A.45
60A.2, 82A.1 Ocean Hauler, The, SMA 1721 (1982)..................11A.39
Nai Noemi, The, SMA 1449 (1980) ........................68A.4 Ocean Merchant, The, SMA 1905 (1983) ...............19A.6
Namik Kemal, The, SMA 1242 (1978) .................25A.12 Ocean Noble, The, SMA 2385 (1987).................21A.100
Namrun, The, SMA 4156 (2011)...........................15A.22 Ocean Prince, The, SMA 2517 (1988) ..................11A.42
Nani, The, SMA 3311 (1996) ................................16A.17 Ocean Princess, The, SMA 1180 (1977) ...............68A.25
Nasos S., The, SMA 3082 (1994)..........................21A.54 Ocean Ranger, The, and Other Ships, SMA 541
Nea Tyhi, The, SMA 2571 (1989)...........................5A.23 (1970) ..............................................................3A.38
Neapolis, The, SMA 2341 (1986)..........................72A.37 Ocean Venture, The, SMA 2355 (1987)..................54A.9
Nedi, The, SMA 1604 (1981) .......3A.24, 56A.5, 56A.10 Ocean Voyager, The, SMA 1304 (1979).................55A.7
Neda, The, SMA 1893 (1983) ...............................13A.22 Oceanid, The, SMA 2923 (1992)...............................8A.5
Neil Armstrong, The, SMA 759 (1973), 1973 Octonia Sun, The, 1988 AMC 832, SMA 2424
AMC 1060 ......................25A.11, 57A.13, 57A.20, (Arb. at N.Y. 1987) .........21A.92, 60A.15, 60A.21,
57A.50, 57A.64, 58A.10, 72A.18, 72A.33, 72A.46
58A.15 Ogden Charger, The, SMA 1504 (1980) .............53A.14,
Nemos, The, SMA 2356 (1987)...............................3A.44 57A.12, 58A.19, 65A.2, 79A.1, 80A.1
Neptune Corona, The, SMA 3407 (1995) .............57A.48 Okland, The, 1981 AMC 655, SMA 1483 (Arb.
Nereus Shipping S.A. and Island Creek Coal Sales at N.Y. 1980) ....................................72A.4, 72A.15
Co., In re Arbitration between, SMA 1763 Olga, The, SMA 3818 (2003) .......................4A.6, 11A.3
(1982) ...........15A.25, 15A.163, 15A.165, 15A.171 Olympic Sponsor, The, SMA 3711 (2001) .............2A.3,
Nestor, The, SMA 3541 (1999) ...........................15A.109 2A.32, 5A.35, 5A.39, 23A.1, 50.4, 59A.3
Nestor, The, SMA 3816 (2003) .............................15A.82 Olympos, The, SMA 169 (1967) .............................13A.8
New Endeavor, The, SMA 3721 (2002) ........2A.3, 7.71, Omnium Pride, The, SMA 1354 (1979) .16A.14, 16A.17
54A.11 Omnium Pride, The, SMA 1519 (1981) ..................14A.8
New Way, The, 1977 AMC 88, SMA 1043 Opal Sun, The, SMA 3664 (2001).........................84A.15
(1976) ...............................................21A.64, 81A.1 Orient Rose, The, SMA 2176 (1985) ..................15A.57,
New York, The, SMA 1551 (1981) .........................53A.4 15A.59, 15A.61
New York Getty, The, SMA 2210 (1986).............57A.47 Osman Mete, The, SMA 3823 (2004) ......7A.13, 16A.15
cxix
Ostertor, The, SMA 527 (1970) ..............15A.86, 15A.91 Prairie Grove, The, 1976 AMC 2589, SMA
Overseas Fruit, The, SMA 1076 (1976) ................17A.61 1020 (1976) .....................................................72A.5
Overseas Progress, The, SMA 1201 (1978) ............27A.2 President Cleveland, The, SMA 2986 (1992)........11A.43
Overseas Washington, The, SMA 1801 (1983).......72A.1 Pride, The, SMA 3691 (2001) .................................14A.9
Pacific Bangshen, The, SMA 4062 (2010) ..........15A.138 Primo, The, SMA 3335 (Arb. at N.Y. 1997)...........5A.34
Pacmerchant, The, SMA 2505 (1987) .....................13A.7 Prince of Tides, The, SMA 4146 (2011) .............11A.59,
Pacmerchant, The, SMA 2743 (1991) ...............15A.119, 72A.2, 81A.4
15A.120 Profitis Elias, The, SMA 3015 (1993) ....15A.56, 57A.15
Paikon, The, SMA 1523 (1980) .62A.2, 72A.19, 72A.32 Promar, The, SMA 4063 (2010) ...........................72A.17
Pal Eagle, The, SMA 3132 (1994) ...........5A.32, 16A.17 Prosperity, The, SMA 2880 (1992) .........................16A.4
Paloma Del Mar, The, SMA 1071 (1976) 21A.7, 21A.42 Proteus, The, SMA 3136 (1994) .................5A.24, 5A.34
Pam, The, SMA 1289 (1979) ..................68A.21, 68A.27 Providence, The, SMA 1641 (1982)......................17A.66
Panagiotis L., The, SMA 2618 (1989)...................15A.59 Rachel B, The, SMA 3889 (2005), SMA 3920
Panam Clipper, The, SMA 2214 (1986) ...58A.1, 58A.14 (2006), SMA 4150 (2011).............................56A.19
Panayia Moutsaina, SMA 1004 (1976)................15A.105 Raffaele Cafiero, The, SMA 2152 (1985) ...............72A.1
Pandora, The, SMA 1466 (1980)...........................17A.15 Raphael, The, SMA 3739 (2002) ............57A.4, 57A.57,
Paraskevi II, The, SMA 3752 (2002) ..................15A.148 58A.1, 58A.12, 58A.24, 69A.1
Paros, The, SMA 1025 (1976).... 21A.7, 21A.20, 21A.43 Redhead, The, SMA 4129 (Arb. at N.Y. 2011) .......8A.6
Paros, The, SMA 1669 (1982) ................15A.90, 15A.91 Regal Sword, The, SMA 1682 (1982) ....15A.70, 21A.80
Parskevi II, The, SMA 4034 (2009) .....................72A.22 Regent Ranger, The, SMA 1564 (1981) .5A.34, 15A.117
Partnership, The, SMA 2322 (1986)......................11A.64 Resolute, The, SMA 2465 (1988) ..........72A.11, 72A.35,
Pasithea, The, SMA 2434 (1987)...........................57A.57 72A.41, 72A.43
Passat, The, SMA 1131 (1977)............................15A.104 Retla SS. Co. and Canpotex Ltd., In re Arbitration
Patricia Star, The, SMA 1855 (1983) ..................15A.30, between, SMA 1115 (1977)..........................25A.10
15A.32, 15A.86 Rich Duke, The, SMA 3444 (1997) ....................21A.101
Peaceventure L., The /Prideventure L, The, Rio Sun, The, SMA 1546 (1981) .............56A.9, 57A.11
SMA 3137 (1994) ..........................15A.51, 57A.20 Rodina, The, SMA 1971 (1984) ............................21A.43
Pebble Beach, The, SMA 2464 (1988) .....15A.16, 23A.6 Rodosto, The, SMA 2222 (1986) ..........68A.27, 68A.28,
Pegny, The, SMA 1015 (1976) .................7A.34, 57A.36 72A.2
Penavel, The, SMA 2014 (1984) .........................15A.136 Rokos V, The, 1978 AMC 1358, SMA 1169
Penny Conway, The, SMA 2343 (1986) 72A.12, 72A.32 (1977) .................................................55A.6, 55A.7
Penteli, The, SMA 904 (1974).................................55A.8 Rokos V, The, SMA 1443 (1980)............................3A.25
Pericles, The, 1967 AMC 2762 (Arb. at N.Y. Rosario Del Mar, The, SMA 2965 (1993)...............61A.2
1967)................................................................14A.9 Rossi, The, SMA 3470 (1998) ....54A.3, 57A.68, 84A.13
Persepolis, The, SMA 2271 (1986) .......................55A.8, Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale (N.V.) and Dover
57A.55, 60A.15, 60A.30 SS. Co., In re Arbitration between, 1958
Perseus, The, SMA 2307 (1986) ............57A.58, 57A.69 AMC 1184 (Arb. at N.Y. 1958) .................15A.55,
Petros Hadjikyriakos, The, SMA 2002 (1984) ........59A.4 15A.100, 25A.10
Philippi, The, SMA 1367 (1979) ..............16A.4, 17A.66 Rova, The, SMA 3424 (1998) .................................3A.29
Philippine Jasmine, The, SMA 2458 (1988) 7A.6, 19A.4 Ruhr Ore, The, SMA 3504 (1999).........................84A.13
Phoenix Star, The M/T, SMA 2120 (1985) ...........6A.13, SK Shipping Co. Ltd. and Cofersa Commodities
60A.19, 68A.4, 68A.19 A.G. and Nova Coal A.G., In re Arbitration
Pisces, The, SMA 1529 (1981)..............................72A.17 between, SMA 3896 (2005) ..................7A.24, 7.72
Point Julie, The, SMA 1267 (1978) ........68A.5, 68A.21, Saima Dan, The, SMA 468 (1969) ........................15A.71
68A.24 Saint Vassilios, The M/V, SMA 3491 (1998) .........60A.9
Point Susan, The, SMA 1838 (1983) ..................15A.67, Salina, The, SMA 2433 (1987) ..............60A.17, 60A.18,
15A.89, 15A.92 60A.20
Polly, The, SMA 874 (1974) ..................17A.61, 17A.68 Sally D., The, SMA 2379 (1987)...........................15A.44
Polyfreedom, The, 1975 AMC 1826, SMA 926 Sally Stove, The, SMA 2320 (1986) ......17A.29, 21A.65
(1975) ...............................15A.40, 15A.43, 15A.44 Salvia Star, The, SMA 2046 (1984) ......................15A.78
Polyxene C., The, SMA 2349 (1987) ..................59A.14, San George, The, SMA 2564 (1989) .........................7A.1
60A.15, 60A.30 San Jacinto, The, SMA 1405 (1980) .....................72A.30
Pontiaki Doxa, The, SMA 3236 (1996).................16A.17 San Remo II, The, SMA 4037 (2009) ...................15A.69
Pontos Mariner, The, SMA 1692 (1982) ...............15A.73 Sandefjord, The, 1980 AMC 2157, SMA
Pooja, The, SMA 3798 (2003) ..............15A.45, 15A.103 1437 (1980) ........................................58A.6, 59A.9
Porsanger, The, SMA 2881 (1992)........................21A.86 Sanko Bay, The, SMA 1565 (1981) ........................54A.3
Poseidon, The, SMA 2198 (1986) ...........................7A.12 Sanko Prestige, The, SMA 1438 (1977)................57A.57
Poseidon Schiffahrt GmbH and Transocean Coal Sanko Steamship Co., Ltd. v. Sherwin Alumina,
Com pany, In re Arbitration between, SMA LP SMA 4135 (2011) ..................................14A.11
3742 (2002) .................................................15A.162 Santa Margherita, The, SMA 3796 (2003) ............72A.31
Posidon, The, SMA 3732 (2002) ...........12A.21, 21A.31, Santiago, The, SMA 2574 (1989)..........................57A.13
21A.58, 57A.14, 81A.2 Sarah, The, SMA 2671 (1990)...................................6A.7
cxx
Sava, The, SMA 2563 (1989) ..................................16A.2 Staland, The, SMA 1636 (1982) ............72A.35, 72A.38,
Sayany, The, SMA 3130 (1994) ............................16A.15 72A.40, 72A.43
Scandinavian OBO Carriers and AMCI Export Stella Azzurra, The, SMA 3330 (Arb. at N.Y.
Corporation, In re Arbitration between, 1996)..............................................................58A.20
SMA 3814 (2003) ....................................7.74, 7.75 Stellar Hope, The, SMA 3248 (1996)....................84A.15
Schleswig-Holstein, The, SMA 1288 (1978) ......57A.20, Stena Conquest, The, SMA 4075 (2010) ................72A.2
57A.26, 57A.28 Stephanie, The, SMA 2604 (1989) .............56A.9, 60A.2
Scorpius, The, SMA 3155 (1995) ..................3A.2, 7.68, Stilianos S., The, SMA 2056 (1985) .....................16A.16
56A.16, 84A.12 Stinice, The, SMA 4139 (2011) ..............................72A.2
Scottish Lion, The, SMA 2163 (1985) ...72A.37, 72A.42 Stolt Avance, The, SMA 3010 (1993) ...............15A.163,
Sea Challenger, The, SMA 1199 (1978) ...............17A.68 15A.166, 57A.42
Sea Jade, The, SMA 3346 (1997)..........................21A.49 Stolt Azalea, The, SMA 4102 (2010) ...................57A.45
Sea Light II, The, SMA 3899 (2005) ......................7A.21 Stolt Capricorn, The, SMA 2359 (1987) ...............60A.29
Sea Light II, The, SMA 3907 (2005) .....16A.16, 21A.44 Stolt Confidence, The, SMA 3884 (2005) 56A.5, 57A.16
Sea Royal, The, SMA 2279 (1986) ..........16A.17, 82A.1 Stolt Courier, The, SMA 2968 (1993) ...................15A.37
Sea Transporter, The, SMA 2566 (1989) ..............11A.55 Stolt Eagle, The, SMA 3065 (1993) ......................11A.73
Sea Wind, The, SMA 3560 (1999) ..........................14A.9 Stolt Hawk, The, SMA 1404 (1980)......................68A.28
Seadancer, The, SMA 4131 (2011) .....................21A.21, Stolt Magnolia/Stolt Suisen, The, SMA 3888
21A.22, 21A.23, 21A.24 (2005) ............................................................58A.23
Seaford, The, 1975 AMC 1553, SMA 951 Stolt Osprey, The, SMA 2591 (1989)....................60A.15
(1975) .............................................11A.11, 11A.59 Stolt Pride, The, SMA 3647 (2000).......................58A.20
Seaking, The, SMA 4104 (2010) ............................58A.4 Stolt Resolute, The, SMA 3482 (1998) .................72A.15
Sealnes, The, SMA 2055 (1985) ............15A.30, 15A.59 Stolt Sapphire, The SMA 3153 (1995) ....................7A.19
Senicoli Sierra, The, SMA 2966 (1993) ....................6A.8 Stolt Span, The, SMA 3288 ...................................57A.11
Serena, The, SMA 1159 (1977) .............................21A.80 Stolt Surf, The, SMA 2256 (1986) ............6A.16, 58A.1,
Shannon and EPAC-Empresa Publica, In re, 58A.14, 59A.13
SMA 1830 (1983) .........................................13A.18 Stolt Tankers Inc. and Wings Investment Ltd.,
Shetland Liberty, The, SMA 2787 (1991) .............59A.18 In re Arbitration between, SMA 3417
Shin Ming, The, SMA 1161 (1977).......................16A.17 (1998) ...............................................57A.19, 58A.9
Shoun Nectar, The, SMA 3133 (1994) ................11A.54, Stolt Tenacity/Forever Crane, The SMA 3079
15A.142, 57A.43, (1994) ...............................11A.40, 11A.67, 72A.15
57A.60 Strider Isis, The, and the Strider Juno, SMA
Siboto, The, SMA 1469 (1980) .............................59A.12 2296 (1993) ........................................1A.1, 13A.19
Sideri, The, SMA 1932 (1984) ................3A.19, 12A.38, Strimon, The, SMA 3807 (2003) .............................58A.2
17A.61, 25A.14 Strong Icelander, The, SMA 3353 (1997) ...........21A.102
Sideris, The, SMA 310 (1957).............................15A.100 Sugar Islander, The, SMA 2805 (1991) ................16A.16
Silksworth, The, SMA 398 (1969).............................8A.4 Sun Admiral, The, SMA 3831 (2004) ..........7A.27, 7.68,
Silver Constellation, The, SMA 977 (1975)............3A.28 17A.3
Silver Glory, The, SMA 2909 (1992) .......21A.53, 25A.2 Sun Rose, The M/T, SMA 3359 (1997) .60A.23, 60A.30
Singa Sailor, The, SMA 2902 (1992) ..................15A.129 Sun Sapphire, The, SMA 3539 (1999) ..................57A.16
Sissy, The, SMA 1085 (1977) ....................16A.3, 25A.3 Sunny Chemi, The, SMA 3712 (2001) ...11A.69, 72A.15
Sister Katingo, The, SMA 910 (1975)...................58A.13 Sunrise Delta, The, SMA 2633 (1990) ..................11A.55
Sitamarie, The, SMA 3828 (2004) .........57A.16, 84A.12 Sunroc Shipping Co. Inc. and People’s Republic
Sobral, The, SMA 3277 (1996) ..............60A.10, 60A.31 of Bangladesh, In re Arbitration between,
Solar, The, SMA 2522 (1988) ...................6A.13, 62A.2, SMA 1123 (1977) .........................................16A.15
68A.11, 68A.12 Supervision, The, SMA 2630 (1990).......................3A.33
Soldrott, The, SMA 3185 (1995) .............................3A.34 Swakop, The, SMA 4133 (2011) ...........................15A.25
Solomon, The, SMA 3106 (1994) ............5A.31, 21A.56 TMT Coal Co., Inc. and Normarine, Ltd., In
Solstad, The, SMA 1568 (1981) ..............................56A.7 re Arbitration between, SMA 3695 (2001) ....2A.23
Sonisbon, The, SMA 1997 (1984) .........................13A.22 Tai Cheung, The, SMA 2596 (1989) ...................57A.16,
Sonisbon, The, SMA 2185 (1986) ..............3A.18, 14A.7 57A.55, 79A.2
Sophia Transoceanic, The, SMA 1050 (1976) ......16A.17 Tai Ning, The, SMA 3568 (1999) ...........................14A.2
Sophie, The, SMA 852 (1974).............................15A.129 Tais C, The, SMA 4128 (2011) ............................11A.15
South Cross, The, SMA 2444 (1987) .......3A.31, 13A.22 Taipan, The, SMA 3761 (2002)...............................60A.8
Southern Progress, The, SMA 2559 (1989) ..........11A.16 Tariq, The, SMA 446 (1969) .................................25A.12
Speybridge, The, SMA 1536 (1981) .....57A.58, 58A.22, Tatry, The, SMA 2555 (1989) .................................56A.5
59A.2, 59A.18, 60A.30 Taxiarchis, The, SMA 2406 (1987) ............3A.21, 3A.22
Spray Cap, The, SMA 1706 (1982) .........................3A.32 Tbilisi, The, SMA 3935 (2006) ...............2A.27, 21A.25,
Spring Odessa, The, SMA 1642 (1982) ..............72A.15, 21A.31, 21A.40, 21A.66, 21A.83, 21A.86
72A.16, 72A.32 Team Augwi, The, SMA 1260 (1978).....................5A.17
St. Paul, The, SMA 697 (1972) .............................25A.11 Team Augwi and Fiona Jane, The, SMA 2378
St. Peter, The, SMA 1193 (1978) ..........................72A.21 (1987) ..............................................................53A.8
cxxi
Team Jupiter, The, SMA 4183 (2012) ..................56A.18 Vanni D, The, SMA 3903 (2005) ............21A.12, 54A.15
Teng Fei Hai, The, SMA 3726 (2002) ..................11A.70 Vantage Horizon, The, SMA 999 (1976) ............57A.33,
Tenhyaku, The, SMA 2919 (1992)..........................27A.5 57A.55, 57A.58, 57A.61,
Terrier, The, 1935 AMC 959 (Arb. at N.Y. 1935)..14A.2 57A.65, 58A.17
Texaco Wisconsin, The, SMA 1615 (1981) ..........58A.17 Varanger, The, SMA 2143 (1985) 55A.7, 57A.58, 58A.1
Texas City Refining, Inc. v. Burmah Oil Tanker Varanger, The, SMA 3542 (1999) .........................57A.39
Ltd., SMA 2501 (1988).................................72A.16 Vayu Doot, The, SMA 3250 (1996) ........................56A.5
Thekos, The, SMA 2405 (1987) ..............................5A.30 Vayudoot, The, SMA 3078 (1994) ........................58A.20
Theodohos, The, 1980 AMC 96, SMA 1372 Vega, The, SMA 1141 (1974) ...............................21A.80
(1979) ...............................................57A.39, 59A.9 Velma, The, SMA 958 (1975) .................................72A.1
Theofilos J. Vatis, The, SMA 2088 (1985) ...........15A.79 Velos, The, SMA 128 (1967).................................16A.15
Tirgu Mures, The, SMA 1427 (1980) .................15A.67, Venture, The, SMA 2681 (1990) ..............72A.2, 72A.13
15A.89, 15A.92 Venus V., The, SMA 2153 (1985) ..............4A.8, 56A.5,
Titika, The, SMA 1608 (1981) .....60A.2, 72A.1, 72A.21 56A.6
Tokyo Venture, The. See Hartlear, The, and the Viborg, The, SMA 1062 (1976) ............57A.36, 57A.58,
Tokyo Venture 57A.66, 62A.1
Tonci Topic, The, SMA 2627 (1990) ..................15A.109 Victory, The, SMA 1490 (1980)............................16A.17
Top Glory, The, SMA 3538 (1999) ..........3A.28, 15A.57 Vigo Steamship Corp. and Int’l Minerals and
Torvanger, The, SMA 2758 (1991) .........................60A.2 Chemical Corp., Arbitration between,
Trade Courier, The, SMA 2309 (1986) .................15A.71 SMA 705 (1972) ...............................................3A.5
Trade Endeavour, The, SMA 1648 (1982) ..........57A.28, Virginia Lilly, The, SMA 1613 (1981) ..57A.49, 59A.14
57A.64, 57A.67 Virginia Lily, The, SMA 1052 (1976).....................53A.9
Trade Justice, The, SMA 1325 (1979) ..................72A.1, Virginia M., The, SMA 1387 (1978)...................15A.136
72A.16, 72A.18 Vivita, The, SMA 1646 (1982) ..............57A.56, 57A.65,
Trade Ocean, The, SMA 1670 (1982) ...................13A.12 58A.7, 58A.14
Trade Resolve, The, SMA 3125 (1994) ...16A.17, 53A.7 Volere, The, SMA 1885 (1983) ...............................72A.1
Trans-Gulf, The, SMA 416 (1969) .........15A.130, 25A.3 Vorras, The, SMA 2207 (1986) ...............57A.55, 59A.7,
Trinity, The, SMA 1920 (1983).............................72A.18 68A.12
Trisun, The, SMA 2327 (1986) ..............53A.13, 72A.18 Wan Ling, The, SMA 2732 (1990) ........13A.71, 15A.93
Triumph, The, SMA 2508 (1988) ...........53A.13, 72A.49 Wapello, The, SMA 3615 (2000) ............72A.1, 72A.22,
Tropeoforos, The, SMA 3148 (1995) ..................11A.19, 72A.24
11A.26, 11A.47 Warda, The, SMA 3162 (1995) ...............3A.26, 57A.17,
Tropez Comfort, The, SMA 2616 (1989)................56A.5 84A.12
Trudy, The, SMA 3098 (1994) ..............................58A.18 Wearfield, The, SMA 238 (1968) ..........................16A.17
Tug Caribe, The, SMA 1573 (1981)......................11A.55 Westbulk, The, 1976 AMC 940, SMA 994
Tug Five Brothers, The, SMA 2484 (1988) ..........13A.50 (1975) ..........................................................15A.101
Tulip B., The, SMA 1495 (1980) ..........................56A.4, Westwood Annette, The, SMA 4189 (2012) ..........5A.61
62A.2, 62A.3 Wilmington, The, SMA 3489 (1998) ..................16A.15,
Turmoil, The, SMA 2842 (1992)...............................7A.7 16A.17, 72A.15
Tuxpan, The, SMA 2286 (1986) ..............3A.42, 15A.71 Wood Pioneer, The, SMA 3221 (Arb. at N.Y.
Tychos, The, SMA 1408 (1980) .............53A.12, 72A.31 1995) ........................................2A.6, 2A.23, 2A.24
Ugland OBO 5, The, SMA 2344 (1987) ...............57A.57 Woodlands, The, SMA 2886 (1992) 16A.17, 21A.58
Ultramar, The, SMA 1081 (1976) ...........................59A.7 World Dawn, The, SMA 2565 (1989) .....................53A.8
Ultramar, The, SMA 1555 (1981) .........................21A.80 World Dawn, The, SMA 2653 (1990) ...................58A.22
Ultramar, The, SMA 2634 (1990) ........11A.72, 15A.102 World Explorer, The, SMA 991 (1975) ..................20A.1
Ultramax, The, SMA 3518 (1999).......................15A.101 World Texas, The, SMA 2637 (1990) ...................58A.19
Ultrasea, The, SMA 3151 (1995) ...............6A.1, 16A.17 Wu Chang Hu, The, SMA 2450 (1988) 58A.19, 58A.22
Ulysses, The, SMA 1751 (1982) .............................7A.11 Yorkgate, The, SMA 3273 (1996) .............................1A.1
United Gas Carriers B.V. and Hidragas de Centro Ypapadi, The, SMA 3102 (1994) ........................15A.157
America, In re Arbitration between, Zakynthos, The, SMA 2396 (1987) ...................15A.147,
SMA 2047 (1984) ...........................................60A.5 68A.27, 72A.4
Unity, The, 1967 AMC 798, SMA 214 (1967) .15A.159, Zakythos, The, SMA 70 (1965) .............................17A.66
16A.7, 16A.13, 16A.15 Zamora, The, SMA 2585 (1989) .............55A.4, 57A.20,
Universal Frontier, The, SMA 2499 (1988) ............53A.8 67A.1
Uranus, The, 1977 AMC 586, SMA 1117 (1977).72A.12 Zante, The, SMA 2258 (1986)...............................58A.19
Vallathol, The, SMA 1457 (1980) ..........57A.34, 58A.21 Zea Silver, The, SMA 1740 (1982) .........................23A.6
Vallescura, The, ....................................................72A.23 Zeus, The, SMA 3110 (1994) ...................13A.22, 53A.8
Van Ommeren (P.H.S.) (France) and N.V. Stoomvaart Zeynap K., The, SMA 3360 (1997).........................2A.23
Maatschappij; “De Maas” (as Owners) and Zinnia, The, SMA 821 (1974) ...................................3A.8
Universal Shipping Corporation (as Charterers),
Arbitration between, 1969 AMC 2199 (Arb.
at N.Y. 1965)...................................................14A.9
cxxii
Table of Legislation
All references are to paragraph number. References in bold indicate where the text of the legislation
is set out in full.
Australia art. 13 .....................................................................1.29

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991...........................85.6 art. 18 .....................................................................1.50
Part 2.....................................................................85.39 art. 19 .....................................................................1.40
Sched. 1 ................................................................85.39 (3) ......................................................................1.43
Sched. 1A..............................................................85.36 art. 21 .....................................................................1.48
Navigation (Loading and Unloading) Regulations...14.47
Sea Carriage of Goods Act 1905 ..................10.21, 12.39 New Zealand
Sea Carriage of Goods Act 1924 ............................85.369 Maritime Transport Act 1994 .....................................85.6
Canada Philippines
Marine Liabilities Act 2001 Tariff Act 1909.........................................................14A.6
Chapter VI .........................................................11A.65
Water Carriage of Goods Act 1936 .........11A.65, 85.505 United Kingdom
Water Carriage of Goods Act 1993 ............................85.6 Arbitration Act 1950
s. 27.......................................................................85.24
European Union Arbitration Act 1996 .......................................13.64, 82.2
Council Directive 86/653 ............................................23.7 Part III.....................................................................82.7
Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 .............85.27, 85.187, s. 9 ................................................................72.2, 82.2
85.189, 85.188, 85.405 s. 12 ...............................................16.21, 72.2, 85.197
art. 23 ......................................................85.27, 85.189 s. 38(4) ................................................................85.170
(1)(c)...............................................................85.189 s. 40.....................................................................85.387
art. 71 ....................................................................85.27 s. 44.........................................................................2.47
Council Regulation (EC) 593/2008 (Rome II s. 48(4) ..................................................................13.53
Regulation) ..........1.27, 1.33, 1.36, 1.39, 1.49, 20.2 s. 49.......................................................................21.36
Preamble s. 51.........................................................................81.3
(11) ....................................................................1.28 s. 60.........................................................................81.5
(13) ....................................................................1.29 ss. 61, 63 .................................................................81.4
art. 1 s. 66.........................................................................82.7
(1) ......................................................................1.27 s. 67.........................................................................82.1
(2) s. 68.....................................................................85.387
......................................................................(e) 1.27 s. 73.........................................................................82.1
.............................................................(g) 1.39, 1.42 Bills of Lading Act 1855 .............................13.36, 18.79,
art. 3......................................................1.29, 1.40, 1.50 18.80, 18.84, 18.94, 18.97,
(1) ..............................................................1.28, 1.38 18.100, 18.105, 85.147,
(2) ......................................................................1.32 85.352, 85.467
(5) ......................................................................1.30 s. 3 ............................................................10.14, 18.37
art.4 ........................................................................1.45 Carriage by Air Act 1961 .......................................85.424
(1) ......................................................................1.32 s. 25 ......................................................85.421, 85.422
(2) ......................................................................1.32 s. 26(2) ................................................................85.426
(4) ......................................................................1.32 Sched...................................................................85.426
art. 5 ............................................1.32, 1.40–1.41, 1.46 Carriage by Air and Road Act 1979.......................85.426
(1) ......................................................................1.43 s. 22(A)(2) ..........................................................85.383
(3) ....................................................1.41, 1.45, 1.46 Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965
art. 9 .......................................................................1.29 Sched.
arts 10–13 ..............................................................1.48 arts. 23–25 .............85.383, 85.395, 85.398, 85.426
art. 10 ...................................................1.29, 1.42, 1.47 art. 23 ..................................85.385, 85.386, 85.398
art. 11 ............................................................1.29, 1.47 art. 29..............................................................85.422
art. 12 .....................................................................1.47 art. 41..............................................................85.236
cxxiii
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924 .....................85.147, Civil Procedure Rules 1998 18.159, 85.387
85.238, 85.284, 85.369, 85.71, 85.506, A3.1 Part 2 rr. 2.8–2.10...............................................85.202
s. 3 ..............................................................72.3, 85.70 Part 7
s. 4 ..........................................................85.66, 85.495 r. 7.04 .............................................................85.387
s. 5.......................................................................85.141 r. 24 ..................................................................13.64
Sched. .....................................................85.55, 85.504 r. 25 ......................................................10.19, 17.28
art. III r. 2.......................................................85.124 (1) ...................................................................85.170
art. IV r. 2.......................................................85.124 (m) ....................................................................17.30
art. IX .............................................................85.369 Coinage Act 1971 ...................................................85.370
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971 .............12.32, 85.4, Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations
85.21, 85.47, 85.49, 85.55, 85.284, 1993 (S.I. 1993/3053) ........................................23.7
85.382, 85.463, 85.495, A1.1 Consumer Credit Act 1974 .......................................21.46
s.1..........................................................................85.24 Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 ....1.27, 1.31, 1.48
(2) .....................................................................85.24 s. 3...........................................................................1.27
(3) .....................85.24, 85.33, 85.37, 85.50, 85.514 Sched. art. 4.1 .........................................................20.2
(4) ............................................85.37, 85.40, 85.133 Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990
(6) ......................85.24, 85.38, 85.39, 85.43, 85.45, (Commencement No. 2) Order 2004 (S.I.
85.46, 85.76, 85.467, 85.514 2004/3448) .........................................................1.27
(a) .................................................................85.41 Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 ..........2.24,
(b) .................................................................85.44 2.38, 13.46, 18.117, 18.126, 18.137,
(7) ..............................................85.45, 85.70, 85.76 18.138–18.141, 18.173, 23.13, 24.2–24.10, 24.12,
s.2..........................................................................85.34 24.14, 24.19, 83.2, 85.225, 85.465, 85.472, A1.6
s.3 ..............................................................85.70, 85.97 s. 1 ....................................24.6, 85.63, 85.225, 85.465
s.6 (1) .........................................................18.138, 24.4
(4) ...................................................................85.502 (b) ...................................................................24.4
(6) ...................................................................85.414 (2) .......................................18.138, 24.4, 24.5, 24.8
Sched...................................................................85.382 (3) .........................................................18.138, 24.4
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 ...........10.14, 13.36, (4) .......................................................................24.6
18.79, 18.80, 18.81–18.109, 18.113, 18.134, (5) ...................................................................18.139
18.140, 18.143, 18.145, 85.36, 85.64, (6) ...................................................................18.138
85.159, 85.352, 85.465, 85.467, A1.3 s. 2 ............................................................24.13, 24.21
s. 1 (1)(a)–(c) .....................................24.5, 24.16, 24.17
(2) ..........................................................18.81, 18.82 (3) .....................................................................24.18
(3) .......................................................18.81, 18.106 s. 3...........................................................................24.7
(4) ...................................................................18.106 s. 6
(5) .....................................................................18.81 (5) ...........................18.140, 85.63, 85.225, 85.465,
s. 2.........................................................................18.98 85.468, 85.472
(1) ...............................13.36, 18.83, 18.105, 85.189 (6) .......................................................85.63, 85.225
(a) .................................................................18.83 s. 7(1) ..................................................................85.225
(2) .....................................................................18.97 s. 8 ............................................................18.140, 24.6
(4) .....................18.91, 18.96, 18.98, 21.46, 21.126 (1) ..............................................................2.38, 24.6
(5) .........................................................18.88, 18.90 s. 10(2), (3) .............................................................24.3
(a) .................................................................18.83 Employment Act 1980
s. 3 .....................13.37, 18.99, 18.101, 18.102, 18.210 s. 17.....................................................................85.328
(1) ...................................................................18.105 Employment Act 1990
(a), (b).........................................................18.101 s. 4.......................................................................85.328
(c) .................................................18.101, 18.105 Factories Act 1961 ....................................................14.47
(3) .......................................................13.36, 18.105 Factors Act 1889
s. 4 .....................................10.14, 18.11, 18.25, 18.26, s. 1(4) ..................................................................18.145
18.30–18.32, 18.38, 18.174, 85.154 Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1986 (S.I.
s. 5 ........................................................................18.98 1986/1305)
(1) .....................................................................18.83 art. 4 ......................................................................85.76
(a) .................................................................18.99 Sched. 2 ................................................................85.77
(2) .....................................................................18.85 Insolvency Act 1986
(c) .................................................................18.85 ss. 212, 213 .............................................................2.47
(3) ...................................................................18.106 Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest)
(4) .....................................................................18.94 Act 1998 ...........................................................21.36
s. 6(2) ....................................................................18.79 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act
Carriage of Goods by Sea (Parties to Convention) 1945 ..............................5.100, 14.40, 21.62–21.65,
Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/443)...............................A1.2 21.69–21.70, 21.72, 21.74–21.77, 85.463
Carriers Act 1830 ....................................................85.373 s. 1...........................................................................1.83
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982............85.187 (1) ............................................21.62, 21.63, 85.462
cxxiv
(a) 21.64, 21.70, 21.76 Rules of the Supreme Court

(b) .................................................................21.75 Ord. 3, r. 2(2)......................................................85.202
(2) .........................................................21.74, 21.75 Ord. 17 ................................................................18.159
(5) .....................................................................21.76 Sale of Goods Act 1979............................................13.85
s. 4 ............................................................21.62, 21.63 s. 20
Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act A ...........................................................10.11, 18.95
1943..................................................................22.35 B .......................................................................18.95
Limitation Act 1980 ....................................18.244, 20.53 ss. 44, 45 .............................................................18.157
Marine Insurance Act 1906 ........................26.14, 85.334 ss. 46, 47, 48(1) ..................................................18.159
ss. 45–48 .............................................................85.207 s. 50(3) ...............................................................85.393
s. 46(1) ..................................................................12.39 s. 61
s. 49(2) ..................................................................12.15 (1) ...................................................................18.145
s. 55(2) ................................................................85.333 (4) ...................................................................18.157
s. 66 ............................................................20.1, 20.16 Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1995 .........10.11, A1.5
(1) ...........................................................20.9, 20.26 Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993
(2) ...........................................................20.9, 20.21 Part XV .................................................85.284, 85.349
Sched. 1 ..............................................................85.285 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
r. 7 ..................................................................85.288 s. 15.......................................................................13.17
r. 8 ....................................................................26.13 Senior Courts Act 1981 ................................81.4, 85.387
r. 10 ................................................................85.307 s. 21.........................................................................2.40
Maritime Conventions Act 1911 s. 35A....................................................................21.36
s. 1...........................................................................75.2 s. 37.........................................................................2.46
Merchant Shipping Act 1894 ..........16.7, 85.349, 85.502 s. 51.........................................................................81.3
Part VIII..............................................................85.503 Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977
s. 502 .....................11.17, 11.55, 11.56, 11.58, 85.284 s. 8 ......................................................................18.124
s. 503 .............................................11.55, 11.56, 11.58 s. 11.......................................................................21.62
Merchant Shipping Act 1979 ......................11.55, 85.503 s. 12 ..........................................................10.19, 17.28
s. 17.........................................................................1.50 s. 13.......................................................................10.19
Sched. 3 ..............................................................85.421 Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974
Merchant Shipping Act 1981..................................85.414 ss. 13, 29 .............................................................85.328
s. 2(3) ..................................................................85.382 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 ......................11.55, 21.75, s. 3.........................................................................11.79
85.502, 85.511
Part VII .................................................................12.28 United States
s. 185 .......................................1.50, 20.41, 76.1, A1.4 Act Relating to Bills of Lading in Interstate and Foreign
s. 186 ..........................20.41, 76.1, 76.2, 85.284, A1.4 Commerce 1916 (Pomerene Bills of Lading Act)
s. 187.......................................................................75.2 85A.18, 85A.19
Sched. 7 ..........................................1.50, 85.367, A1.4 Carriage of Goods By Sea Act 1936 (COGSA)
art. 4................................................................85.421 (46 U.S.C. §§1301–1315) ...................1A.1, 10A.1,
art. 11..................................................................73.4 11A.1, 11A.8–11A.24 , 11A.27,
art. 12..............................................................85.414 11A.28, 11A.35, 11A.53, 11A.54,
art. 13, para. 45 ..............................................85.414 11A.58, 11A.59, 11A.60, 11A.63,
Merchant Shipping Acts ...........................................11.61 11A.64, 11A.67, 12A.18, 12A.19–12A.21,
Merchant Shipping (I.S.M. Code) Regulations 12A.28, 12A.31, 12A.42, 12A.43,
1998 (S.I. 1998/1561) ..........................11.42, 85.95 12A.49, 12A.50, 12A.51, 12A.52, 12A.54,
Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners 12A.55, 12A.57, 12A.59, 13A.27, 13A.35,
and Others) Act 1958.......................................11.61 13A.47, 18.228, 20A.22, 58A.17, 68A.28,
Misrepresentation Act 1967 ...................1.81, 1.85, 3.39, 68A.30, 68A.31, 71.2, 72.2, 72.3, 72A.2,
11.79, 18.14, 82.1 72A.6, 72A.7, 72A.8, 72A.9, 72A.11,
s. 2 72A.13, 72A.14, 72A.17, 72A.28, 72A.29,
(1) .......................................................................1.83 72A.41, 85.5, 85.10, 85.13, 85.20, 85.50,
(2) .......................................................................1.84 85.73, 85.114, 85.369, 85.505,
s. 3.........................................................................18.26 85A.1–85A.66, A2.2
Nuclear Installations Act 1965 ...............................85.508 Title I ..................................................................85A.1
ss. 7–11 .................................................85.510, 85.511 §1301 ...................................................................85A.1
s. 7.......................................................................85.509 (a) ...................................................................85A.6
s. 11.....................................................................85.509 (c) .................................................................85A.13
ss. 13(2), 14 ........................................................85.510 §1302 ....................................................................85.13
s. 21(3) ................................................................85.509 §1303
Partnership Act 1890 (2) .....................................11A.27, 68A.29, 85.114,
s. 5.........................................................................11.54 85.322, 85A.14–85A.15
Public Order Act 1986 ............................................85.329 (3) .................................................................85A.25
cxxv
(a) .............................................................85A.18 Supplemental rule C ............................................17A.3

(b) .............................................................85A.18 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(c) .................................85A.16–85A.17, 85A.18 §1321 ...................................................................84A.3
(4) .....................................85A.18–85A.19, 85A.62 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (28 U.S.C.
(5) .................................................................85A.62 §§1602–1611)................................................53A.12
(6) ...............................72.2, 72A.3, 72A.5, 72A.10, Harter Act 1893 (46 U.S.C. §§190–196) ..10A.1, 10A.2,
85A.20–85A.24 10A.3, 11A.1, 11.103, 11A.18, 11A.19,
(7) .................................................................85A.25 11A.21, 11A.22, 11A.54, 68A.30,
(8) .......................................68A.28, 72A.28, 85A.1 73.3, 85.89, 85.223, 85.234, 85.236,
§1304 ......................................................85.13, 85A.14 85.264, 85A.3, 85A.63, A2.1
(1) ....................................................................76A.2 §190 ........................................................10A.1, 11A.1
(2) .......................................................85.13, 85A.15 §196 ......................................................................85.70
(a)–(q) .............................72A.20. 72A.22, 76A.2 Interstate Commerce Act 1887 .............................85A.61
(a)...................................11A.24, 85A.26–75A.27 Limitation of Shipowners’ Liability Act 1851
(b) .............................6A.24, 58.4, 76A.4, 85A.15 (46 U.S. §§181 et seq.) ...............................12A.50,
(c) ................................................85A.28–85A.29 76A.1, 76A.4, 84A.4
(i) ................................................................85.114 §§181–189 ...........................................................76A.1
(j) ..............................................................85A.30 §182 (“Fire Statute”) ............................12A.45, 76A.4
(m) .............................................................72A.25 §183(a) .................................................................76A.1
(q) ...............................................85A.15, 85A.31 Oil Pollution Act 1990 (P.L. 101–380) ................84A.1,
(4) ........................12A.3, 12A.10, 12A.11, 12A.15, 84A.684A.6, 84A.7A.7,
12A.20, 12A.30, 12A.51, 55A.1, 84A.10A.10, 84A.11, 84A.13A.13
85A.32–85A.33 s. 1016(a) .............................................................84A.6
(5) .............12A.49, 76A.2, 85A.2, 85A.34–85A.55 Pomerene Bills of Lading Act 1916 .......85A.18, 85A.10
(6) ...............6A.19, 6A.24, 6A.28, 85A.56–85A.58 Public Law 480 (P.L. 480).........................................6A.1
§1305 ....................................................68A.30, 72A.2 s. 17.14(K)(7).........................................................6A.1
§1307 ................................................................85A.59 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
§1308 ................................................................85A.60 Act (RICO) (18 U.S.C. §§1961–1968) .......72A.44,
(e).....................................................................10A.1 72A.49
Title II ...............................................................85A.61 Restatement (Second) Agency .................................23A.1
§1309 .................................................................85A.61 §§391–392 ...........................................................23A.6
§1310 ...................................................72A.15, 85A.61 Restatement (Second) Contracts
§1311 ................................................................85A.62 §§250–257 ..............................................7A.3, 21A.76
§1312 ........................................................72.3, 85A.63 §250, comment b ...................................................7A.4
§1313 ................................................................85A.64 §251 ........................................................7A.3, 21A.80
§1314 ..................................................85A.65, 85A.66 §252 ....................................................21A.77, 21A.80
§1315 ................................................................85A.66 §254 ....................................................21A.36, 21A.82
§1316 ................................................................85A.66 §257 ...................................................................21A.78
Comprehensive Environmental Response §§351, 352 .........................................................21A.51
Compensation and Liability Act 1980 §356 ...................................................................21A.87
(CERCLA) (42 U.S.C §§9601 et seq.) ...........2A.26 §357 ...................................................................21A.97
s. 108(a) ...............................................................84A.6 Restatement (Second) Torts .....................................23A.1
Federal Arbitration Act ...........................72A.46, 72A.47 United States Coast Guard Regulations (33 C.F.R.)
Federal Maritime Lien Act (46 U.S.C. §§31301 Part 138................................................................84A.6
et seq.) ...........................................................17A.41 United States Code
§31301(5), (6) ....................................................17A.45 33 U.S.C. §1321 ..................................................84A.3
§§31321–31330 .................................................17A.45 46 U.S.C. 190 ......................................................10A.1
§31341, 31342 ...................................................17A.41 46 U.S.C. §953 ..................................................17A.45
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 46 U.S.C. 1308(e)................................................10A.1
r. 13(b) ...............................................................17A.14
cxxvi
Table of Conventions and Rules
All references are to paragraph number. References in bold indicate where a particular article or rule is discussed
in detail or where the text of a Convention is set out in full.
Baltic Code 2007 ..........................................15.19, 15.65 art. III .......................11.4, 85.2, 85.56, 85.92–85.251,
Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the 85.356, 85.444
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and r. 1...............................6.62, 11.9, 20.42, 52.4, 52.6,
Commercial Matters 1968................................85.27 52.7, 85.16, 85.93–85.109, 85.113, 85.120,
Brussels Protocol 1968 to the Hague Rules ..72.3, 85.23, 85.121, 85.122, 85.178, 85.200, 85.224,
85.34, 85.35 85.225, 85.252, 85.253, 85.254, 85.255, 85.282,
See also Hague-Visby Rules 1968 85.283, 85.321, 85.322, 85.341, 85.346,
Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage Convention 85.347, 85.368, 85.456–85.463
(CLC) 1969 .....................51.4, 84.2, 84A.3, 84A.5, (a)–(c) ............................................................85.95
Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage Convention (b) .................................................................85.265
(CLC) 1992 Protocol ......51.7, 84.2, 84A.3, 84A.5, r. 2 ...........................6.25, 6.62, 11.9, 11.43, 14.39,
CLC. See Civil Liability for Oil Pollution 52.8, 52.24, 68.10, 85.76, 85.85,
Damage Convention 85.94, 85.106, 85.110–85.131, 85.200,
CMR Convention on the Contract for the International 85.204, 85.224, 85.225, 85.253, 85.261,
Carriage of Goods by Road 1956— 85.277, 85.322, 85.341, 85.349,
art. 23 .......................................85.385, 85.386, 85.398 85.456, 85.459–492.463, 85A.14
arts. 23–25 ..................85.383, 85.395, 85.398, 85.426 r. 3.................18.22, 18.180, 85.98, 85.132–85.145,
art. 29 ..................................................................85.422 85.147, 85.152, 85.154, 85.163, 85.216,
art. 41 ..................................................................85.236 85.217, 85.219, 85.338, 85.408, 85.426
CRISTAL (Supplement to TOVALOP) ...........51.4, 51.6 (a) .................................................................85.134
Establishment of an International Fund for r. 4 ...........................18.11, 85.137, 85.146–85.156,
Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 85.352, 85A.22
Convention 1971. See Fund Convention 1971 r. 5 ...........................18.220, 18.233, 85.18, 85.138,
Fund Convention 1971 .....................................51.4, 84.2 85.150, 85.157–85.164, 85.352, 85.377
Fund Convention 1992 .....................................51.7, 84.2 r. 6 .............................6.31, 10.24, 76.1, 85.5, 85.7,
Supplementary Protocol 2005 ......................51.7, 84.2 85.13, 85.16, 85.23, 85.28, 85.89, 85.91,
Hague Rules 1924 ..................1.2, 1.8, 1.37, 1.38, 1.113, 85.101, 85.115, 85.165–85.207, 85.210,
1.127, 6.25, 6.31, 9.8, 10.13, 10.23, 11.1, 85.243, 85.244, 85.249, 85.399,
11.3, 11.4, 11.9, 11.14, 11.27, 11.52, 85.401, 85.460, 85A.20
11.60, 11.76, 11A.18, 12.32, 12.45, r. 7 ............85.134, 85.135, 85.215–85.221, 85A.25
13.66, 14.24, 18.36, 18.82, 18.112, r. 8 .........................11.4, 12.32, 14.44, 18.26, 68.4,
18.134, 18.143, 18.166, 18.180, 69.3, 69.4, 85.2, 85.14, 85.25, 85.61,
18.184, 18.202, 18.205, 18.228, 18.233, 85.85, 85.90, 85.112, 85.175, 85.176,
20A.22, 21.82, 37.5, 37.7, 52.8, 68.3, 85.177, 85.179, 85.191, 85.207,
68.6, 69.4, 71.2, 71.4, 72.1, 72.2, 72.3, 85.222–85.251, 85.356, 85.371, 85.375,
73.2, 76A.2, Section IV, A3.1 85.376, 85.409, 85.420, 85.468, 85.471,
arts. I–VIII ....................................85.2, 85.371, 85A.1 85.480, 85.484, 85.485, 85.488, 85A.1
art. I ............71.4, 85.50, 85.57–85.84, 85.246, 85.468 art. IV 11.69, .......................76.1, 85.56, 85.83, 85.93,
(a) ....................................1.42, 85.59–85.63, 85A.6 85.110, 85.113, 85.114, 85.115,
(b) ......................18.82, 85.10, 85.36, 85.42, 85.43, 85.121, 85.177, 85.252–85.463, 85A.14
85.64–85.69, 85.72, 85.134, r. 1 ................4.15, 52.5, 52.6, 69.3, 85.13, 85.109,
85.224, 85.482, 85.488 85.113, 85.121, 85.176, 85.252–85.258,
(c) ..........................6.37, 6.38, 85.70–85.76, 85.232 85.260, 85.346, 85.426
(d) ................................................85.7985.79–85.79 r. 2 .........................4.15, 11.77, 12.32, 26.26, 69.3,
(e) ..................................85.22, 85.68, 85.72, 85.79, 85.13, 85.71, 85.94, 85.109, 85.120,
85.7985.79–85.84, 85.84, 85.89, 85.115, 85.122, 85.124, 85.131, 85.176,
85.126, 85.134, 85.169, 85.199, 85.498 85.207, 85.233, 85.243, 85.253,
art. II .......................85.13, 85.62, 85.79, 85.84–85.91, 85.255, 85.258, 85.259–85.350,
85.111, 85.115, 85.246, 85.468, 85.488 85.460
cxxvii
TABLE OF CONVENTIONS AND CASES
(a) ...................68.10, 69.4, 85.17, 85.106, 85.108, 85A.35, 85A.42, 85A.52, 85A.53,
85.120, 85.131, 85.258, 85.261, 85.263–85.280, 85A.55, 85A.59 A1.1
85.286, 85.291, 85.294, 85.298, 85.325, art. I(a) ................................................................85A.6
85.332, 85.350, 85.360, 85.362, 85A.26 art. III
(b) ...........................58.4, 85.131, 85.255, 85.261, r. 4 ......13.10, 18.25, 18.37, 85.153–85.156, 85.338
85.281–85.284, 85.433, 85.445 r. 6 .....................6.31, 85.23, 85.24, 85.71, 85.119,
(c) .............85.79, 85.268, 85.285–85.297, 85A.28 18.181, 85.200, 85.203–85.207, 85.210,
(d) ...................................................85.298–85.300 85.401, 85.426, 85.484
(e) ...................................................85.301–85.304 r. 6bis .....................85.187, 85.203, 85.208–85.214
(f) ....................................................85.305–85.306 r. 7 ..................................................................85.221
(g) .........................85.302, 85.306, 85.307–85.316 r. 8 ....................................................................18.77
(h) .......................................................67.1, 85.317 art. IV
(i) ............................11.64, 14.26, 85.120, 85.160, r. 5 .....................6.31, 21.124, 85.23, 85.26, 85.40,
85.318–85.322, 85.344 85.71, 85.119, 85.205, 85.227, 85.237,
(j) .............................25.4, 85.323–85.328, 85A.30 85.248, 85.365, 85.369, 85.381–85.429,
(k) .........................85.303, 85.304, 85.329–85.331 85.438, 85.477, 85A.2
(l) ................69.4, 85.294, 85.302, 85.332, 85.358 (a) ........................85.381, 85.385, 85.390, 85.401,
(m) ........................85.302, 85.318, 85.333–85.336 85.407, 85.408, 85.415, 85.416,
(n) .............................6.7, 85.233, 85.318, 85.333, 85.420, 85.426, 85A.
85.337–85.341 (b) ......................................85.383, 85.385, 85.394
(o) .....................................85.160, 85.233, 85.318, (c) .........................85.237, 85.408, 85A.2, 85A.54
85.337, 85.342–85.344 (d) ...................................................85.412–85.414
(p) ..............69.4, 85.336, 85.338, 85.345–85.347, (e) ........................85.205, 85.421, 85.422, 85.426,
85A.31 85.428, 85.465, 85.474
(q) 57.18, 85.120, 85.131, 85.283, (f) .........................85.381, 85.417, 85.419, 85.481
85.284, 85.291, 85.297, 85.302, 85.337, (g) ...................................................85.381, 85.419
85.341, 85.348–85.350, 85.390, 85.433 (h) .....................................85.381, 85.401, 85.418,
r. 3 .....................11.64, 11.65, 16.2, 85.18, 85.158, 85.426, 85.427, 85.428, 85.449
85.223, 85.351–85.356, 85.443, 85.484 art. IVbis .......................11.30, 11.43, 18.117, 18.137,
(c) ...............................................................85A.16 85.23, 85.63, 85.69, 85.175, 85.224,
r. 4 ...........................12.26, 85.175, 85.207, 85.332, 85.265, 85.426, 85.464–85.478
85.357–85.364, 85.426, 85.32 r. 1 ..........................85.207, 85.465, 85.466, 85.471
r. 5 ...........................1.50, 6.31, 12.32, 12.45, 72.3, r. 2 ..........................85.465, 85.470–85.471, 85.478
85.2, 85.23, 85.119, 85.139, 85.158, 85.174, r. 3 .......................................85.465, 85.477, 85.478
85.175, 85.236, 85.237, 85.364, 85.365–85.429, r. 4 .............85.421, 85.429, 85.465, 85.474, 85.477
85.481, 85.501, 85.504–85.506, 85A.34, art. IX ..............................76.1, 85.507–85.512, 85A.2
85A.35, 85A.36 art. X ...............................18.176, 85.32, 85.33, 85.36,
r. 6 .........................6.46, 6.52, 6.62, 18.100, 85.94, 85.37, 85.38, 85.42, 85.46, 85.54, 85.223,
85.100, 85.158, 85.223, 85.255, 85.354, 85.467, 85.513–85.514, 85A.2
85.430–85.463, 85A.56 (c) ...................................85.36, 85.38, 85.39, 85.43
art. V ..................85.10, 85.44, 85.67, 85.176, 85.244, arts. XI–XVI 85A.2
85.356, 85.479–85.485 Hamburg Rules............................................................85.6
art. VI ..............85.66, 85.484, 85.486–85.496, 85.512 International Convention on Civil Liability for
art. VII ......................................85.81, 85.240, 85.245, Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001
85.426, 85.497–85.499, 85A.59 Art. 7 ...................................................................84A.6
art. VIII ...........85.26, 85.227, 85.500–85.502, 85A.60 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil
art. IX .................12.32, 85.2, 85.371, 85.503–85.506, Pollution Damage, 1992
85A.2 Art. 7 ...................................................................84A.6
(2) .................................................................85A.35 International Safety Management Code 2010 ........11.26,
art. X. See under Hague-Visby Rules 1968 11.42, 11.57, 11.60, 11.62, 85.95
Brussels Protocol 1968 ........72.3, 85.23, 85.34, 85.35 Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims
See also Hague-Visby Rules 1968 Convention 1976 ..................1.50, 76.1, 76.2, 76.3,
SDR Protocol 1979.................................................72.3 76A.1, 85.511, A1.5
Hague-Visby Rules 1968 ..............1.50, 6.25, 6.31, 6.38, Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Sea-going
11A.18, 12.32, 18.117, 18.176, 18.228, Ships Convention 1957 .........................1.50, 76A.1
20.41, 20.59, 21.110, 72.3, 76A.3, 85.1, Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the
85.3, 85.4, 85.6, 85.21, 85.23–85.54, 85.55, Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
85.58, 85.66, 85.69, 85.76, 85.136, 85.145, Commercial Matters 1988................................85.27
85.176, 85.180, 18.181, 85.185, 85.191, 85.200, MARPOL 73/78 .............................57A.68, 84.1, 84A.13
85.207, 85.221, 85.227, 85.228, 85.237, 85.241, New York Convention on the Recognition and
85.269, 85.366, 85.373, 85.374, 85.378, 85.394, Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
85.398, 85.464–85.478, 85.514, 85A.1–85A.66, 1958 ..................................................18.141, 85.187
cxxviii
TABLE OF CONVENTIONS AND CASES
arts II, II(3) ........................................................72A.12 York-Antwerp Rules 1950.................................74.3, 74.8

Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Rule of Interpretation ..............................20A.10–20A.12
Contractual Obligations 1980 ........1.27–1.50, A1.6 r. A .....................................................................20A.11
art. 3 ........................................................................1.39 rr. X(b), XI(b) ....................................................20A.11
art. 3.1 ...........................................................1.36, 1.38 r. XXII ....................................................................74.8
art. 4 .......................................................................1.39 York-Antwerp Rules 1974 .............................20.5–20.60,
art. 4.1...................................................1.33, 1.39, 1.46 20A.9–20A.18, 74.8, A4.1
art. 4.3 .....................................................................1.39 rr. A–G....................................................................20.8
art. 4.4 ........................................1.33, 1.39, 1.41, 1.43 r. A .........20.8, 20.10–20.25, 20A.10, 20A.13, 20A.14
art. 8.1 ....................................................................1.36 r. C .....................................20.8, 20.26–20.30, 20A.15
art. 10.1(c) .............................................................1.48 r. D .................................20.39, 20.41, 85.177, 85.485
Salvage Convention 1989 ......................20.14, 73.4, 73.5 r. E ........................................................................20.49
arts 12.2, 17 ............................................................73.4 r. F.........................................................................20.14
SDR Protocol 1979 to the Hague Rules .....................72.3 r. G ........................................................................20.38
Small Tanker Oil Pollution Indemnification rr. I–XXII/XXIII .....................................................20.8
Agreement (STOPIA) 2006 ...............................84.2 r. I ...............................................................6.38, 20.10
Society of Maritime Arbitrators, Inc., Rules of r. VI.......................................................................20.14
s. 2........................................................................2A.37 r. VII .........................................................20.10, 20.18
s. 30......................................................................81A.1 r. X ...................................................20.9, 20.13, 20.14
Standards of Training, Certification & (b) ..................................................................20A.11
Watchkeeping for Seafarers Convention r. XI ............................................................20.9, 20.14
1978 ...............................................................84A.13 (b) ..................................................................20A.11
Supplementary Fund Protocol 2005 .................51.7, 84.2 (d) .....................................................................20.30
Tanker Oil Pollution Indemnification Agreement r. XIV....................................................................20.14
(TOPIA) 2006 ....................................................84.2 r. XVII ..................................................................20.38
Tanker Owners’ Voluntary Agreement Concerning r. XX .....................................................................20.35
Liability for Oil Pollution (TOVALOP) r. XXII ........................................................20.47, 74.8
..........................................................51.4, 51.5, 51.6 Rule of Interpretation .........................20A.10–20A.12
Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to York-Antwerp Rules 1994 5.2, 20.5, 20.6,
Bills of Lading 1924, International Convention 20.25, 20.30, 20.31, 20.49, 20.50,
for the. See Hague Rules, Hague-Visby Rules 39.1, 51.3, 74.8, 85.173, A4.1
UCP 500 (Uniform Customs and Practices for r. G ........................................................................20.31
Documentary Credits 1993) .................18.69, 85.61 r. XX .....................................................................20.25
Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Rule Paramount ...............................20.6, 20.18–20.20
Damage 1963 (Cmnd. 2333)..........................85.508 York-Antwerp Rules 2004 20.6, 20.14,
Vovlav Rules ............................................................15.19 20.25, 20.30, 20.31, 20.49, 20.53,
Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain 20.55, 39.1, 74.3, 74.5
Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air r. XXIII .................................................................20.55
1929 ..................................................85.387, 85.426 Rule of Interpretation .............................................20.8
art. 25 ....................................................85.421, 85.422 Rule Paramount ......................................................20.6
art. 26(2) .............................................................85.426
cxxix
Table of Charterparties and Standard Clauses
All references are to paragraph number. References in bold indicate where the text of a particular charterparty
or clause is discussed in detail.
Amoco Cargo Retention Clause ...........53.8, 53.9, 53.10, 56A.13, 57A.59, 60.3, 64A.11, 66.1,
53A17, 72A.34, 72A.38 68.3, 68.6, 70.5, 78.2, 78.3
Amwelsh 1979 .............................15A.24, 15A.161, 25.5 cl. 2 ......................50.1, 53.1–53.12, 53A.1–53A.18
cl. 3 .................................................15A.158, 15A.166 cl. 3 ...............................54.1–54.12, 54A.1–54A.16
cl. 4 .................................................15A.151, 15A.162 cl. 4 ............................................26.70, 49.3, 52.12,
Amwelsh 1993 .......................4.12, 9.5, 15A.7, 15A.133, 55.1–55A.88, 55A.1–55A.9, 70.5
15A.134, 15A.137, 15A.163, 25A.10, (a) ...............52.12, 55.2–55.4, 55.6, 55A.4, 55A.5
25A.11, A5.1 (b) .................52.18, 55.3, 55.4, 55.5, 55.6, 55A.5
cl. 4 ........................7.14, 15A.158, 15A.162, 15A.166 (c) ..................9.3, 55.3, 55.6–55.8, 55A.5, 55A.6,
cl. 9 ........................................................................25.6 55A.7, 55A.8, 64A.8
Asba II ..................................18.203, 25A.11, 55.7, 57.7, cll. 5–9 ............................................................57A.1
57A.44, 58.6, 59A.18 cl. 5 ......................49.1, 56.1–56.6, 56A.1–56A.21,
Part I.....................................................................5A.35 57.1, 57.3, 57A.14, 57A.21, 57A.24,
cl. 9 .....................................................5A.35, 59A.3 57A.25, 57A.27
cl. 26 ................................................................60A.4 cl. 6 ...........................16.3, 50.2, 56.2, 56.5, 56A.1,
Asbatankvoy ........................3.28, 5.30, 5.55, 5A.11, 9.5, 56A.2, 56A.13, 57.1–57.27, 57A.1–57A.71,
11.27, 12A.18, 13.72, 15.24, 15.35, 15.54, 58.3, 58.10, 58A.3, 58A.10, 58A.24,
15.64, 15.67, 15A.2, 18.185, 19.12, 19.14, 59.2, 59.4, 59A.2, 59A.9, 59A.10, 59A.11,
19.21, 20.52, 21A.92, 24.15, 59A.12, 59A.14, 59A.16, 61A.2, 65.7,
25A.10, 25A.11, Section III, 67A.1, 80.5
85.1, A5.7 cl. 7 ...........16.3, 50.2, 56A.1, 56A.13, 57.1–57.27,
Arbitration clause ...................................2A.35, 2A.36 57A.1–57A.71, 58.4, 58.10, 58A.24,
Clause Paramount (cl. 20(b)(i)) .................1A.1, 60.1, 59.1, 59A.10, 59A.16, 65.7
68.6, 68A.28, 69.3, 71.4, 72.1–72.10, cl. 8 .................................26.70, 50.3, 57.10, 57.24,
72A.1–72A.49 57.25, 57A.35, 57A.36, 57A.49,
Preamble .......................................................47.1–47.5 57A.50, 57A.51, 57A.52, 57A.53,
Part I ............................5A.14, 47.2, 48.3, 51.3, 52.23, 58.1–58A.24, 59A.2, 59A.13
54.6, 55.4, 55.5, 55A.2, 55A.5, 55A.6, cl. 9 ...................57.8, 57.10, 57.22, 57.23, 57A.15,
56.4, 57.1, 57.2, 57A.21, 57A.24, 57A.30, 57A.40, 57A.53, 59.1–59.7,
63.1, 74.4, 77.3, 78.2 59A.1–59A.21, 63.3, 64A.7, 65.6,
(A) .....................4.36, 48.1–48.8 52.2, 52.9, 52.22, 65.7, 68A.23
54A.5, 54A.6, 82.3 cl. 10 ......................52.16, 52.21, 57.18, 60.1–60.8,
(B)–(E) .....................................................49.1–49.4 60A.1–60A.31, 61.1, 72A.12
(B) ....................4.36, 56A.2, 56A.3, 56A.4, 56A.7, cl. 11 ...............53.12, 57.14, 58.2, 60.7, 61.1–61.3,
57A.7, 57A.21 61A.1–61A.4
(C) ....................................................55A.7, 57A.25 cl. 12 ..........40.1, 56A.15, 62.1–62.4, 62A.1–62A.4
(D) ..................................................................55A.7 cl. 13 ...................................49.4, 63.1–63.4, 63A.1
(E) ............................................6A.13, 52.14, 52.15 cl. 14 ...............................64.1–64.9, 64A.1–64A.11
(F)–(J) .......................................................50.1–50.4 (a) .................64.2–64.5, 64.6, 64.7, 64.9, 64A.7,
(F) ..............................50.1, 53.1, 53A.1, 54.6, 65.5 64A.9
(H) .....................................................57.14, 57A.34 (b) .................................55A.8, 64.6–64.9, 64A.8
(I)........................................................................58.1 cl. 15 ..............50.1, 59.1, 65.1–65.7, 65A.1–65A.2
(K)–(M) ....................................................51.1–51.7 (a) ...................................................................65.5
(K) ...........................................................1A.1, 74.4 (b) ...................................................................65.6
(M) 53A.1 (c), (d) ..............................................65.7, 65.A.1
Part II .......................................................47.2, 57A.34 cl. 16 .............................................52.15, 66.1, 68.3
cl. 1 ..............................48.3, 48.5, 49.4, 52.1–52.4, cl. 17 .............................................67.1–67.3, 67A.1
54.2, 54.6, 54.7, 54A.6, 55A.5, 56A.6, (a) ...................................................................67.1
cxxx
TABLE OF CHARTERPARTIES AND STANDARD CLAUSES
(b) ...................................................................67.3 Chamber of Shipping War Risks Clauses ................26.30

cl. 18 .......................52.4, 57A.15, 60.1, 60.3, 60.8, cll. 1, 2 ..................................................................26.54
68.1–68.10, 68A.1–68A.33 Chamber of Shipping Welsh Coal Charter 1896...15A.36
(b) .............................................................68A.29 Charterparty Laytime Definitions 1980 ....................15.2,
cl. 19 .....................52.11, 57.27, 58.4, 59A.2, 68.6, 15.20, 15.58, 15.69, A4.2
69.1–69.4, 69A.1 Coastvoy.................................................................11A.12
cl. 20 ........................52.5, 55A.5, 68A.28, 68A.30, Congenbill 1994 ........................18.3, 18.48, 18.59, 37.3,
70.1–70.6, 70A.1 37.7, A5.8
(a) ..................70.1–70.6, 70A.1, 71.1, 71.3, 72.1 cll. 1, 10 ..................................................................46.4
(b) ......................52.6, 68A.28, 71.1–71.9, 72A.2 Conline ....................................18.3, 18.69, 85.50, 85.224
(i)–(vii) .................................................71.1, 71.3 Conlinebooking ...................................................1.18, 2.7
(i) (Clause Paramount) ..................1A.1, 60.1, 68.6, Conoco Weather Clause ..........................................58A.4
68A.28, 69.3, 71.4, 72.1–72.10, CONWARTIME 1993 ...............................................44.4
72A.1–72A.49 cl. 2 ........................................................................44.5
(ii) (Jason clause) .................................73.1–73.9 cl. 8 ......................................................................44.13
(iii) ..........................51.1, 51.3, 73.6, 74.1–74.13 Essovoy 69 ..................................25A.11, 57A.1, 57A.34
(iv) ........................................................75.1–75.7 ExxonMobilvoy 2005
(v) .................................76.1–76.3, 76A.1–76A.4 cl. 14(b) ...............................................................58A.4
(vi) .............................................5.112, 77.1–77.9 Exxonvoy 1969 ................9.3, 13.6, 17.18, 18.186, 47.1,
(vii) ..........................................52.19, 78.1–78.13 54A.5, 55A.5, 57.8, 57A.1, 57A.34, 57A.44,
cl. 21 ........................17.1, 79.1–79.3, 79A.1–79A.4 59A.10, 59A.17, 60.7, 62.2, 64A.9,
cl. 22 .........................................................80.1–80.6 71.1, 77.5
cl. 23 .................................81.1–81.5, 81A.1–81A.4 Part I .....................................................................18.55
cl. 24 ...............51.2, 81.4, 81.11, 82.1–82.7, 82A.1 Part II
cl. 25 .............................................83.1–83.3, 83A.1 cl. 2.....................................................................71.1
cl. 26 ........57A.67, 60.8, 84.1–84.3, 84A.1–84A.19 cl. 6.....................................................................57.8
Sun Diversion clause ...........................................55A.7 cl. 8 .........................................................18.55, 71.1
TBOOK clause .....................................................11.27 cl. 9.....................................................................57.8
Bill of Lading .............................................................A5.6 cl. 20(b)(vi) ........................................................77.5
Australia Trade form...............................................18.197 cl. 21 .......................................................18.55, 71.1
Baltic Code 2000 Charterparty and Laytime Exxonvoy 1984 ........................................................6A.29
Terminology and Abbreviations .......................A4.4 cl. 18(f) ................................................................60A.4
Baltime ............................9.5, 11.72, 11.80, 18.64, 26.78 Exxonvoy 1990 .......................................56A.15, 57A.10
cl. 2 .......................................................................27.18 cl. 4 ......................................................................58A.2
cl. 13 .....................................................................11.52 cl. 18(f) ................................................................60A.4
cl. 15 (ice) .......................................27.5, 27.18, 27.20 F.C. & S. clause ..........................................................26.2
cl. 21 (war) ............21.109, 26.32, 26.78, 26.79, 27.19 FILO clause ...........................................................11A.44
Baltimore Form 1976 (Berth Form C) ..............4.12, 9.5, Fosfo ..............................11.146, 15A.7, 15A.81, 25A.10
15.36, 15.37, 15A.7, 15A.51, 18.49, cl. 2 .....................................................15A.158, 16A.3
18.185, 24.15, 27A.2, 67A.1 A5.2 Gencon 1922 ...................................1.34, 3A.10, 15A.28,
Baltimore Form C (1913).........................................15A.7 15A.37, 15A.89, 19A.13, 19A.15
Baltimore Form C (1963) .....11.152, 15A.7, 17.8, 27A.2 cl. 2 .............................................11A.6, 11A.7. 11A.8
Beepeevoy 2 ................................................................15.1 cl. 5 .....................................................15A.86, 15A.95
Beepeevoy 3...................................................1.112, 15.31 (b) ....................................................................14A.2
cl. 16 ......................................................................60.3 cl. 6 .....................................................15A.86, 15A.95
Beepeevoy 4 ................................................................68.4 Gencon 1976 .................Section I, 43.3, 44.1, 46.1, 47.5,
Berth Standard of Average clause ............................14.40 49.1, 50.4, 57A.2, 85.1, A5.3
BIMCO Part I.......................................................................3A.4
Amended arbitration clause .................................72A.9 box 3..................................................................2A.5
Arbitration clause ......................85.89, 85.243, 85.244 boxes 5, 6, 7 ......................................................3A.4
Bulk Sugar ...............................3A.42, 15A.7, 15A.71, boxes 8, 9 ...........................................3A.4, 19A.12
15A.134, 15A.159, 16A.15, box 10 ........................5A.1, 15.34, 15A.29–15A.30
25A.6 box 11 ........................5A.1, 15.34, 15A.29–15A.31
Centrocon............................................................18.185 box 12 ...........................................6.42, 6A.2, 6A.3
General paramount clause 1994 .............................85.4 box 13 .................................13.3, 13.7, 13.9, 13A.4
Liberty and deviation clause ...............................12.23 box 14 ...........................13A.4–13.50, 13.54, 13.59
London arbitration clause ......................................1.34 box 15 ....................................................14.8. 14.46
Slow Steaming clause ..............................................9.7 box 16 ....................................................15.3, 15.10
Solid Bulk Cargoes that can Liquefy clause .........6.63 box 17 .................................15.29, 15A.29, 15A.64
Strike clause ..............16.3, 25.2, 25.6, 25A.8, 25A.10 box 18..............................................................16A.8
Chamber of Shipping Voyage Charter 1958 box 19 ....................................19.11, 19.22, 19A.12
Clause Paramount ...................................................85.2 box 20.................................................................24.1
cxxxi
Part II cl. 16 (“Voywar 1950”) .............10.6, 21.109, 22.9,

cl. ................................1 3A.4, 6A.1, 6A.2, 13A.24, 26.1–26.83, 77.1, 85.301
14.61, 15A.29–15A.31, 22.1, 32.2 (1) ...................................................................26.2
...l. 1 1.1–1141, 1A.1–1A.2, 2.1–2.47, 2A.1–2A.37 (2) .................................26.27, 26.39, 26.46, 77.2
..................................ll. 1–4 3.1–3.40, 3A.1–3A.48 (3) ..................26.27, 26.39, 26.44, 26.47–26.51,
...................................ll. 4–8 4.1–4.20, 4A.1–4A.14 26.53, 26.60, 26.64, 26.65, 26.71,
.......................................ll. 6 2.1–2.47, 2A.1–2A.37 26.77, 77.2
......................ll. 8–10 5.1–5.116, 5A.1–5A.42, 59.1 (4) ..................26.27, 26.31, 26.39, 26.46–26.49,
...............................ll. 10–11 6.1–6.64, 6A.1–6A.30 26.53, 26.57, 26.60, 26.64, 26.67,
...................................ll. 12–14 8.1–8.4, 8A.1–8A.6 26.68, 26.77, 77.2
...............................ll. 14–15 7.1–7.28, 7A.1–7A.38 (5) .............................26.27, 26.40, 26.41, 26.56,
.............................................ll. 15–16 9.1–9.8, 9A.1 26.63, 26.68, 26.79, 77.2
....................ll. 15–18 5.1–5.116, 5A.1–5A.42, 59.1 (a) ............................................26.2, 26.63, 26.68
.....................ll. 18–20 13.1–13.119, 13A.1–13A.71 (b) ..........................................26.42, 26.63, 26.68
...............................ll. 18 10.1–10.26, 10A.1–10A.3 (6) .....................26.68, 26.71, 26.72, 26.73, 77.2
cl. 2 .....................................1.127, 4.16, 9.8, 10.20, cl. 17 ..........................10.6, 14.52, 15.15, 15A.151,
11.1–11.81, 11A.1–11A.78, 14.41, 14.45, 22.9, 25.13, 25.22, 27.1–27.21,
18.170, 18.227, 20.42, 20.51, 20.58, 20.59, 27A.1–27A.5, 64.1
20A.20, 20A.22, 22.5, 26.28, 29.2, first part (“port of loading”)
85.21, 85.95, 85.240, 85.244, (a) .....................................27.2–27.8, 27.9, 27.10
85.283, 85.349, 85.423 (b) ...........................27.2, 27.7, 27.8, 27.9, 27.11
para. 1 ......................................11.1–11.67, 11.69 (c) ...................................27.2, 27.8, 27.10–27.12
para. 2 ....................................11.64, 11.68–11.81 (d) .....................................................27.13–27.14
cl. 3 ....................12.1–12.46, 12A.1–12A.59, 26.53 second part (“port of discharge”)
cl. 4 ..............11A.45, 13.1–13.119, 13A.1–13A.71, (a) .....................................................27.15, 27.17
15.39, 17A.29, 24.1, 31.1, 31.7, 53.6 (b) .....................................................27.16, 27.17
(a), (b)........................................................15A.37 (c) .....................................................27.15, 27.17
cl. 5 .....................................10.6, 11.8, 14.1–14.62, cl. 18 .....15A.67, 17A.65, 17A.68, 17A.71, 17A.72
14A.1–14A.11, 17A.41, 29.1, 32.1 cl. 19 ..............................................................11A.39
(a) .................................10A.1, 11.1, 11.8, 11.13, Gencon 1994 .....................15.30, 15A.50, 16.12, 18.221,
14.10–14.35, 14A.1, 29.1 21A.87, Section II, A5.4
(b) ....................10A.1, 11.8, 11.11, 14.36–14.62, Clause Paramount ..................................................11.3
14A.1, 32.3 General Ice clause ...............................................15.22
cl. 6 ..................1.17, 15.1–15.74, 15A.1–15A.173, General Strike clause ...........................................15.22
16.17, 33.1 Part I
(a), (b) ...............................15.3, 15A.7, 15A.127 box 6..................................................................3A.7
(c) ..........10.9, 15A.20, 15A.23, 15A.33, 15A.70 box 13 ......................................................31.1, 31.3
cl. 7 ..................................15A.79, 15A.81, 15A.95, box 17 ..................................................15A.64, 33.2
16.1–16.21, 16A.1–16A.23, 17A.68, boxes 18, 19 ..................................................15A.64
17A.71, 17A.72, 19.11, 19.12, 34.1 box 22.................................................................39.2
cl. 8 ................................10.19, 16A.6, 17.1–17.47, box 23.................................................................40.1
17A.1–17A.72, 18.210, 23.13, 35.1, box 25........................................................46.2, 46.3
79.1, 79.2, 79.3 (a) ...................................................................46.3
cl. 9 ..............................10.7, 13.22, 15A.81, 17.20, Part II
18.1–18.246, 23.13, 26.73, 37.1, cl. 1 .......................................3A.7, 28.1–28.2, 29.2
70.1, 85.21, 85.133 cl. 2 ......................28.2, 29.1–29.2, 32.3, 37.5, 37.7
cl. 10 ....................4.1, 19.1–19.43, 19A.1–19A.17, cl. 3 ......................................................12A.38, 30.1
24.21, 36.2, 56.10 cl. 4 .................13A.17, 13A.24, 13A.26, 31.1–31.7
cl. 11 ......20.1–20.60, 20A.1–20A.31, 39.1, 85.484 (a) ...................................................................31.7
cl. 12 ................6.39, 21.1–21.145, 21A.1–21A.103 (b) ................................................31.1, 31.2–31.4
cl. 13 ............23.1–23.13, 23A.1–23A.7, 41.1, 80.1 (c) .......................................31.1, 31.5–31.6, 35.3
cl. 14 ..............................................24.1–24.29, 42.1 cl. 5 ........................10A.1, 11A.7, 16A.15, 17A.41,
cl. 15 ............................10.6, 15A.151, 25.1–25.22, 29.1, 32.1–32.6, 37.5
25A.1–25A.14, 43.1–43.3 (a) ..........................................8A.2, 11A.30, 32.2
Part 1 (ll. 149–151).........................25.2, 25.4–25.7, (b) ................................................32.3–32.4, 32.5
25.8–25.12, 25.14–25.16, 25.19, (c) .........................................................32.5–32.6
25A.1–25A.6 cl. 6 .................15.15, 15.30, 15.39, 15.52, 15A.17,
Part 2 (ll. 152–162) .......................25.2, 25.6, 25.7, 15A.70, 15A.95, 15A.98, 15A.104, 33.1–33.9
25.8–25.14, 25.15, 25.22, (a), (b).............................................................33.1
25A.1, 25A.6, 25A.7, 25A.12 (c) ..........15A.34, 15A.35, 15A.55, 15A.64, 33.2
Part 3 (ll. 163–177) .......................25.2, 25.6, 25.7, l. 109...................................................................34.4
25.15–25.22, 25A.1, 25A.3, 25A.4, 25A.13 ll. 104–108, 109–119 .........................................33.2
cxxxii
ll. 117–119 .........................................................33.8 Norgrain 1973 .............4.12, 5.30, 11A.42, 14.51, 15A.7,
cl. 7 ................16.31, 16.33, 16.36, 34.1–34.5, 35.3 15A.133, 15A.150, 18.185, 19.21, 19A.6,
ll. 123–126 .........................................................34.2 19A.7, 52.5, 52.7
ll. 127–131 .........................................................34.3 cll. 10(a), 15(a) ..................................................11A.42
cl. 8 ................................................17.96, 35.1–35.5 cl. 17 .....................................................................19.13
cl. 9 ...........................................................36.1–36.3 Norgrain 1989 ....................................................9.5, A5.5
(b) ...................................................................36.2 Norwegian Saleform ...................................................1.22
cl. 10 ................................................37.1–37.8, 46.4 Nubaltwood .............................................................18.185
ll. 155–158, 159–163 .........................................37.1 ‘Retla’ clause.............................................................18.17
cl. 11 .........................................................38.1, 75.1 Richards Bay Coal Charter Standard Form
cl. 12 .........................................................39.1–39.3 cl. 4 .......................................................................15.39
cl. 13...................................................................40.1 San Juan Bay Ore...................................................15A.81
cl. 14...................................................................41.1 Shelltime......................................................................85.7
cl. 15 .........................................................42.1–42.2 Shelltime ....................................................4 24.6, 85.180
cl. 16 .........................................................43.1–43.3 cl. 27(c)(ii) ..........................................................85.180
(a) ...........................................................43.1, 43.2 Shellvoy ..........................................5.45, 72A.12, 85.180
l. 218...................................................................43.2 Shellvoy 3 .................................................................57.11
(b) .........................................................43.1, 43.2 cl. 14 .........................................................................5.6
l. 228...................................................................43.2 Shellvoy 5 .............................................15.45, 16.21, 85.7
l. 230...................................................................43.3 cl. 14 .....................................................................57.16
ll. 232–234 .........................................................43.3 Early loading clause ...............................................56.2
(c) .........................................................43.1, 43.2 Stemmor 1976 ........................................................15A.57
l. 246...................................................................43.2 STB Time ...............................................................21A.99
cl. 17 (“Voywar 1993”) ................22.9, 44.1–44.13 STB Voy 18.203, .........................54A.4, 54A.5, 57A.34,
(1)(a)...............................................................44.2 57A.44, 58.6, 60.2, 60A.4, 65.4,
(b) ...................................................................44.3 72A.18, 83.3
(2).............................44.5, 44.6, 44.7, 44.13, 77.2 Part I...................................................................59A.17
(3) ...........................44.5, 44.7, 44.8, 44.13, 77.2 cll. 1(b), 6...........................................................59A.17
(4) .....................................44.5, 44.9, 44.13, 77.3 cl. 9 .....................................................59A.17, 59A.18
(5) ............................................44.5, 44.10, 44.13 Sugar 1969 ......................................................4.12, 15.24
(a) .................................................................44.10 cl. 16 .......................................................................5.17
(c)–(e) ...........................................................44.12 Sugar 1999 ......................................................15.28, A5.6
(6) .......................................................44.5, 44.13 cl. 18 .....................................................................18.39
cl. 18...................................................................45.1 Synacomex ....................................................14.37, 15.39
cl. 19 ......................................39.2, 39.3, 46.1–46.5 cl. 30 .....................................................................15.52
(a) ................................................46.2, 46.3, 46.4 Tankervoy....................................................................1.20
(b) .........................................................46.2, 46.3 Texacovoy 1971 .....................................................57A.34
(c) ..................................................................46.2 TOWCON ..........................................................9.5, 11.72
(d) ...................................................................46.2 U.S. Clause Paramount ..........................................11A.17
Genjapscrap Vegoilvoy ............................................2A.36, 27.31, 61.1
cl. 46 ................................................................15A.158 Arbitration clause ...................................2A.35, 2A.36
Himalaya clause ........................................85A.9–85A.12 Velavoy 1988
Institute War Clauses ..................................................26.2 cl. 18(f) ................................................................60A.4
Jason/New Jason clause ...........20A.22, 20A.25, 20A.31, Vitol Standard Chartering Terms ........15.56, 57.12, 68.2
73.1–73.9 cl. 18 .....................................................................11.27
Lloyd’s SG Form ........................................................1.34 Voyage Charter Clause Paramount 1958 ........85.2–85.4,
Lloyd’s Open Form (LOF) .........................................1.68 85.371
Mediterranean C.(Ore) ............................7 15A.7, 15A.71 Voylayrules (Voyage Charterparty Laytime
cl. 5 ..................................................................15A.158 Interpretation Rules) 1993 ....................15.2, 15.20,
Mobilvoy ...................................................59A.6, 59A.18 15.58, 15.69, 25.4, A4.3
cll. 6–9 .................................................................59A.9 Voywar 1950 .........26.76– 26.77, 44.1–44.11, 77.1, 77.2
New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) ...........9.5, 18.67, See also Gencon 1976, cl. 16
18.178, 24.6, 58.8, Voywar 1993 .................................44.1–44.13, 77.1–77.3
85.100 See also Gencon 1994, cl. 17
New Zealand Trade form........................................18.197 Westport
Nordice ice clause ....................................................27A.2 cl. 6 .....................................................................55A.9
cxxxiii
SECTION I
General Principles
and
GENCON Charter
CHAPTER 1
Formation and Terms of the Charter

1. It is agreed . . . 1
FORMATION OF THE CHARTER
Types of charter
1.1 Charterparties are customarily divided into three general categories: demise (or bareboat)
charters, time charters and voyage charters, but a more recent development is now increasingly
common, the slot charter.1 Demise charters are those by which, in return for payment of hire,
possession of the chartered ship is given to the charterers, who provide crew and all supplies,
pay all running costs and undertake the responsibility of shipowner to those whose goods are
carried on the vessel. Time charters, whether for a period or for a trip, are those under which, in
return for the payment of hire, the vessel’s employment is put under the orders of the charterers,
while possession remains with the owners who provide the crew and pay the ordinary running
costs, characteristically excluding specific voyage costs such as fuel and cargo handling and port
charges, which are paid for by the charterers. Voyage charters are those by which the owner
agrees to perform one or more designated voyages in return for the payment of freight and (when
appropriate) demurrage; the costs of, and responsibility for, cargo handling are left to the terms
of the specific agreement. Slot charters involve the chartering of a guaranteed number of container
spaces either on a period or a voyage basis. Depending on the terms, and the governing law, of
the bills of lading issued under a time or a voyage or a slot charter, either the shipowner or the
charterer, or both, may be the “carrier” of the goods shipped thereunder, and liable as such to
the owner of the goods shipped during the period of the charter. However, whilst it is not
uncommon for a time charterer to assume the role of carrier under the bills of lading, it is rare
for a voyage charterer to do so, at any rate where English law applies. It is usual for a slot charterer
to issue his own bills of lading under which he is the “carrier”.
1.2 Voyage charters for more than one voyage may fall into a number of different categories.
They may be “consecutive voyage charters” where each voyage follows on directly from the
previous one,2 they may be “intermittent voyage charters”,3 or they may be so-called “contracts
of affreightment” or “tonnage contracts” for a series of periodic voyages in a vessel or vessels
1 See The Tychy [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 11 and The Tychy (No. 2) [2001] Lloyd’s Rep. 10, reversed [2001] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 403.
2 E.g., Ambatielos v. Grace Bros. (1922) 13 Ll. L. Rep. 227; Suisse Atlantique v. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale
[1967] 1 A.C. 361.
3 E.g., The Oakworth [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 581.
3
1.2 FORMATION AND TERMS OF THE CHARTER
to be nominated thereafter.4 All are often referred to merely as “COAs”5 in order to highlight
their particular characteristics. It is common for single voyage charter forms to be adapted to
cover multiple voyage contracts, and this can lead to particular difficulties concerning, for
example, cancellation, liens and the effect of the Hague Rules when incorporated, not to mention
the identification of the relevant parties.
BRM (as owners’ managers, but signing as “owners”) concluded various COAs on the Gencon form
with F, whereby BRM would nominate carrying vessels from the fleet which they managed on behalf
of one ship companies. The period of the COAs expired, but the parties continued on an understanding
that they would continue until new terms were finalised, although in fact the precise format of their
arrangements altered, with bills of lading referring to incorrect specific charterparty dates rather than
COA dates. Nominations were made of vessels in the management of BRM and also of vessels chartered
from the spot market. BRM argued that they were not liable as principals under the COA, which was
to be implied by conduct, and that the registered owners of the vessels were principals.
Eder J. held that BRM were liable as principals to charters for a series of individual voyages performed
on terms binding on BRM as owners under the previous COAs. He said it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to conceive of a COA giving rise to contractual obligations on behalf of one or more
members of a group of shipowners or by the members jointly particularly where that group was not
identified with any precision.
(Finmoon Ltd v. Baltic Reefers Management Ltd [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 388.)
CONCLUDING A BINDING AGREEMENT
1.3 A contract for the chartering of a ship is normally embodied in, or based on, a printed
form of charterparty, agreed by the parties or their agents. Under English law, however, there is
no requirement that a contract for the services of a ship on a voyage should be made or recorded
in any particular manner. As long as the parties have reached complete agreement, a charterparty
signed by or on behalf of the parties is unnecessary.6 The parties’ agreement may be made in
the course of written exchanges (these days usually by email7), or during conversations or
meetings,8 and may even be inferred from conduct,9 as long as the inference to be drawn is clear.10
All that is required is that the parties should have reached a firm agreement upon all essential
terms.11 It is often the case that the parties conclude a recapitulation (“recap”) of what has been
agreed either orally or in writing, and the importance of the terms of the written recap should
4 E.g., The Kriti Rex [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 and Flame S.A. v. Glory Wealth Shipping Pte. Ltd [2013] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 653, at paras 87–98.
5 Ibid., p. 174.
6 Lidgett v. Williams (1845) 4 Hare 456, 462; The Epsilon Rosa [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 81, 86. For the requirements
necessary for a “charterparty” to be incorporated into a bill of lading, see Chapter 18 below. Since the execution of a
charterparty is not necessary to give legal effect to the contract embodied in it, the rule of law avoiding contracts in
writing which are materially altered (see Habibsons Bank v. Standard Chartered Bank [2011] Q.B. 943) will not apply
to avoid the contract.
7 See, e.g., TTMI Sarl v. Statoil ASA (The Sibohelle) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 220, contrast BP Oil v. Target Shipping
[2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 245, reversed on appeal on other grounds [2013] EWCA Civ 196. Contracts of guarantee embodied
in emails may have sufficient writing to be enforceable under s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds 1677: Golden Ocean Group
v. Salgaocar Mining Industries [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 542.
8 See, e.g., Arbitration 12/94 [1994] L.M.L.N. 387 and Arbitration 7/13 [2013] L.M.L.N. (April) 872.
9 See The Sibohelle (above). In Finmoon Ltd v. Baltic Reefers Management Ltd [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 388, Eder
J. held that a COA was created by conduct referable to the particular contract by both parties (not just one), but generally
applying the dictum of Andrew Smith J. (in Maple Leaf Macro Volatility Master Fund v. Rouvray [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
47.5, at para. 242) that precise analysis of offer and acceptance may not always be appropriate where the facts are otherwise
compelling.
10 Hamblen J. summarised the law in Brown v. Innovators One [2012] EWHC 1321 (Comm) at paras 1014 et seq.
11 Where each side proposes a different form of contract, see the so-called “battle of the forms”: e.g., Tekdata v.
Amphenol [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357 and GHSP v. AB Electronic [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 432.
4
CONCLUDING A BINDING AGREEMENT 1.5
not be underplayed. In Papas Olio JSC v. Grains & Fourrages,12 Toulson L.J. said that, in most
cases, the recap fulfils a dual function of confirming evidentially the making of the oral agreement
and also superseding the oral agreement by providing a document to which the parties can then
look as the expression of their bargain. As Lord Blackburn said in Rossiter v. Miller13:
It is a necessary part of the plaintiff’s case to show that the two parties had come to a final and complete
agreement, for, if not, there was no contract. So long as they are only in negotiation either party may
retract; and though the parties may have agreed on all the cardinal points of the intended contract, yet,
if some particulars essential to the agreement still remain to be settled afterwards, there is no contract.
The parties, in such a case, are still only in negotiation. But the mere fact that the parties have expressly
stipulated that there shall afterwards be a formal agreement prepared, embodying the terms, which
shall be signed by the parties does not, by itself, show that they continue merely in negotiation. It is
a matter to be taken into account in construing the evidence and determining whether the parties have
really come to a final agreement or not. But as soon as the fact is established of the final mutual assent
of the parties so that those who draw up the formal agreement have not the power to vary the terms
already settled, I think the contract is completed.
1.4 Those particulars that are “essential to the agreement” and that must therefore be settled
before a binding contract exists, may fall into two categories, namely:
(i) terms that, if not settled, render the entire agreement unworkable, or void for uncertainty,
with the result that the court is unable to enforce it, whatever the parties may have intended;
(ii) terms, the agreement upon which is regarded by the parties themselves as an essential
prerequisite of the making of a binding contract.14
Matters which must be agreed if the contract is not to be unworkable or void for
uncertainty
1.5 As Bingham J. said in Pagnan v. Feed Products,15 “the parties are to be regarded as
masters of their contractual fate”, and it is primarily up to them whether agreement upon any
particular matter is to be a prerequisite of a binding contract. However, the issue is not subjective,
as noted by Lord Clarke16:
The general principles are not in doubt. Whether there is a binding contract between the parties and
if so, upon what terms depends on what they have agreed. It depends not upon their subjective state
of mind, but upon a consideration of what was communicated between them by words or conduct and
whether that leads objectively to a conclusion that they intended to create legal relations and had agreed
upon all the terms which they regard or the law requires as essential for the formation of legally binding
relations. Even if certain terms of economic or other significance to the parties have not been finalised,
an objective appraisal of their words and conduct may lead to the conclusion that they did not intend
agreement of such terms to be a pre-condition to a concluded and legally binding agreement.
As Andrew Smith J. expressed it in Bear Stearns Bank plc v. Forum Global Equity Ltd17:
12 [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 152, at para. 28 and see also TTMI Sarl v. Statoil ASA (The Sibohelle) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 220, at para. 31.
13 (1878) 3 App. Cas. 1124, 1151.
14 See Pagnan v. Feed Products [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 601, 619; Spectra International v. Tiscali [2002] All E.R.(D)
209.
15 Ibid. at p. 611.This is a description which the courts have repeatedly adopted: see, e.g., RTS Flexible Systems
Ltd v. Molenski Alois Muller GmbH & Co. [2010] 1 W.L.R. 753 and Air Studios (Lyndhurst) Ltd v. Lombard North
Central (T/A Air Entertainment Group) [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 63, where Males J. set out the principles concerning the
present issue with great clarity at paras 5–12.
16 RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v. Molenski Alois Muller GmbH & Co. [2010] 1 W.L.R. 753; and see Barbudev v.
Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria EOOD [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 963.
17 [2007] EWHC 1576 (Comm), at para. 171; and the same judge in Macro Volatility Master Fund v. Rouvray
[2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 475, at para. 223.
5
The proper approach is, I think, to ask how a reasonable man, versed in the business, would have
understood the exchanges between the parties. Nor is there any legal reason that the parties should not
conclude a contract while intending later to reduce their contract to writing and expecting that the
written document should contain more detailed definition of the parties’ commitment than had
previously been agreed.
The parties can thus agree to be bound contractually, even if there are further terms to be
agreed between them.18 The question is whether the agreement is unworkable or fails for
uncertainty; where commercial men intend to enter into a binding commitment, the courts are
reluctant to conclude that such an agreement fails for uncertainty,19 but there is a limit to the
extent to which the parties’ intentions can prevail. The court cannot make a contract for the parties,
and if the parties have failed to agree upon a matter that is, objectively, essential to the existence
of a workable contract, the court must decline to enforce the agreement.20 The circumstances in
which this is likely to occur are as follows:
1.6 (a) Where the parties have failed to make any provision on a matter of fundamental21
importance and it is impossible to fill the gap by the implication of a term, there is no contract.
For example, if the owner and the charterer have made no provision upon such fundamental
matters as loading and discharging ports, quantity of cargo and size of the ship (if unidentified),
it will normally be impossible to imply any term covering such matters, and there will be no
contract. This is to be contrasted with the situation in Pagnan v. Feed Products, where although
the matters not covered by the agreement were of considerable economic importance, namely,
loading rate, and rates of demurrage, despatch and carrying charges, the loading rate could be
dealt with by implying an obligation to load at a reasonable rate and in the customary manner,
and in the absence of agreement on demurrage and carrying charges the damages would be at
large. When the parties have failed to provide for a rate of freight, it is uncertain whether the
court would be prepared to imply a term that a reasonable freight should be paid. At least where
the parties have commenced performance on the basis that there is a contract in being (e.g., by
loading and carrying cargo tendered) the courts would be likely to imply an agreement to pay
the current market rate of freight for the voyage in question.22 Where performance is still wholly
executory such implication would be less likely. Even where the court would not otherwise be
able to imply a term necessary to save the contract, it may be possible to do so on the basis of
a course of dealing between the parties, as in Hillas v. Arcos.23
1.7 (b) When the parties have agreed a term covering an aspect of the transaction, but the
term is too vague or uncertain to be enforceable, there is no contract, unless the matter is not
vital. Thus, in Love & Stewart v. Instone,24 where the parties entered into an agreement for the
sale of coal “subject to strike and lockout clauses”, it was held that there was no contract, since
18 Immingham Storage Co. Ltd v. Clear plc [2011] EWCA Civ 89; Air Studios (Lyndhurst) Ltd v. Lombard North
Central (T/A Air Entertainment Group) (above).
19 Barbudev v. Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria EOOD (above), para. 32, per Aikens L.J.
20 See Welsh Water v. Corus UK Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 285; Dhanani v. Crasnianski [2011] EWHC 926, esp.
para. 96.
21 Note the distinction drawn by Lloyd L.J. in Pagnan, at p. 619: “If by ‘essential’ one means a term without which
the contract cannot be enforced then the statement is true: the law cannot enforce an incomplete contract. If by ‘essential’
one means a term which the parties have agreed to be essential for the formation of a binding contract, then the statement
is tautologous. If by ‘essential’ one means only a term which the Court regards as important as opposed to a term which
the Court regards as less important or a matter of detail, the statement is untrue. It is for the parties to decide whether
they wish to be bound and if so, by what terms, whether important or unimportant.”
22 See Steven v. Bromley [1919] 2 K.B. 722. See also Mamidoil v. Okta [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 76 (C.A.) (10-year
contract for handling of crude oil, with no handling fee specified after end of second year). Cf. BP Oil v. Target Shipping
[2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 245, reversed on appeal however, [2013] EWCA Civ 196.
23 (1932) 43 Ll. L. Rep. 359.
24 (1917) 33 T.L.R. 475.
6
although it was clear that the parties intended that, in certain circumstances, obligations other-
wise imposed by the contract should be modified, it was impossible to tell with any reasonable
precision what those circumstances were, or how their obligations were intended to be affected.
A similar result was reached in Svenska Lloyd v. Niagassas,25 when a sale of a ship was agreed
“subject to usual dry-docking clause”, there being no such “usual” clause, in Scammell v.
Ouston,26 where a van was to be purchased with part of the purchase price being “had on hire-
purchase terms over a period of two years”, in Bishop & Baxter v. Anglo-Eastern27 (“subject to
war clause”) and in British Electrical v. Patley Pressings28 (“subject to force majeure conditions”).
In such cases it is irrelevant that if the contract had made no provision at all on the matter at
issue, it would have been perfectly workable.
1.8 When it is possible for the court to identify with sufficient precision the terms which
the parties intended to incorporate, either by a course of dealing or by a practice of the trade, the
difficulty will be avoided. In Shamrock SS. Co. v. Storey,29 a contract to load coal “on the terms
of the usual colliery guarantee” was held enforceable, it being possible to identify with sufficient
certainty the terms usually contained in colliery guarantees at the loading port; and in Nea Agrex
v. Baltic Shipping30 a provision “. . . and also Paramount clause” was held effective to incorporate
the unamended Hague Rules into a charter, although there were several forms of such clause.
1.9 Where the provision agreed by the parties is not so much uncertain, but merely non-
sensical, and where the remainder of the agreement can function without it, it will be ignored.31
1.10 (c) Where a vital term is expressly left open for future negotiation and agreement, the
normal result is that there can be no concluded contract, as in May & Butcher v. R.,32 where the
court declined to give effect to an agreement to sell goods on terms as to price, payment and
delivery to be agreed from time to time, and in such a case the court will not enforce any express
or implied obligation to negotiate with a view to reaching agreement.33 However, when the contract
itself contains machinery for ascertaining the obligation in default of the parties’ agreement, or
when it is possible to infer from the words of the contract an intention that an objective criterion
is to be applied in ascertaining the obligation, the agreement may be upheld. This approach is
particularly appropriate in commercial dealings between parties who are familiar with the trade
in question, especially in the case where the parties have acted in the belief that they have a
binding contract.34 Thus, in Foley v. Classique Coaches,35 the Court of Appeal held that an
agreement to buy petrol at prices to be agreed from time to time was enforceable, and meant that
25 (1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 500.

26 [1941] A.C. 251.
27 [1944] K.B. 12.
28 [1953] 1 W.L.R. 280.
29 (1899) 81 L.T. 413.
30 [1976] Q.B. 933. See post, para. 85.3.
31 See Nicolene v. Simmonds [1953] 1 Q.B. 543; Lovelock v. Exportles [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 163.
32 [1934] 2 K.B. 17. See also Courtney v. Tolaini [1975] 1 W.L.R. 297 and MRI Trading AG v. Erdenet Mining
Corp. LLC [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 638.
33 The Scaptrade [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 425; Walford v. Miles [1992] A.C. 128, but contrast Petromec v. Petrolco
[2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 121, at paras 115–121 considering the question of an express obligation to negotiate with associated
machinery, and BBC Worldwide v. Bee Load [2007] EWHC 134 (Comm), at paras 53–54, where there was no machinery
in place to determine good faith. See the discussion of Teare J. in Shaker v. Vistajet Group Holding S.A. [2012] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 93, where there was an express “non-binding” clause in an agreement to negotiate in good faith and to use reasonable
endeavours, referring to Barbudev v. Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria EOOD [2012] EWCA Civ 1341, at paras
43–46; Multiplex Constructions UK v. Cleveland Bridge UK [2006] EWHC 1341 (TCC), at paras 633–639, and see also,
in the context of agreements to negotiate in good faith, Compass Group UK and Ireland v. Mid Essex Hospital Services
NHS Trust [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 300. In Yam Seng Pte. Ltd v. International Trade Corporation [2013] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 526, (George) Leggatt J. noted that the historical hostility of English law to a doctrine of good faith may be misplaced:
but see Granger [2013] L.M.C.L.Q. 418.
34 See Mamidoil v. Okta [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 76, 89 (C.A.), where the relevant principles are set out.
35 [1934] 2 K.B. 1.
7
in default of agreement the price was to be a fair and reasonable price to be settled in accordance
with the arbitration clause in the contract. In Didymi v. Atlantic Lines,36 a time charter provided
that in the event of underperformance hire should be “equitably decreased by an amount to be
mutually agreed between owners and charterers”, and in the event of overperformance there should
be an increase of hire calculated in the same manner. The court held the provision enforceable,
since the substance of the provision was the requirement that hire should be adjusted equitably,
and the reference to the parties’ agreement was merely machinery.
1.11 There is no authority on the enforceability of those clauses sometimes found in
consecutive voyage charters which provide for an adjustment of freight to be negotiated or agreed
by the parties in the event that changed circumstances in the future result in the infliction of
hardship on either party, but the result must depend, as in Didymi v. Atlantic Lines, upon whether
the clause imposes a sufficiently clear objective standard that is to be adopted in fixing the new
rate, and to which the parties’ negotiations and agreement are merely subsidiary. Equally, there
is no clear authority on the question whether, if such a clause is ineffectual, the entire agreement
is rendered unenforceable. In theory this should be the result, unless the provision in question
can be treated as collateral or severable, as in Malozzi v. Carapelli.37
The parties’ intention to contract

1.12 Since it is primarily for the parties to determine whether, and at what stage, they wish
their agreement to have legal effect, it follows that if the parties themselves do not intend to
become legally bound until a particular term has been agreed, or a formal contract has been
signed, the court will give effect to that intention. Since a mutual intention to contract is required,
it is necessary that both parties should intend to be contractually bound.38 However, the private
intentions of either party are irrelevant, except insofar as they were, or should have been, known
to the other. As Lord Denning said in Storer v. Manchester C.C.,39 where it was alleged that a
contract had been concluded by an exchange of letters:
In contracts you do not look into the actual intent in a man’s mind. You look at what he said and did.
A contract is formed when there is, to all outward appearances, a contract. A man cannot get out of a
contract by saying ‘I did not intend to contract’ if by his words he has done so. His intention is to be
found only in the outward expression which his letters convey. If they show a concluded contract, that
is enough.
Similarly the parties can so conduct themselves as to be precluded from denying the existence
of a binding contract.40
1.13 In ascertaining what in fact the parties’ intentions were as to the existence of a contract
(but not for the purpose of construing the terms agreed), the whole of their negotiations must
be looked at, because although the parties’ communications at one stage of the negotiations
may create the impression that complete agreement had been reached, it may be clear from
36 [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 108. For the distinction between substance and machinery, see also Sudbrook Trading
Estate v. Eggleton [1983] 1 A.C. 444 (H.L.).
37 [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 407.
38 Ignazio Messina & Co v. Polskie Linie Oceoniczne [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 566. cf. Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar
Istihsal v. VSC Steel Co. Ltd [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 479 esp para. 90. There is a marked difference between express
contracts and implied contracts; the burden of proving the intention to create legal relations in the case of implied contracts
is the reverse of that in express contracts: see Brown v. Innovators One [2012] EWHC 1321 (Comm), at paras 1014 et
seq. and Baird Textiles v. Marks & Spencer [2001] EWCA Civ 274, at paras 61 and 62.
39 [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1403, 1408. See also RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v. Molenski Alois Muller GmbH & Co. [2010]
1 W.L.R. 753.
40 See Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. v. Texas Commerce International Bank [1982] Q.B. 84; The
Vistafjord [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243; ING Bank v. Ros Roca [2012] 1 W.L.R. 472; and see below under “Subject to
Contract”.
8
other communications that there were other conditions of the intended contract, going beyond
those expressed in their letters, which were still in a state of negotiation only, and without
agreement upon which the parties had no intention of concluding any legally binding agreement.41
However, once it is clear that agreement has been reached on all matters regarded by the parties
as essential at the time, the fact that further negotiations ensue is irrelevant.42
1.14 In a commercial context, the onus of demonstrating that there was a lack of intention
to create legal relations lies on the party asserting it, and it is a heavy one.43 Where the parties
have indicated no contrary intention, it will normally be inferred that they intended their agreement
to become legally binding once they had reached final agreement on all “essential” matters, without
the need for execution of a formal document: and this is so even though the parties contemplated,
or expressly agreed, that a formal document would later be executed.44
1.15 Thus, in the typical charterparty case the parties contemplate that a formal charterparty
will be drawn up and signed, but intend that the fixture will become binding as soon as complete
agreement in the sense already described has been reached. In the absence of any contrary
indication, such as the use of the expression “subject to details” (as to which see below) the mere
fact that, in drawing up the formal document, certain matters of detail may have to be ironed out
does not prevent a binding contract from coming into existence, where the parties do not
themselves intend that agreement upon these details would be a prerequisite of a binding
contract.45 In some cases, however, it may be clear from the parties’ correspondence,46 or from
the terms of the contemplated agreement,47 that the parties did not intend their agreement to
become legally binding until formally executed. Certain expressions in common use, which have
been held to prevent or postpone the formation of a binding contract, are considered below.
“Subject to contract”
1.16 These words, although not in common use in charterparty negotiations, are frequently
used in other contexts, and their effect is to negative any immediate contractual intention.48
However, the correct inference from the parties’ subsequent dealings may be that they intended
to dispense with the “subject” and to bind themselves without the necessity for a formal contract.
Thus, in Howard Marine v. Ogden,49 a reservation in an offer for hire of barges, that it was
“subject to . . . charterparty”, was held to have been implicitly withdrawn when the barges were
delivered without a formal charter having been signed, but contrast A-G of Hong Kong v.
Humphreys Estate (Queen’s Gardens) Ltd,50 where one party made it plain that he intended to
41 See Hussey v. Horne-Payne (1879) 4 App. Cas. 311; Hofflinghouse v. C-Trade (The Intra Transporter) [1985]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 158, [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132; and C.P.C. v. C.T.M. (The CPC Gallia) [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68.
42 Perry v. Suffields [1916] 2 Ch. 187; Grace Shipping v. Sharp [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 207, 210.
43 Barbudev v. Eurocom Cable Management Bulgaria EOOD [2012] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 963, at para. 30, per Aikens
L.J.
44 See Rossiter v. Miller (1878) 3 App. Cas. 1124; The Blankenstein [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 522, [1985] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 93; Wilson Smithett v. Bangladesh Sugar [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 378 (offer accepted by letter of intent).
45 See Granit v. Benship [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 526.
46 See Soc. Portuguesa de Navios Tanques v. Polaris [1952] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 71, 407; Zarati SS. Co. v. Frames
Tours [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 278.
47 See Okura v. Navara [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 561, [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 537.
48 See Soc. Portuguesa de Navios Tanques v. Polaris in the Court of Appeal, at p. 417; and Zarati SS. Co. v. Frames
Tours, at p. 291; Ignazio Messina v. Polskie Linie Oceaniczne [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 566 (subject to appropriate
amendments to the NSF form, but cf. RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v. Molenski Alois Muller GmbH & Co. [2010] 1 W.L.R.
See the particularly difficult facts in Arbitration 7/13 [2013] L.M.L.N. (April) 872.
49 [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 334. See also Oceanografia S.A. v. D.S.N.D. Subsea A.S. (The Botnica) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 37, where the expression “subject to signing of mutually agreeable contract terms and conditions” was held, as a
matter of construction, to prevent the formation of a binding contract until signature of such terms, but was held to have
been waived.
50 [1987] A.C. 114.
9
retain the right to resile after preparation for performance had begun. In Investec Bank (UK) Ltd
v. Zulman,51 the Court of Appeal made the point that the presence or absence of the phrase “subject
to contract” is not necessarily determinative and the “surest guides to the parties’ intentions are
usually the terms of the draft documents passing between them”.52
“Subject to details” and similar expressions

1.17 These words have been held to negative any intention to be legally bound unless and
until full details are agreed.
Negotiations to charter The Junior K were summarised in a telex sent by the owners’ brokers which
was headed: “Confirm telcons here recap fixture sub details.” The telex then set out the terms agreed,
which covered the name and description of the ship, quantity of cargo, loading and discharging ports,
laydays, demurrage, freight and other matters, and concluded “Sub Dets Gencon Cp”. The charterers
then withdrew and there were no further negotiations. The owners said there was a concluded contract
and claimed damages.
Steyn J. held that no contract had been concluded. Although all objectively essential terms had been
agreed, the expression “subject to details” meant that the parties did not intend to be legally bound
until the details had been agreed. The parties cannot have envisaged that the Gencon form would
automatically supply all the necessary details, first because the form was often amended by the parties,
and secondly because the form itself provided for various options (e.g., Clause 6) as to which the
parties had as yet reached no agreement.
(Star Steamship Society v. Beogradska Plovidba (The Junior K) [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 583; see
also The Solholt [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 574, 576, where Staughton J. expressed a similar view (obiter)
on the meaning of the expression “fixed subject to details”.)
1.18 In The CPC Gallia,53 Potter J. considered the effect of the words “Conline booking
note—subject details/logical amendments”. He held, following the cases mentioned above, that
a formal contract was to be drawn up on the Conline booking note form, but that there was to
be no binding contract until agreement had been reached on the detailed provisions; these might
include not only amendments to the form which followed logically from the matters which had
already been specifically agreed, but any other amendments which resulted from the parties’
continuing negotiations. The addition of the words “logical amendments” did not therefore limit
the general and well-known effect of the words “subject to details”. Similar expressions were
held to preclude the existence of a binding contract in Ignatio Messina v. Polish Ocean Lines54
and Thoresen & Co. v. Fathom Marine.55
1.19 The effect of the words may be displaced by subsequent conduct which shows a clear
intention to dispense with them, and it will be displaced by actual agreement on the details, even
in the absence of a formal contract. In The Nissos Samos,56 Leggatt J. expressed the view that
“‘subject details’ is a well-known expression in broking practice which is intended to entitle
either party to resile from the contract if in good faith either party is not satisfied with the details
as discussed between them”. However, in The Junior K, Steyn J. rejected an argument, based
upon this passage, that there was a legally enforceable obligation to negotiate in good faith on
the details.
51 [2010] EWCA Civ 536.

52 The principle, and many of the relevant authorities, are further discussed in the judgment of Beatson J. in Tahar
Benourad v. Compass Group plc [2010] EWHC 1882, at para. 107.
53 CPC v. CTM [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68. See also Lond. Arb. 18/06 (2006) 702 L.M.L.N. 3.
54 [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 566 “otherwise terms of [Saleform] subject to appropriate amendments to be mutually
agreed . . . [and] sub further minor details”.
55 [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 622 “otherwise basis [Saleform] sub details suitably amended to reflect also the above
terms”.
56 Samos v. Eckhardt [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 378, 385.
10
“Subject to logical amendments/alterations”

1.20 Fixture negotiations often provide for the use of a standard form of charter,57 or a form
drawn up for use on a previous fixture, “subject to logical amendments” or “alterations”.58 Whilst
there is no decisive authority on the meaning of such expressions standing alone, there is no
reason to hold that they prevent the existence of a binding contract. Their effect, unlike “subject
to details”, is not to permit either party to raise for negotiation any matters of detail which he
wishes, and the only amendments permissible are those which follow logically and inevitably
from the terms agreed, and thus can be determined objectively. In The CPC Gallia,59 it seems
to have been assumed that if the words “subject to logical amendments” had stood alone they
would not have negatived an intention to contract, and in The Mercedes Envoy,60 where the fixture
telex referred to a particular charterparty “with logical alterations”, it was not suggested that this
prevented a binding contract from being concluded.
“Subject to survey”
1.21 In Astra Trust v. Adams,61 Megaw J. held that an agreement to purchase a yacht “subject
to a satisfactory survey” was not intended to be legally binding, since those words indicated that
the purchaser was not prepared to commit himself to a deal until he had seen a survey report. If
the agreement had been legally enforceable, he would have held that there was no obligation
upon the purchaser to act reasonably in determining whether to proceed with the purchase in the
light of the report; “satisfactory” meant “satisfactory to the purchaser” whose only obligation
was to act in good faith.
1.22 That case was distinguished in The Merak.62 By an agreement contained in an exchange
of telexes a ship was sold “subject to superficial inspection” and on the terms of the Norwegian
Saleform. The Saleform terms require the buyer to pay a deposit and to inspect the ship, although
the buyer thereafter has an unfettered right not to proceed with the purchase if he does not wish
to do so. It was held that there was a binding contract, the intention being to incorporate the
Saleform terms relating to inspection.
“Subject to stem”
1.23 This term means that the contract is conditional upon the charterer obtaining cargo for
the agreed loading period, such that failure to obtain it relieves both parties of their obligations
conditionally agreed. It is not the availability of cargo in general but the obtaining of it that is
important and, in the absence of words or circumstances indicating otherwise, there is no
obligation on the charterer to use reasonable efforts to obtain a cargo.
Two charterparties were concluded on 2 June “subject to stem, same to be confirmed in London not
later than [under one charter] . . . the 4th inst. [under the other] . . . the 7th inst.”. The charterers did
not obtain cargoes or give confirmation, and the question arose whether they could rely on the
“subjects” if their failure to obtain a stem was attributable to a failure to use reasonable efforts.
57 There is usually no difficulty in identifying the intended form, but see Lond. Arb. 3/96 (L.M.L.N. 426) where it
was held that “LONDON FOR[M] CP” was a reference to the Tanker Voyage Charterparty.
58 Ignazio Messina v. Polskie Linie Oceaniczne [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 566.
59 [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 68. See also Lond. Arb. 12/96 (L.M.L.N. 445), where the tribunal took a strict view of
the scope of the amendments authorised by these words.
60 Hanjin Shipping v. Zenith Chartering [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 559.
61 [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 81. For the same principles applied to horse sales, see Habton Farms v. Nimmo [2004]
Q.B. 1, at pp. 10 et seq.
62 Varverakis v. Cia Nav. Artico [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 250.
11
Rowlatt J. held that the term meant that the parties agreed that the entire matter was in abeyance
unless and until the stem was duly confirmed within the designated time. He thought it would be
improper, having regard to the shortness of the designated time and the situation of the parties, to read
in the qualification that the contract should be binding unless the charterers proved that they had taken
all due measures to obtain a stem.
(Kokusai Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha v. Johnson (1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 434. See also The John S.
Darbyshire (below).)
“Subject to satisfactory completion of two trial voyages”

1.24 These words have also been held to negative contractual intent:
An agreement was made for the time charter of a ship “subject to satisfactory completion of two trial
voyages”. A separate voyage charter was entered into for those two voyages and the charterers, who
were starch manufacturers, paid for a compressed air system to be installed on board the ship in order
to activate the starch. On the first voyage the system failed to activate the starch, and on the second
voyage the ship scraped her keel on a lock at the loading port, and the compressed air activation failed
to reach the corners of the holds.
Mocatta J. held that the words indicated that the charterers wished to consider the results of the two
voyages before committing themselves further in any way, and that there was no concluded contract.
He also held, following Astra Trust v. Adams (above), that even if there was a binding contract, the
charterers were obliged to accept the vessel only if, in their honest opinion based on the technical and
navigational aspects of the two voyages, the results were satisfactory.
(Albion Sugar v. William Tankers (The John S. Darbyshire) [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 457; see also
Howard v. Knight [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 364 (“subject to satisfactory running trials”).)
“Fixed in good faith”

1.25 In The Mercedes Envoy,63 the owners, in view of the possibility that the vessel might
not be able to perform the projected charter because of heavy weather damage, introduced into
the final charter negotiations the term “We are fixed in good faith”. It was not suggested that
these words in themselves prevented the conclusion of a binding contract. The court declined to
decide what effect, if any, they had upon owners’ liability for failure to perform the charter. The
cases referred to in paragraph 1.10 above probably do not have an impact on this term.
Other “subjects”
1.26 In all the cases discussed above, other than The Merak, the words “subject to . . .” have
been held to have negative and contractual intent, either because they did so directly (“subject
to contract”) or because they indicated that one or both parties wished to form their own opinion,
in the light of the future event, as to whether to proceed. Another “subject” occasionally
encountered in charter negotiations is “subject to board approval” or “subject to review”,64 and
the effect of this expression must also be to negative contractual intent until approval has been
obtained. Where, however, the “subject” is some event outside either party’s control or opinion
(e.g., “subject to removal of embargo on shipment of wheat within 14 days”), the conclusion is
more likely to be that each party is bound, and must perform if the condition is fulfilled, failing
which the contract lapses. There may also be cases where one or other party is obliged to use
reasonable endeavours to fulfil the condition (e.g., “subject to export licence”65 or “subject to
63 Hanjin Shipping v. Zenith Chartering [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 559 also cf. Winter in LMAA Law Review July
2007 p18.
64 Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd v. Americas Bulk Transport Ltd (The Pacific Champ) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
320.
65 See Brauer v. James Clark [1952] 2 All E.R. 497, 501.
12
LAW GOVERNING THE CHARTER 1.28
P. & I. Club permission”). A submission on these lines was rejected in Kokusai KKK v. Johnson.66
However, whether or not a charterer has obtained (or could have obtained) a stem of a type and
on terms which could be regarded as satisfactory is very much a question of his own personal
view, whereas such considerations hardly operate with more simple and clear-cut “subjects”.
LAW GOVERNING THE CHARTER
1.27 The question of whether a valid charter has been concluded, and the further questions
described in paragraphs 1.47–1.50, are determined in accordance with the system of law which
governs the charter. This has in the past been called the “proper law” of the charter,67 and is now
often called the “applicable law”, but in the discussion which follows the term “governing law”
will be used. The governing law of a charterparty concluded before 17 December 2009 was
determined in accordance with the Rome Convention as incorporated into U.K. law by the
Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (“the Convention”) and, after that date, it must be
ascertained in accordance with Regulation (EC) 593/2008 (“the Regulation”), which was a revision
of the Convention and is directly applicable without legislation.68 The Regulation applies in any
situation involving a choice between the laws of different states.69 Section 3 of the 1990 Act
provided that the Giuliano–Lagarde Report70 may be considered in ascertaining the meaning or
effect of any provision of the Convention and it will still provide valuable guidance.
Governing law chosen by the parties

1.28 The basic rule is that where the parties have chosen the governing law,71 their choice
will prevail.72 Preamble (11) of the Regulation stipulates that the parties’ freedom to choose the
applicable law should be one of the cornerstones of conflict-of-law rules in matters of contractual
obligations and, in the section entitled “Uniform Rules”, Article 3.1 of the Regulation provides
(in terms materially similar to its equivalent in the Convention):
66 (1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 434. See para. 1.23 above.

67 The common law for the determination of the proper law of a contract is of less significance now for the reasons
stated below, but it may not be wholly irrelevant: see, e.g., The Dolphina [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 304 and Sulamerica
S.A. v. Enesaa Engelharia S.A. [2013] 1 W.L.R. 102, in relation to the determination of the proper law of an arbitration
agreement, which agreements are excluded from the Regulation by Art. 1.2(e). The common law is set out in Chitty on
Contracts, 31st edn, paras 30.005 et seq. The judgment of Tomlinson L.J. in Lupofresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444 is an excellent example of the analytical process now to be followed.
68 For the rules applicable to charterparties made before the Act came into force (i.e., those made on or before 1
April 1991), see the 2nd edition. For rules applicable before 17 December 2009, see the provisions of the Rome Convention
1980, which was given the force of law by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, see the 3rd edition. As Andrew
Smith J. noted in Star Reefers Pool Inc v. JFC Group Ltd [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 215, one must be wary of adopting
constructions of the Regulations deriving from previous English law concepts, but there may be a similarity of outcome
on the facts of many cases.
69 See Art. 1.1. For the common law approach to the discernment of the governing law, see most recently The
Dolphina [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 304.
70 Report on the Rome Convention by Professor Mario Giuliano and Professor Paul Lagarde, reproduced in Official
Journal of the Communities (O.J. 1980 No. C282/1). The Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 (Commencement No.
2) Order 2004, S.I. 2004/3448 enables references to be made to the E.C.J. for interpretations and rulings.
71 Article 2 provides that any law specified by the Regulation shall be applied whether or not it is the law of a
Member State of the EU, but it must be the law of a country and not some non-national system. Contrast the ability of
parties to an arbitration agreement to stipulate otherwise: Halpern v. Halpern [2008] Q.B. 195.
72 Where English law permits a claim to be based in contract or in tort, it would seem that the contractual claim
should be governed by the applicable law as determined by the Regulation but the tortious claim should be governed by
the so-called Rome II Regulation (EC) 864/2007.
13
1. A contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties. The choice shall be made expressly
or clearly demonstrated by the terms of the contract or the circumstances of the case. By their choice
the parties can select the law applicable to the whole or a part only of the contract.
The Article, therefore, permits either an express choice or a choice which can be inferred from
the terms of the contract and the circumstances of the case, provided that it is demonstrated
“clearly”.
1.29 The principles embodied in Article 3 are very similar, if not identical, to those which
applied under English law for the determination of the proper law of the contract before the
Convention was adopted,73 and references will therefore be made to some of the pre-Convention
English decisions in discussing its effect. It is not necessary that the chosen law should have any
connection with the contract, subject only to the qualifications described below relating to the
application of overriding mandatory rules.74 Whilst preamble (13) to the Regulation provides
that the Regulation does not preclude parties from incorporating a non-state body of law, a choice
of “general principles of maritime law” would not, it is submitted, amount to a choice within the
meaning of Article 3.1. Before the coming into force of the Rome Convention it was possible
that such a choice might receive effect provided that the parties intended to create legal relations
and that the selected body of rules or principles was not so uncertain as to render the agreement
unenforceable.75 It is submitted that the Regulation has not affected the validity of this approach
under a contract governed by English law.76
1. Express choice of governing law

1.30 The great majority of charterparties contain a provision that specifies the governing
law, either in a printed clause in the standard form on which the charter is based, or in an additional
clause. Where the charter purports to contain an express choice, difficulties are likely to arise
only where the effect of the provision is unclear. Even in such a case it is usually possible to
ascertain the parties’ intention with sufficient certainty from the words of the clause,77 or the
clause may rebut an inference which might otherwise be drawn as to the law which the parties
intended.
A tonnage contract for vessels to be nominated, and involving several voyages between Tunisian ports,
was entered into between French owners and Tunisian charterers. The contract was based on a printed
form of charter, which provided (Clause 13) that the contract was to be governed by “the laws of the
flag of the vessel carrying the goods”. Typed additions to the form included a clause referring disputes
to arbitration in London, and a provision (Clause 28) stating that shipments were to be effected in
tonnage owned, controlled or chartered by the French owners. At the time when the contract was
concluded it was contemplated that the owners would perform the voyages primarily in ships which
they owned, but in the event, of the six cargoes carried under the contract only one was carried in a
French ship. A dispute arose over whether the contract had been frustrated, and the owners contended
that the proper law was French law; the charterers, relying on the London arbitration clause, contended
that it was English.
The majority of the House of Lords held that Clause 13, read with Clause 28, indicated with sufficient
clarity that the parties intended French law to govern. The minority, who did not consider that any
effective express choice of law had been made, nevertheless held that French law was the proper law
73 See Egon Oldendorff v. Libera Corporation [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 380.

74 In Art. 9 of the Regulation, broadly encompassing public interests (political, social or economic) illegality and
mandatory forum rules.
75 See Deutsche Schachtbau v. S.I.T. [1990] 1 A.C. 295, 312–316 (C.A.), reversed on another ground, ibid. 323.
Cf. Orion v. Belfort [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 257.
76 But see Shamil v. Beximco [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1784, 1798 (Sharia law).
77 See, e.g., Star Reefers Pool Inc. v. JFC Group Ltd [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 215.
14
because (per Lord Reid) the contract had its closest and most real connection with French law or
(per Lord Wilberforce) it was to be inferred from the terms of the contract and the circumstances of
the case that the parties intended French law to govern. The arbitration clause was an indication that
the parties intended English law to govern, but it was not conclusive and was overridden by the other
factors.
(Cie. Tunisienne v. Cie. d’Armement [1971] A.C. 572, as to the relevance of which now see Lupofresh
Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444.)
By a similar process of construction it has been held that a provision that a bill of lading should
be “construed in accordance with English law”,78 or that a charter should be “subject to British
law”79 meant that the governing law should be English law. In the cases referred to above, decided
before the Convention came into force, the courts applied ordinary English law principles of
construction in determining whether there was an effective express choice of law.80 Under the
Regulation the existence and reality of the parties’ consent to the choice of the applicable law
is normally determined by what was once called the putative proper law. Article 3.5 provides
that the existence and validity of the consent of the parties as to the choice of the applicable law
shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Articles 10, 11 and 13, and Article 10
provides that the existence and validity of any term of a contract shall be determined “by the
law which would govern it under this Regulation if the contract term were valid”, but if it would
be unreasonable to determine the question by reference to that law, a party may rely on the law
of the country where he habitually resides to show that he did not consent to the choice of law.81
Subject to these specific provisions, it was held that, in applying the Convention, the court should
adopt “a broad convention based approach not constrained by national rules of construction”82
and the same will be overwhelmingly true of the Regulation.
“Floating” governing law clauses

1.31 Since a contract cannot come into existence in a legal vacuum, in a number of cases
decided before the Convention came into force the English courts have expressed the view that
a clause which permits the proper law to “float” until it is fixed by a future event or at the option
of one of the parties cannot receive effect. In The Iran Vojdan,83 Bingham J. refused to give
effect to a clause in a bill of lading which conferred upon the carrier the option to select Iranian,
German or English law as the law governing the contract. The judge held that the validity of the
clause was to be determined by German law as the law with which the contract had its closest
and most real connection and, therefore, the law which would govern in the absence of an effective
choice, but he also expressed the view, following The Armar,84 that the clause was invalid under
English law. However, there is no objection to an agreement for the variation of the chosen
78 Vita Food Products v. Unus Shipping [1939] A.C. 277, 298.

79 The Laertis [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 613, where the provision in question was contained in a London arbitration
clause.
80 See Compagnie Tunisienne de Navigation v. Cie. d’Armement [1971] A.C. 572, 603.
81 See Art. 10.2, which applies whether the alleged choice is express or “demonstrated with reasonable certainty
from the terms of the contract and the circumstances of the case”. In Egon Oldendorff v. Libera Corporation [1995] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 64 and Horn Line v. Panamericana Formas e Impresos [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 44 it was held that the court
should adopt a dispassionate internationally minded approach, rather than the approach of either of the rival legal systems,
in deciding whether it would be unreasonable to apply the putative proper law to determine the existence and reality of
the parties’ choice of law.
82 Egon Oldendorff v. Libera Corporation [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 380, 387; Samcrete v. Land Rover Exports [2002]
EWCA Civ 2019. See below.
83 [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 380, 385.
84 [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 450. Similar views were expressed in E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Agnew [1987] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 585, 592; and in Star Shipping v. CNFTC (The Star Texas) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445 (all C.A.).
15
governing law,85 or a “fall-back” choice of law which is to take effect if the primary choice is
unenforceable.86 It would follow that a provision that any suit against the carrier shall be brought
in the country where he has his principal place of business, and that the law of that country shall
apply,87 would have to be construed as referring to the place of business at the date of concluding
the contract; if it referred to the place of business at the date of bringing the suit it could be
objectionable as a provision for a floating proper law.
1.32 However, the Regulation contains no provisions which invalidate such clauses, and
Article 3.2 expressly permits the parties to agree to vary the governing law. The view has therefore
been expressed that the pre-Convention English law decisions are no longer applicable, and that
a “floating proper law” clause is effective; unless and until the governing law is identified in
accordance with the provisions of the clause, the governing law is that prescribed by Article 4.1,
namely, the law of the country with which the contract is most closely connected or perhaps
Article 5. There are undoubtedly attractions in such a view. However, it might said with equal
force that Article 3.2 permits parties to agree that an applicable law shall be “other than that
which previously governed it”, and that presumes both a fixed initial applicable law and a positive
agreement to vary it. Most of the clauses of the type considered above purport to operate
retrospectively, as if the law identified under the clause had been the chosen law from the
beginning, and there are difficulties in allowing a post-contractual governing law to validate a
contract, or a contractual term, which was invalid under its governing law at the time when it
was made. Article 3.2 provides no solution to these difficulties, and the language of Article 4.2
and 4.4 demonstrates that the Regulation recognises the importance of identifying the proper law
at the time when the contract is made. The prevailing view is that a floating proper law clause
is effective under the Regulation87a, but the question is not free from doubt and would benefit
from clarification at appellate level.
2. Choice of law “clearly demonstrated by the terms of the contract or the

circumstances of the case”
1.33 This is the second ground upon which the parties may be held to have made an effective
choice of the governing law.88 If it is to apply, it must be possible to infer from the relevant
material that the parties have made a real or actual choice of the governing law, although they
have not expressly provided for it in the contract. It is not sufficient that it is possible to identify
the law which the parties, as reasonable people, would or should have chosen.89 The
Giuliano–Lagarde Report identified four situations in which the requirements of the Convention
might have been be found to have been satisfied and there is no reason to think that the same
does not apply to the Regulation.
(a) Use of a standard form known to be governed by a particular system of law

1.34 Use of a form that is clearly designed to be interpreted by reference to a particular legal
regime is an indication of intention to contract by reference to that legal regime.90 Certain forms
85 Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd v. Hestia Holdings Ltd [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 121 (under the Contracts
(Applicable Law) Act 1990).
86 The Mariannina [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 12, 15 (C.A.).
87 See, e.g., The Blue Wave [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 151.
87a BP plc v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. [2004] EWHC (1132) Comm, paras 30–38.
88 See, e.g., F.R. Lurssen Werft v. Halle [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 20 and Lupofresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444.
89 See the Giuliano–Lagarde Report. The position with regard to implied choice was in principle the same under
the English pre-Convention rules. However the English decisions occasionally conflated implied choice with the fall-
back rule based on imputed choice (the system of law with which the contract had its closest and most real connection).
Under the Convention, because of the presumptions under Arts 4.2 and 4.4, the importance of keeping the two situations
distinct is greater.
90 See Amin Rasheed Shipping v. Kuwait Ins. [1984] A.C. 50, in which the use of Lloyd’s S.G. form was held to
indicate an intention that English law should govern.
16
of charter may give rise to the inference that their terms are designed to be interpreted against a
particular legal regime. Thus, in The Njegos91 the view was expressed that a charter on the
Centrocon form, even if the London arbitration clause was disregarded, was designed to be
governed by English law. However, the terms of the Gencon charter do not readily lend themselves
to this inference, and in Coast Lines v. Hudig Chartering92 it was regarded as being of little or
no weight.
(b) Course of dealing between the same parties

1.35 If the parties have previously contracted on terms which include an express choice of
law, it may be sufficiently clear that they intend a subsequent contract to be governed by the
same law, unless there is reason to believe that the parties did not wish the contract to be subject
to the previously chosen law. Similarly, a choice of law clause in one contract may be an indication
of an intention to choose the same law to govern another related contract entered into between
them.93
(c) Express choice of forum

1.36 English courts have traditionally regarded a provision whereby disputes are to be
determined by court proceedings or arbitration in a specified country as giving rise to a very
strong inference that the parties intend the law of that country to govern the contract. Cie.
Tunisienne v. Cie. d’Armement94 shows that the presumption is rebuttable, but it remains strong,95
and since the English courts did not seem to regard the situation as having been affected to any
significant extent by the Convention, it is unlikely that there will be any change under the
Regulation.
A dispute arose between a German partnership and Japanese shipowner as to whether a valid charterparty
for two ships had been concluded. The form of charterparty in question contained a London arbitration
clause, but no express choice of law. However, as part of the same transaction the charterers were to
have an option to purchase the ships, and the MOA which set out the terms of purchase was by its
terms governed by English law. Under Article 8.1 of the Convention the existence of a contract is to
be determined in accordance with the law which would govern it if the contract were valid, and the
question arose whether the charterparty, if valid and binding, would be governed by English law.
Clarke J. held that the charterparty, if valid, would be governed by English law. A purposive approach
to the Convention, rather than a narrow literal approach was required. After citing from the judgments
in Compagnie Tunisienne (decided in 1970, before the Convention came into force; see para. 1.30
above) he said that the test under the Convention, though not identical, was “very similar”; if there
was a difference it was one of “emphasis”, and it was a small one. Applying the test prescribed by
Article 3.1, he held that the express choice of English law for the purchase contract coupled with the
choice of London arbitration in the charterparty amounted to a clear tacit choice of English law as the
91 [1936] P. 90.
92 [1972] 2 Q.B. 34. In The Assunzione [1954] P. 150 it was not suggested that the use of the Gencon form was
any pointer to a choice of English law.
93 See Egon Oldendorff v. Libera Corporation [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 380, para. 1.36, below, where an English
arbitration clause coupled with an express choice of English law in a related contract indicated a clear intention to choose
English law. Contrast ISS v. Aeolian Shipping [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 641, where the choice of English jurisdiction (and
therefore English law) for a claim under a contract for the supply of spare parts did not involve a choice of English law
to govern the original supply contract, and likewise Lupofresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444,
where various past and present “English” characteristics did not prevent a series of contracts from being governed by
the law of Japan.
94 [1971] A.C. 572, above, para. 1.30. For other cases where the presumption was rebutted, see The Castle Alpha
[1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 383 and Star Shipping v. CNFTC (The Star Texas) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445. See also Lupofresh
Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444.
95 See esp. Hellenic Steel v. Svolamar (The Komninos S) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 370, 376, per Bingham J.
17
law governing the charterparty, which was “demonstrated with reasonable certainty by the terms of
the contract or the circumstances of the case”. It was relevant that the parties had negotiated using
terms well known in English law and had chosen a neutral forum for their disputes, and it was unlikely
that they would intend the application of a law other than that normally applied in that forum.
(Egon Oldendorff v. Libera Corporation [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 380: see also Star Reefers Pool Inc.
v. JFC Group Ltd [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 215, where there was a choice of applicable law but no
specific choice of forum; and Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal v. VSC Steel Co. [2014] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 479 para. 102.)
Whilst in the case cited above the judge found that a choice of governing law was demonstrated
by factors other than the arbitration clause alone, he appears to have accepted that there are cases
where the choice of forum will be sufficient in itself, particularly where the chosen forum is a
local association, such as the London Maritime Arbitrators Association, or a local exchange; by
contrast, where the arbitrators are to be selected by an international body the indication of an
implied choice is much weaker.96 Where the chosen forum is the courts of a particular country
rather than arbitration, it seems likely that English courts will, other matters being equal, regard
this as a sufficient indication that the parties have chosen the law of that country.97
(d) Reference to certain provisions of a system of law, without an express general

choice of that law
1.37 A typical example of a choice of certain specific provisions of a country’s law is a
reference to the Hague Rules legislation of a particular country. In Kadel Chajkin v. Mitchell
Cotts,98 Sellers J. regarded the incorporation of foreign Hague Rules legislation as an indication
that the contract was governed by foreign law. However, there are a large number of cases where
the indication has been regarded as of little weight, and a contract incorporating Hague Rules
legislation of one country has frequently been held to be governed by the law of another
country.99 In the latter case the English courts have usually held that the entire contract is to be
interpreted by reference to the governing law, and have declined to interpret the foreign legislation
in accordance with the law of the country whose legislation is incorporated.100
Other indications of a choice of law

1.38 (1) The use of the English language has occasionally been regarded as some indication
that English law was intended,101 but it is more usually regarded as being of little or no
significance.102
(2) When a bill of lading incorporates the terms of a charter, that is an indication that the
parties to the bill of lading contract intended that it should be governed by the same law as the
charter.103 However, in the absence of an express choice of law in the charter or an implied choice
arising, for example, from a choice of forum, the inference may be a fairly weak one.104
(3) Use of certain phrases or clauses may be an indication of intention, and in The Industrie105
the use of the phrases “Act of God” and “Act of Queen’s enemies” was held to indicate an intention
96 [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. at pp. 389, 390.

97 See Marubeni v. Mongolian Govt. [2002] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 873, 885.
98 (1947) 81 Ll. L. Rep. 124, 129.
99 See, e.g., The Freights Queen [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 140 and the cases there cited.
100 See Dobell v. Rossmore [1895] 2 Q.B. 408; The Ot Sonja [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 435.
101 The Njegos [1936] P. 90, 101. Not in Lupofresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444.
102 The Metamorphosis [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 196, 201; Samcrete v. Land Rover Exports [2002] C.L.C. 533, 545.
103 See The Njegos [1936] P. 90; The San Nicholas [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 8; The Castle Alpha [1989] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 383; The Delfini [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 252.
104 The Metamorphosis [1953] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 196.
105 [1894] P. 58. See also The Njegos [1936] P. 90.
18
to contract by reference to English law. However, now that the expression “Act of God” is
incorporated in the Hague Rules, it can hardly be regarded as indicating an intention to choose
English law.106
(4) In certain cases the place where the contract was negotiated and the contract documents
issued may point to a choice of the law of that place.107 However, charterparty negotiations of
the ordinary kind will rarely give rise to this inference. Alternatively the fact that the parties are
both very familiar with the legal system of a particular country may indicate an intention to choose
the law of that country.108
(5) In English cases before the Convention, it had been held that the parties should be regarded
as intending to choose a law which would give effect to their contract on the terms agreed, as
opposed to a law which would render all or part of the bargain invalid.109 However, in the light
of the terms of Article 3.1 it might be difficult to justify this approach except where the parties
were actually aware that their contract would be valid under the one legal system and invalid
under the other.
(6) It may be legitimate to consider the subsequent conduct of the parties in ascertaining
what (if any) applicable law they have chosen.110
Where the parties have made no choice of governing law

1.39 Where the parties have made no express or implied choice of law, Article 4.2 of the
Convention established a general presumption, which is maintained in the Regulation, that the
contract shall be deemed to be most closely connected with the country in which “the party who
is to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract” has, at the time of conclusion
of the contract, his principal place of business or his place of business through which the contract
is to be effected, determined as at the time the contract was concluded.111 “Characteristic”
performance is the supply of the goods,112 services or property rights for which the payment
contracted for becomes due, and it is therefore the shipowner who effects the characteristic
performance under a charter. In Golden Ocean Group v. Salgaocar Mining Industries,113 the
application of Article 4 was raised in relation to the governing law of a warranty of authority
given by an Indian resident in relation to a guarantee of timecharter liabilities. The Court of
Appeal considered the impact of Article 4.2 in the context of an argument by the would-be
guarantor that the characteristic performance of his warranty was performed by him. The court
also considered Articles 4.3 and 4.4 providing exceptions to that principle, and held that it was
clear that the contract was manifestly more connected with a different country, namely, the law
of the charterparty, thus directing the focus to the country with which the contract is most closely
connected. Since the guarantee was governed by English law, it was held that the warranty of
authority was governed by English law by operation of Articles 3 or 4.
1.40 Article 5 of the Regulation, which deals specifically with Contracts of Carriage,
provides:
106 See Hellenic Steel v. Svolamar [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 370, 373.
107 American Motorists Ins. v. Cellstar [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 216.
108 Zebrarise v. de Nieffe [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 154.
109 Coast Lines v. Hudig Chartering [1972] 2 Q.B. 34, 44. See also: Re Missouri SS. Co. (1889) 42 Ch.D. 321; but
cf. Royal Exchange v. Vega [1902] 2 K.B. 384, where the contract was void by its proper law.
110 F.R. Lurssen Werft v. Halle [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 20.
111 Article 19.3.
112 See Lupofresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444.
113 [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 542; the reasoning applies to both the Convention and the Regulation. Article 1.2(g)
excludes from the operation of the Regulation the question of whether an agent is able to bind a principal in relation to
a third party, but the issue in this case was not within that exclusion.
19
1. To the extent that the law applicable to a contract for the carriage of goods has not been chosen in
accordance with Article 3, the law applicable shall be the law of the country of habitual residence114
of the carrier, provided that the place of receipt or the place of delivery or the habitual residence of
the consignor is also situated in that country. If those requirements are not met, the law of the country
where the place of delivery as agreed by the parties is situated shall apply.
3. Where it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that the contract, in the absence of a
choice of law, is manifestly more closely connected with a country other than that indicated in paragraph
. . . 1115 . . . the law of that other country shall apply.
1.41 “Contract for the carriage of goods”116 Contracts of carriage under bills of lading would
plainly fall within the Article as would single voyage charters subject to the qualification that
their main purpose is the carriage of goods, a qualification which will rarely if ever be unfulfilled.
There seems no reason to doubt that the normal consecutive voyage charter or tonnage contract
also falls within the scope of this Article, but a contract for the carriage of goods does not include
a contract of forwarding.117 Most such contracts will involve the carrier, the consignor and the
place of receipt of the goods and the place of delivery in different countries. Therefore, absent
an express or clear choice of law, the law of the place of delivery is the most probable choice.
Article 5.3 may displace that choice by the identification of a country “manifestly more closely
connected” with a country other than that in Article 5.1, if there is one. Very often there is not.
1.42 “Carrier” probably refers to the person who enters into the contract of carriage of goods
with the consignor, whether or not he is the owner or operator of the ship, and would thus include
a charterer who sub-charters or enters into a bill of lading contract.118 Where the charter contains
a demise clause, the question whether that clause offends against public policy must be answered
by reference to the law of the forum. In English law there is no objection to such a clause. Whether
the clause has been inserted with the authority of the person who is designated as principal
thereunder must also be answered without reference to the Regulation, which excludes from its
ambit the question whether an agent is able to bind a principal (Article 1.2(g)). In English common
law, this question would fall to be decided by the putative proper law119 and under the Regulation
this would be Article 10.
1.43 “Place of loading/discharge.” The requirement of English conflicts rules that the proper
law must be identifiable as soon as the contract is concluded120 was reflected in Article 4.4 of
the Convention, with its reference to the carrier’s place of business “at the time the contract is
concluded”, and now in Article 19.3 of the Regulation. It would seem to follow that the place
of loading or discharge must refer to the place designated in the contract rather than that at which
loading or discharge actually occurs and this view was supported by the Giuliano–Lagarde Report.
If the charter provides for a range of loading and discharging ports in different countries, it is
therefore not possible to give effect to the presumption in Article 5.1, even if the carrier’s place
of business were in the country where loading or discharging actually occurred. Any subsequent
114 “Habitual residence” is defined in Art. 19: broadly it is the place of the central administration of a company or
the principal place of business.
115 Paragraph 2 deals with the carriage of passengers.
116 See Intercontainer Interfrigo SC v. Balkende Oosthuizen [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 400: where the ECJ held that
Art. 4.4 of the Rome Convention applied where the main purpose of the contract was the carriage of goods as opposed
to the mere provision of the means of transporting goods. The identification of multiple applicable laws governing a
contract would run counter to the objects of the Convention, but it may be possible if there were truly independent parts
of the contract.
117 Victoria Feuer Versicherung v. Expeditiebedrijf Frans Maas (27 November 1986) [1988] Schip en Schade, No.
97, at p. 278.
118 See the Giuliano–Lagarde Report, and the definition of “carrier” in Art. I(a) of the Hague Rules, Chapter 85,
below.
119 See Chatenay v. Brazilian Submarine Telegraph [1891] 1 Q.B. 79.
120 Paragraph 1.31, above. See also Intercontainer Interfrigo SC v. Balkende Oosthuizen [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.
400.
20
agreement between the parties to change the place of loading or discharge will, therefore, not
affect the operation of the presumption in itself, but may be relevant in determining whether the
presumption should be disregarded pursuant to Article 5.3, since events occurring after the
conclusion of the contract may be relevant in determining the country with which the contract
is most closely connected.
1.44 “Consignor.” For reasons similar to those given above, it is submitted that the consignor
means the person designated in the contract as consignor, rather than the person who (or whose
agent) actually delivers the goods to the carrier. Unless the charter specifically designates a third
party as the shipper or consignor, it is probable that the charterer himself is to be regarded as
the “consignor”, since he binds himself by the charter to ship the goods,121 even though he may
delegate performance of his obligation to a third party.
1.45 The main thrust of Articles 4 and 5.3 is to like effect, namely, in the absence of an
express or clear choice of law, the identification of the governing law should be by reference to
the country with which the contract is most closely connected. Despite the apparent similarity
between this wording and the English common law rules, there is a difference of emphasis, since
under the English rules it is the system of law with which the contract is most closely connected
which governs, whereas, under the Regulation, the enquiry is as to the country with which the
closest connection exists. The latter test suggests that matters such as the place of performance
or the economic centre of the contract will carry greater weight than the legal concepts of a legal
system by reference to which the contract is expressed.
1.46 Even where the presumptions in Article 5 are prima facie applicable, Article 5.3
contemplates that the contract and thus its governing law is more closely connected with another
country. The cases concerned with the question whether the presumption under Article 4.2 of
the Convention should be disregarded demonstrate that the courts will be willing to do so if a
substantial preponderance of the performance of the contract is to take place in a country other
than that identified under Article 4.2,122 and a similar approach may be taken to the application
of Article 5.3.
The role of the governing law

1.47 Under the Regulation, matters which are determined in accordance with the governing
law are:
(1) The existence and material validity of the charter, including the question whether the
parties have reached agreement (Article 10).123
(2) The formal validity of the charter. It suffices if the charter is formally valid either by
the governing law or by the law of the place where it was concluded (Article 11).
(3) The interpretation, performance, consequences of breach, and mode of discharge of the
charter (Article 12, the purpose of which is to maintain a distinction between the
substance of an obligation, governed by the proper law, and the mode of performance,
which is governed by the law of the place of performance).124
121 See Chapter 7.

122 See Samcrete v. Land Rover Exports [2002] C.L.C. 533, Marconi v. P.T. Pan Indonesia Bank [2004] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 594.
123 See Egon Oldendorff v. Libera Corporation [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 380, 385 et seq. and The Epsilon Rosa (No. 2)
[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 701, [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509, concerning the effect of Art. 8 on the incorporation of a charterparty
arbitration clause into a bill of lading.
124 See East West Corp. v. DKBS 1912 [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 182, at pp. 194 et seq., per Thomas J. This did not
feature in the Court of Appeal [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 239.
21
1.48 The Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 did not give effect to the provisions of the
Convention which applied the governing law to the effects of nullity of the contract (Article
10.1(c)) nor to those which entitle the court to give effect to mandatory rules other than those
of the forum, but the provisions of Article 10.13 of the Regulation are of compulsory effect. The
effect of mandatory rules of the forum125 is preserved by Article 21.
1.49 The English conflicts rules defining the role of the proper law, which apply to charters
entered into before 1 April 1991, were broadly similar to those of the Convention and now of
the Regulation. In determining whether a valid charter is in existence the law to be applied is
that which would be the governing law of the charter on the assumption that it had been validly
concluded.126
Procedural law—limitation of shipowners’ liability

1.50 Article 1.3 of the Regulation provides that the Regulation shall not apply to evidence
and procedure except for presumptions of law and the burden of proof, which are covered by
Article 18. Although statutes of limitation are in general substantive, and therefore relevant if
part of the governing law, statutes which limit a shipowner’s liability by reference to the tonnage
of his vessel may well be procedural and thus relevant only to the extent that they are part of the
law of the country where the issue is decided. In Caltex Singapore v. BP Shipping,127 damage
was done by a ship to a berth in Singapore; the shipowners commenced a limitation action in
Singapore under the relevant local statute, but were sued for damages in England, where Clarke
J. held that the English, not the Singaporean, limitation statute would be applicable.128 He
distinguished this right to limit from the package limitation found in Article IV Rule 5 of the
Hague Rules:
The effect of the Convention . . . is not to qualify the substantive right of the claimant against the
shipowner but to limit the extent to which that right can be enforced against the limitation fund. It is
in this respect unlike the package limitation in the Hague-Visby Rules . . . which qualifies the plaintiff’s
right to recover from the defendant. A right to limit of that kind would in my judgment be substantive
for that reason. (p. 294)
ILLEGALITY OF THE CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT
1.51 A contract of affreightment is,129 or may very well be,130 unenforceable on the grounds
of illegality in English courts or tribunals in the following circumstances131:
125 As to which see paras 1.51 et seq.

126 See Art. 10 of the Convention, and The Parouth [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 351.
127 [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 286. In this and other cases the fact that the foreign court will apply a different limitation
regime from that in force in England (e.g., a regime based on the 1957 Limitation Convention rather than the 1976
Convention) was treated as a reason for refusing a stay of English proceedings. This approach has subsequently been
disapproved: see The Herceg Novi [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 454 (C.A.).
128 Namely, s. 17 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, now embodied in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, s. 185
and Sch. 7.
129 See per Waller L.J. in Colen v. Cebrian [2003] EWCA Civ 1676, at para. 23.
130 The impact and repercussions of the decision of the Court of Appeal in ParkingEye Ltd v. Somerfield Stores
Ltd [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 679, remain to be clarified.
131 In ParkingEye Ltd v. Somerfield Stores Ltd (above) and Les Laboratoires Servier v. Apotex Inc. [2012] EWCA,
the Court of Appeal recognised that this was “notoriously knotty territory” and the cases are not easy to reconcile (NB:
the reference to the latter case in ParkingEye contains a misspelling of the claimants’ name). Detailed reference was
made to the Consultative Report (2009) LCCP No.189 of the Law Commission and to the Law Commission’s final
Report (2010) Law Com. 230 on “the Illegality Defence” and Toulson L.J. in ParkingEye relied on the principles derived
from them. It may be that those principles will increasingly guide decisions of the courts in this area even though the
Law Commission did not recommend legislation.
22
ILLEGALITY OF THE CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT 1.55
(1) if the contract is expressly or impliedly prohibited by English statute law or public
policy132;
(2) if the contract is illegal and unenforceable under its proper law;
(3) if the contract was entered into with the object of committing an act which is illegal or
contrary to public policy under English law, but it may be enforceable at the suit of a
party who did not intend at the time of making the contract to commit the illegal act;
(4) if the contract requires or necessarily involves the performance of an act which is illegal
in the country where the act is to be performed or if its real object and intention was
that it should be performed in a way which was unlawful under the law of the place of
performance;
(5) if the contract requires or contemplates the performance of an act which is contrary to
the public policy of a friendly foreign state, which also reflects a principle of English
public policy founded upon principles of internationally applicable morality.
1.52 The first rule is that the court will not enforce a contract which is prohibited by statute,
even at the suit of a party for whose protection the statute is intended, and who is ignorant of
the law or of the facts which give rise to the prohibition. A statute may prohibit by implication
as well as by express provision.133 A statute may, on its true construction, also prohibit a contract
which is in the event carried out in contravention of its terms, even though the contract might
have been carried out lawfully.134 Where the contract is prohibited by statute a party ignorant of
the facts which give rise to the prohibition may be entitled to recover damages for breach of a
collateral warranty that the contract is legal.
1.53 The second rule is merely an aspect of the general principle that the essential validity
of a contract is governed by its proper law.135
1.54 Examples of illegality of the third kind are cases where a contract has as its object, or
where its performance necessarily involves, the commission of a tort136 or a crime or a breach
of statutory duty under English law, or where to enforce the contract would be contrary to public
policy.137
1.55 Where a contract which is apparently legal and is capable of being performed legally
is, or is to be, performed in a significantly138 illegal manner, the contract remains enforceable
except at the suit of the party who, at the time when the contract was made, intended that it
would be performed in an illegal manner; and if both parties had that intention, it is not
enforceable at all.139 On this basis, an owner who overloaded his ship on a voyage in contravention
132 This is parallel to, but not identical with, the doctrine of ex turpi causa whereby a person cannot rely in support
of a legal right upon (in the sense of necessarily having to plead as part of his cause of action) a contract or arrangement
to which he was party which was illegal or immoral: contrast Tinsley v. Milligan [1994] 1 A.C. 340 with Stone & Rolls
(in liquidation) v. Moore Stephens [2009] A.C. 1391 and Gray v. Thames Trains Ltd [2009] A.C. 1339.
133 See Phoenix v. Administratia Asigurarilor de Stat [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 552.
134 See St. John Shipping v. Joseph Rank [1957] 1 Q.B. 267, where such a possibility was recognised but the court
declined to place that construction on the statute.
135 Vita Food Products v. Unus Shipping [1939] A.C. 277 (P.C.).
136 See Brown, Jenkinson v. Percy Dalton [1957] 2 Q.B. 621; note that commission of the tort of deceit was the
main purpose of the contract of indemnity in that case. Contrast peripheral deceit as in ParkingEye (above, considered
below).
137 If a contract which involves no illegality in its actual performance is to be held unenforceable merely on the
ground that it was entered into to further an illegal object, the illegal object must be reasonably closely connected with
the contract itself or its terms: see 21st Century Logistic Solutions v. Madison [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 92.
138 The word “significantly” is not found in the cases, but it is intended to reflect the decision in ParkingEye (above)
where it was found that the claimants intended to perform the contract in a way which included the commission of the
tort of deceit, but the Court of Appeal regarded it as disproportionate to treat the contract as unenforceable since the
relevant deceit was a minor aspect of the performance and could have been changed at any time, even though at the time
of making the contract it was intended.
139 Archbolds (Freightage) v. Spanglett [1961] 1 Q.B. 374, 388, per Devlin L.J.
23
of the Merchant Shipping Acts was held to be entitled to recover freight, it not being proved that
at the time of contracting he intended to overload his ship.140 The Court of Appeal in Royal
Boskalis v. Mountain141 have approved the statements of principle in these judgments. By
contrast, a charterer who was aware that his cargo was to be carried on deck in contravention of
statute was not entitled to enforce the insurance on the cargo.142 However, this rule should not
be understood in absolute terms or in “dogmatic and inflexible terms”, and the court is able to
take into account a wide range of considerations in order to ensure that the defence applies only
where it is a “just and proportionate response to the illegality”.143
S were the owners of a chain of supermarkets and they contracted with P for the supply of services
whereby penalty charges could be imposed on drivers who exceeded an allowed parking period. The
parties contemplated that P would identify overstaying vehicles and would then send a series of letters
to the registered keepers of those vehicles demanding payment of the penalty, the wording of these
letters becoming increasingly threatening if payment was not made. The intended third letter in this
series would contain what were found to be untrue statements amounting to the tort of deceit. P’s
remuneration under the contract was in the form of receipt of the penalty payments. S terminated the
contract and P sued for damages for loss of earnings and S denied liability on the basis that P intended
to perform their obligations in an illegal manner.
The Court of Appeal held that the intended tort of deceit was not such as to render the contract
unenforceable by P. The intended deceit was limited to only a partial (and minor on the facts) mode
of performance and was capable of being changed at any time and would have been changed if the
illegality had been pointed out. The intention to commit deceit was peripheral. It was something apart
from the main contract and was not an object of the contract. Nor was it necessary for P to plead or
rely upon any illegality. However, the court expressed itself in more general terms suggesting that the
courts should not be “unduly sanctimonious” so as to produce disproportionate results so as to deprive
a claimant of a remedy for lost income which would itself have been wholly lawful. ‘Proportionality’
in this context involves the assessment of how far refusal of the remedy furthers one or more of the
specific policies underlying the defence of illegality, namely the purpose of the rule which the illegal
conduct infringed, the principle that the claimant should not profit from his or her own wrong,
consistency, deterrence and maintaining the integrity of the legal system. “This does not mean that
the illegality defence will always apply where one or more of those policy rationales is relevant. It
means that, if the illegality defence applies at all, it must find its justification firmly in one or more of
them.”
(ParkingEye Ltd v. Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 679; note that Article 9.3 of the
Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008) provides that in considering whether to give effect
to the provisions of a law which render performance of a contract illegal, regard shall be had to the
nature and purpose of the provisions and to the consequences of their application or non-application.)
1.56 Even if a party did not, at the time of making the contract, have the intention of
committing an illegal act in its performance, and even if he did not know that his performance
was, or would be, illegal, he still cannot enforce the contract if, in order to prove his rights, he
must assert the doing of an illegal act either by himself or (possibly) by a third party.144
1.57 The above rule is relaxed in the case where that party was ignorant of the relevant law,
had no intention to violate it and in the event did not do so, thus avoiding the need to rely upon
an illegal act.145
140 St. John Shipping v. Joseph Rank [1957] 1 Q.B. 267; but see the discussion of this decision in the judgment of
Toulson L.J. in ParkingEye (above), at paras 58–64.
141 [1997] L.R.L.R. 523.
142 Cunard v. Hyde (1859) 29 L.J.Q.B. 6.
143 Per Etherton L.J. in Les Laboratoires Servier v. Apotex Inc. (above), at para. 63 and per Laws L.J. at para. 94.
144 Edler v. Auerbach [1950] 1 K.B. 359 and see the comments in Royal Boskalis v. Mountain [1997] L.R.L.R.
523 at pp. 619, 625–626.
145 See Waugh v. Morris (1873) L.R. 8 Q.B. 202, where the parties agreed to change the method of perform-
ance upon discovering that the method originally contemplated was illegal, discussed in Anglo Petroleum v. TFB
24
MISTAKE 1.64
1.58 The fourth rule has two distinct modes of application. One is where the contract requires
or necessarily involves an act which is illegal by the law of the place of performance;146 and the
other is where performance is apparently legal, but the real object and intention of the contract
is that it should be performed in a way which is unlawful under the law of the place of
performance.147
1.59 This rule applies even if there is no illegality under English law or under the domestic
proper law of the contract. Where the proper law of the contract is not English law, it may be
said that the effect of illegality by the law of the place of performance should be governed by
that proper law, but where an English court or tribunal is charged with the issue of enforcement
of such a contract, the preferable view is that the rule derives from English public policy and it
will therefore be applied irrespective of the proper law of the contract.148
1.60 The fifth rule is an amalgam of the third and fourth rules, but it is a distinct head on
which enforcement will be refused of an English law contract.149
1.61 An arbitration agreement or jurisdiction clause forming part of a contract affected by
illegality may nonetheless be valid and binding, unless the contract is void ab initio through
illegality; the defence of illegality will or may arise in proceedings brought pursuant to that clause
and its effect may be finally determined in those proceedings so that illegality cannot therefore
be raised as defence to enforcement of the resulting judgment or award.150
1.62 It may be that the above is simply an example of severance of agreements. Severance
is not necessarily restricted to such cases. It may be that an illegal contract will not be rendered
entirely unenforceable or void if the illegal parts can be severed from the rest. Thus, an arbitration
agreement may be valid, but it must accord with the relevant public policy that it should be so.
In Royal Boskalis v. Mountain,151 where part of a contract was intended to be performed in breach
of United Nations sanctions and the laws of the friendly foreign states where performance was
required, the arbitration agreement was held incapable of severance. Similarly severance will not
be allowed where the illegal covenant forms a main part of the consideration or where the
provisions of the contract are so closely related that to sever one part will involve rewriting the
whole.
1.63 A court may decline to enforce an illegal contract and yet still recognise its effects if
performed, for example, the transfer of property effected pursuant to such a contract.152 However,
a person may be precluded from claiming an indemnity for a loss suffered as a result of his
making an illegal contract.153
MISTAKE
1.64 The apparent agreement reached by the parties may have been based upon a fundamental
misapprehension of the circumstances in which the agreement was made and which form the
(Mortgagees) [2007] EWCA Civ 456, at paras 60–62. See also Cargo ex Argos (1873) L.R. 5 P.C. 134; Furness Withy
v. Rederi A/B Banco [1917] 2 K.B. 873, 876.
146 See Ralli Brothers v. Cia. Nav. Sota y Aznar [1920] 2 K.B. 287 and the discussion by Cooke J. in Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board v. ST-CMS Electric Co. [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 93, at paras 35–51.
147 Foster v. Driscoll [1929] 1 K.B. 47 and applied in Royal Boskalis v. Mountain.
148 Zivnostenska Banka v. Frankman [1950] A.C. 57, 79, per Lord Reid; Regazzoni v. Sethia [1958] A.C. 301.
149 Lemenda Trading v. African Middle East Petroleum [1988] Q.B. 448.
150 Mackender v. Feldia [1967] 2 Q.B. 590 and see also Westacre Investments v. Jugoimport-SDPR Holdings [1999]
151 [1997] L.R.L.R. 523, at pp. 619–620.
152 Tinsley v. Milligan [1994] 1 A.C. 340; see also Alexander v. Rayson [1936] 1 K.B. 169, esp. at pp. 185–187;
Bowmakers v. Barnet Instruments [1945] K.B. 65; and see the discussion in ParkingEye (above).
153 See Royal Boskalis v. Mountain, above.
25
basis of the agreement, or a misunderstanding as to the terms agreed. In either case the agreement
is void unless the contract clearly provides as to how the results of such a mistake are to be
borne.154
1. Mistake as to underlying circumstances

1.65 A mistake as to the factual circumstances in which a contract is entered into, if
sufficiently fundamental, is regarded as nullifying the parties’ consent and therefore renders the
agreement void. A mistake as to the existence of the subject matter of the contract falls into this
category, and thus, in Couturier v. Hastie,155 a contract for the sale of a specific cargo of corn
c.i.f. U.K. port was held to be void for mistake since the cargo had, unknown to either party,
decayed so badly as to be incapable of completing the voyage to the United Kingdom and had
been sold at an intermediate port. Upon similar grounds a charter of a specific ship or for a specific
cargo which had already ceased to exist might be held void for mistake, although in view of
improvements in communications, and the ability to obtain frequent and instantaneous information
as to the existence of the subject matter, it might well be held that the shipowner warranted the
existence of the ship at the date of the contract and the charterer of the cargo.156
1.66 A mistake as to facts which, although they are fundamental to the commercial purpose
of the contract, are not essential to the ability of either side to perform, is less likely to render
the contract void, but may nevertheless do so if it can be said to render performance radically
different from that which the parties contemplated. In Griffith v. Brymer,157 a contract for the
hire of a room for a day for the purpose of watching the Coronation procession of Edward VII
was held void for mistake because, unknown to either party, the procession had already been
cancelled. There may be cases where one party has a sufficiently fundamental commercial purpose
in entering into the charter, of which the other party is aware, for a mistake as to the possibility
of achieving that purpose to render the contract void, but such cases will be rare. Legal
impossibility of performance is equated with physical impossibility, and therefore if performance
of the charter is, unknown to the parties, unlawful by its proper law or by the law of the place
of performance, the contract is avoided on the grounds of mistake.
2. Mistake as to the parties, subject matter or other terms

1.67 In certain cases the parties have apparently reached agreement, but have in reality not
done so, because they are at cross purposes as to the parties to that agreement, the subject matter,
or the terms. It must be remembered, however, that in ascertaining what the parties have agreed
the court applies an objective rule; that is to say, it does not examine the actual or subjective
intentions of either party, but is concerned solely with what his words or conduct reasonably
indicate to the other party as to his intentions. It follows, therefore, that mistake of this nature
is only material if it is impossible, applying the objective rule, to impute a common intention to
the parties. To this there is one exception, namely that where A is actually aware, or where it is
patently obvious, that B is entering into the contract under a fundamental misapprehension as to
154 Associated Japanese Bank (International) Ltd v. Credit du Nord [1989] 1 W.L.R. 255, at p. 268, and see the
discussion by Capper in [2008] L.M.C.L.Q. 264.
155 (1856) 5 H.L.C. 673. For cases where the mistake was held to be insufficiently fundamental, see Great Peace
Shipping v. Tsavliris (International) [2003] Q.B. 679 and The Martin P [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 389, at para. 250 and see
the comments of Waller L.J. in Halpern v. Halpern [2008] Q.B. 195.
156 Cf. McRae v. Commonwealth Disposals Commission (1951) 84 C.L.R. 377; and Manbre Saccharine v. Corn
Products [1919] 1 K.B. 198.
157 (1903) 19 T.L.R. 434. As to a mistake of law, see Brennan v. Bolt Burdon [2005] Q.B. 303.
26
MISTAKE 1.70
its subject matter, or its terms, or A’s identity, A will not be entitled to insist upon the application
of the objective rule and to enforce the contract accordingly.158
Parties
1.68 A fundamental mistake as to the identity of the other party to the contract may negative
consent and avoid the contract.
After The Unique Mariner had run aground on a reef, her owners and hull insurers arranged for a
salvage tug, Asiatic Gala, to put out from Singapore to tow her off, and instructed the master to await
the arrival of a salvage tug. Shortly afterwards another salvage tug, Salvaliant, which had been working
nearby, reached The Unique Mariner and offered salvage services on the terms of Lloyd’s Open Form.
The master of The Unique Mariner, believing The Salvaliant to be the tug arranged by his owners at
Singapore, signed the Form. The owners of The Unique Mariner sought a declaration to the effect that
the salvage contract with The Salvaliant was not binding, having been entered into under a fundamental
mistake as to the identity of the other party.
It was held by Brandon J. that the captain of The Salvaliant was not aware of the mistake on the
part of The Unique Mariner. It followed that, since the captain of The Unique Mariner, upon an objective
analysis of his words and conduct, intended to contract with The Salvaliant, the agreement was binding.
(The Unique Mariner [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 438.)
In The Unique Mariner, Brandon J. left open the question whether the mistake was sufficiently
fundamental to render the contract void. A mistake on the part of a charterer as to whether he
was contracting with a registered owner on the one hand, or a broker, manager or charterer on
the other, might be sufficiently fundamental.159
Subject matter
1.69 Where one party intends the contract to refer to a particular ship or voyage, and the
other to a different ship or voyage, and where the objective rule cannot resolve the question
which ship or voyage was intended, there is no contract.
Owners and charterers were engaged in negotiations for two charters, one to load shale at Sydney, the
other to load copra in Fiji. The owners’ agent habitually corresponded with the charterer by telegraphic
code, and an offer sent by him in code, intended to refer to the Fiji cargo, was accepted by the charterer
on the understanding that it referred to the Sydney cargo.
The message was held ambiguous; it was impossible to tell objectively whether the parties intended
to agree upon the Sydney cargo or the Fiji cargo. The contract was therefore void.
(Falck v. Williams [1900] A.C. 176 (P.C.).)
However, the difference must be such as to create an essential failure to agree and a relatively
minor mistake, such as the position of a ship, is most unlikely to produce that effect.160
Terms of the contract

1.70 The position is the same where the parties each intend to contract upon different terms.
Owners chartered their ship to L at 7s. 3d. per ton, freight to be paid in London on signing bills of
lading, and carrier to have lien on cargo for freight. L chartered to the defendant at 8s. per ton. Cargo
158 See Hartog v. Colin & Shields [1939] 3 A.E.R. 566; Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com [2005] 1 S.L.R.
502 and Statoil v. Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP (The Harriette N) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 685, esp. paras 84–106.
159 But contrast Harper v. Vigers [1909] 2 K.B. 549.
160 Great Peace Shipping v. Tsavliris (International) [2003] Q.B. 679 and see Dany Lions v. Bristol Cars [2014]
27
was loaded by the defendant and the captain signed a bill of lading under which freight was payable
“as per charterparty”. The defendant paid freight at 8s. to L, but L failed to pay anything to the owner.
The owners claimed 7s. 3d. per ton, or a reasonable freight, from the defendant.
The court held there was no binding contract under the bill of lading, since the owners believed that
it referred to their charter with L, while the defendant believed that it referred to his charter with L,
each party being ignorant of the other’s belief. Since the parties were never ad idem, no contract to
pay a reasonable freight could be implied.
(Smidt v. Tiden (1874) L.R. 9 Q.B. 446.)
1.71 Cases such as Peek v. Larsen,161 in which it was held that a shipper who was ignorant
of the charter was not obliged to accept a bill of lading incorporating its terms and, upon the
captain’s refusal to issue a bill of lading omitting reference to the charter terms, was entitled to
have his goods unloaded, may also be explained on the grounds of mistake. However, the objective
rule will usually resolve such issues in favour of one or other party. The shipowner’s tariffs and
sailing notices may make it clear upon what terms he is prepared to contract, and where they do
not, the shipper will normally be regarded as having implicitly assented to a contract upon the
terms of the bill of lading normally issued by the shipowner for that voyage, except insofar as
the bill of lading contains unusual terms of which he had no actual notice. Whether or not a
shipper must accept a bill of lading incorporating the terms of a particular charter has been held
to depend upon whether he was or should have been aware of the charter.162 However, it must,
it is submitted, also depend upon the trade in question. A person who ships a crate of machinery
on a liner service would hardly expect to receive a charterparty bill of lading, even if he knew
the ship was operating under charter, whereas a person who ships a full cargo of crude oil on
board a tramp would not expect to receive anything else. The older decisions seem to proceed
upon the assumption that no owner who had chartered his ship would be willing to issue a bill
of lading upon terms which differed from the charter, an assumption which no longer holds
good.163
1.72 In the cases considered above the contract is void. It was once thought that there was
a distinct equitable jurisdiction to give relief from the consequences of mistake in circumstances
rather wider than those in which the contract is rendered void.164 However, it has now been held
that there is no such jurisdiction and equity can give no relief where none is available by the
application of the above common law principles.165
Rectification
1.73 Common mistake. Where the formal charterparty has been drawn up and signed166 in
terms which, as a result of a mistake, fail to reflect the prior agreement or common intention of
the parties, the charterparty may be rectified so as to correct the mistake. The rectification is of
the document, not of the agreement itself, which nearly always precedes the execution of the
document. Rectification is an equitable remedy and is not to be confused with so-called common
161 (1871) L.R. 12 Eq. 378.

162 See The Emilien Marie (1875) 44 L.J. Adm. 9; Ralli v. Paddington SS. Co. (1900) 5 Com. Cas. 124.
163 See, e.g., The C. Joyce [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285 and the discussion in The Nogar Marin [1988] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 412.
164 See Solle v. Butcher [1950] 1 K.B. 671.
165 Great Peace Shipping v. Tsavliris (International) [2003] Q.B. 679 (C.A.). The case casts doubt on whether
equity law has any role in the context of mistake, e.g., by imposing terms on a party who wishes to rescind a contract
on the grounds of mistake. In Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com [2005] 1 S.L.R. 502, the Court of Appeal of Singapore
expressed the view that the equitable jurisdiction remained in existence, but contrast the English law per Aikens J. in
Statoil v. Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP (The Harriette N) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 685, esp. paras 84–106.
166 A signed charterparty is distinct from signature of a guarantee in an email “recap” for the purposes of the Statute
of Frauds: see Golden Ocean Group v. Salgaocar Mining Industries [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 542.
28
MISTAKE 1.77
law rectification, which involves the use of the principles of construction167 to treat obvious
errors as being corrected, nor estoppel by convention168 by which the parties to a contract may
be precluded from asserting a contractual meaning or effect different from what they both mutually
assumed and on which they both relied.
1.74 The circumstances in which this remedy is available were summarised by the House
of Lords in Chartbrook v. Persimmon Homes.169 The party seeking rectification must show that:
(1) the parties had a common continuing intention (objectively viewed170), whether or not
amounting to an agreement, in respect of a particular matter in the instrument to be rectified; (2)
there was an outward expression of accord; (3) the intention continued at the time of the execution
of the instrument sought to be rectified; and (4) by mistake, the instrument did not reflect that
common intention. Rectification requires a mistake about whether the written instrument
conformed with the parties’ prior consensus, not whether it conformed with what the party in
question believed that consensus to have been.
1.75 It is not necessary that the parties should at the material time have formulated the words
which are sought to be inserted by rectification, it being sufficient that they had the necessary
continuing common intention and it is not an automatic bar to rectification if the instrument
contained the very wording that the parties intended it to contain, but that wording had an effect
or meaning different from that which was intended.171
1.76 Unilateral mistake. The mistake as to the execution of the contractual document may
be a mistake by both parties, or by just one, but in the latter case, the circumstances must be
such that the non-mistaken party is estopped from denying that he was mistaken. Thus, in Agip
v. Navigazione Alta Italia172 rectification of a freight escalation clause in two consecutive voyage
charters was refused on the grounds that only the charterers were mistaken as to the contents of
the clause; the owners had not contributed to the charterers’ mistake and were not aware of it.
However in Commissioner for New Towns v. Cooper (G.B.),173 the unconscionable conduct of
one party had led the other to adopt a mistaken view as to the effect of the written agreement,
and rectification was allowed.
1.77 It is not normally necessary for a party to seek rectification of a bill of lading, which
is not the contract itself but merely evidence of its terms. However, the parties may, by words
or conduct, agree that an unsigned document shall be the contractual document, in which case
rectification may be necessary if the document fails to reflect the true agreement. In The Pinta,174
Evans J. held that an unsigned draft charter was not a contractual document, but that, if it had
been, it could have been rectified.
167 The Starsin [2004] A.C. 715; Dumford Trading v. OAO Atlantrybflot [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 289 and KPMG v.
Network Rail [2007] Bus. L.R. 1336.
168 Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. v. Texas Commerce International Bank [1982] Q.B. 84; The Vistafjord
[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243; ING Bank v. Ros Roca [2012] 1 W.L.R. 472.
169 [2009] A.C. 1101, esp. para. 48 (Lord Hoffmann) and see also Daventry D.C. v. Daventry Housing [2012] 1
W.L.R. 1333, where the Court of Appeal treated the obiter views expressed in Chartbrook as binding. See also the
summary explained by Mustill J. in Ets. Georges et Paul Levy v. Adderley Navigation (The Olympic Pride) [1980] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 67, 72–73, Britoil v. Hunt Overseas Oil [1994] C.L.C. 561 and PT Berlian Laju Tanker TBK v. Nuse
Shipping Ltd (The Aktor) [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 346, paras 38–64.
170 These words in parenthesis seem to reflect the true intent of Lord Hoffmann consistently with the objective
approach to contractual construction. The scope for the issue also to be regarded as in part subjective is not yet clear, as
to which see the lecture by Sir Paul Morgan to the London Common Law Bar Association on 3 December 2012 for a
profound review of the problems.
171 T&N v. Royal and Sun Alliance (No. 2) [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 106, paras 133–137 and Grand Met v. William
Hill [1997] 1 B.C.L.C. 390.
172 [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 353, affirming [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 333.
173 [1995] Ch. 259.
174 [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 246 (affirmed [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 103).
29
1.78 For other cases on rectification of charters, see Vergottis v. Ford175 (statement of class);
Joint Danube Black Sea Shipping Agencies v. Rederi A/B Iris176 (basis of calculating freight);
Chandris v. Dreyfus177 (capacity of ship); Federazione Italiana v. Federal Commerce178 (orders
for loading port); The Rhodian River179 (charter rectified to substitute name of prospective
registered owner of ship for name of sister company mistakenly identified as “owner”).
MISREPRESENTATION
1.79 A contracting party may be entitled to rescind the charter, and sometimes to recover
damages, if he entered into the charter as a result of a misrepresentation made to him by the
other party.180 A misrepresentation will give rise to legal remedies if the following requirements
are fulfilled181:
(a) The representation may be express or implied,182 but it must be one of fact, and it has to
be judged objectively according to the impact that might be expected on a reasonable representee
with the known characteristics of the actual representee.183 A representation of fact may include
a representation as to a party’s state of mind, such as his intentions or expectations, but in such
a case the representation is not that his intentions or expectations will be fulfilled, but merely
that he genuinely intends or expects as represented; and it may also involve an implied
representation that his expectation is based upon reasonable grounds. The representor is entitled
to qualify what he is representing.184
(b) The representation must be material, in the sense that it would reasonably be contemplated
that the other party would, as a reasonable person, be entitled and likely to rely upon it in deciding
whether to enter into the contract, or upon what terms and that it was so intended by the
representor.185
(c) The representation must have been understood in the manner represented186 and, as a
matter of causation,187 relied upon by the representee in deciding to enter into the contract or
which terms to stipulate, although it need not have been the only inducement; it must at least
have been a real and substantial inducement.188
175 (1918) 34 T.L.R. 234.

176 (1932) 43 Ll. L. Rep. 97.
177 (1934) 50 Ll. L. Rep. 141.
178 (1949) 82 Ll. L. Rep. 717.
179 [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 373.
180 Damages may also be recoverable against third parties in tort if they have made a negligent misstatement which
is relied upon: The Arta [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 534, where a Baltic broker was held liable for an owner’s loss of freight
under a charter which was entered into on the basis of misstatements by the broker as to the charterer’s creditworthiness.
Presumably if the broker was authorised by the charterer’s principal, that principal would also be liable.
181 Probably the most comprehensive modern judicial analyses of the law of misrepresentation is to be found in
the judgment of Christopher Clarke J. in Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich v. Royal Bank of Scotland [2011] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 123 and the judgment of Coulson J. in Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v. Mentmore Towers Ltd [2009] EWHC 1552 (TCC).
182 Raiffeisen (above), paras 84–85; mere silence cannot found a claim in misrepresentation, but silence may assume
a positive content from its context; it may become a “speaking silence”: see Stocznia Gdanska v. Latvian Shipping Co.
[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 436, para. 96, per Rix L.J.
183 Raiffeisen (above), paras 81–83 and the cases cited.
184 Raiffeisen (above), para. 81 and AXA Sun Life Services plc v. Campbell Martin Ltd [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1.
185 Raiffeisen (above), paras 86 and 220.
186 This is particularly important in the case of implied representations: see Raiffeisen (above), para. 87.
187 Raiffeisen (above), para. 195; “might have acted differently but for the representation” is not enough.
188 Raiffeisen (above), paras 153 and 195–199. See Edgington v. Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch.D. 459 as applied in
the House of Lords in Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp. (2003) 1 A.C.159 is to the effect
that once a representation is an inducement, the courts will not consider any other inducements. See Raiffeisen (above),
paras 153 et seq., 196.
30
MISREPRESENTATION 1.82
(d) The representation must be false, in the sense of being substantially incorrect such that
the difference between what was represented and what was correct would have been likely to
induce a reasonable person in the position of the representee to act in reliance on it.189
1.80 A representation may be made: (i) fraudulently, that is to say with the intention of
deceiving the other party, or without any honest belief in the truth of the representation;190 (ii)
negligently, that is, without taking reasonable care to verify its truth; or (iii) innocently, that is,
in good faith and without negligence. Upon these distinctions the remedies available for
misrepresentation to some extent depend.191
Rescission for misrepresentation

1.81 By virtue of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, the remedy of rescission is, except in the
case of fraudulent misrepresentation, a discretionary remedy, the court or arbitrator having power
to award damages in lieu of rescission.192 Subject to that discretion, rescission is available unless
barred by one of the following factors:
(1) Impossibility of restitutio in integrum. Rescission is not available if it is impossible to

return the parties to their previous position in financial terms. Before the Mis-
representation Act, the fact that performance of the contract had commenced, or had
been completed, was in many cases a bar to rescission. The Act abolishes this rule, but
the further performance has progressed, and the more complex the financial adjustments
necessary to achieve restitutio in integrum, the more likely it is that the court would
award damages in lieu of rescission.
(2) Affirmation. If the innocent party affirms the contract with knowledge of the
misrepresentation, he loses the right to rescind. Affirmation may be express, or it may
be inferred from conduct which shows an unequivocal intention to continue with the
contract.
(3) Lapse of time. Even if the innocent party is unaware of the misrepresentation, excessive
lapse of time is a bar to rescission.
(4) Third party rights. If third parties have acquired proprietary rights as a result of the
contract, rescission is not available.
Damages for misrepresentation

1.82 If the misrepresentation is fraudulent, the innocent party may recover damages whether
or not he also rescinds the contract. The damages, which are recoverable in respect of the tort
of deceit, have been held to include all loss suffered as a result of reliance on the misrepresentation,
whether foreseeable or not.193 The basis of the assessment of damages is to place the representee
in the same position in which he would have been if no representation had been made, and not
as if he had been told the truth. 194
189 Raiffeisen (above), para. 149 and the cases cited.

190 Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App. Cas. 337 and more recently AIC Ltd v. ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd (The Kriti
Palm) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 555; Dadourian Group International Inc. v. Simms [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 601.
191 This is not the place to consider clauses which seek to exclude or confine liability for misrepresentation, but
see generally the discussion in AXA Sun Life Services plc v. Campbell Martin Ltd (above).
192 Huyton S.A. v. Distribuidora Internacional de Productos Agricolas [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 780.
193 Royscot v. Rogerson [1991] 2 Q.B. 297; in Smith New Court v. Citibank [1997] A.C. 254, at p. 267; the House
of Lords declined to express a view on the correctness of this decision.
194 Doyle v. Olby (Ironmongers) [1969] 2 Q.B. 158; Downs v. Chappell [1997] 1 W.L.R. 426, esp. pp. 438 et seq.,
and Dadourian Group International Inc. v. Simms (above).
31
1.83 Damages are recoverable for negligent misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the
Misrepresentation Act 1967. This statutory remedy, which imposes upon the defendant representor
the burden of proving that he exercised reasonable care, effectively supersedes any remedy under
the general law of negligence in respect of representations made by or on behalf of one contracting
party to the other, which induce the latter to enter into the contract. The damages awarded under
section 2(1) of the Act are similar to those in deceit; they are intended to place the innocent party
in the same position financially as if he had not entered into the contract, not to compensate him
for loss of bargain, or to place him in the same position as if the representation had been true.
The damages may include compensation for consequential loss suffered as a result of the
misrepresentation.195 Where the representee has himself been guilty of fault, his damages may
be reduced to reflect that fault pursuant to section 1 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence)
Act 1945.196
1.84 Where the representation is entirely innocent, made without fraud or negligence,
damages may nevertheless be awarded, under section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act, in lieu
of the discretionary remedy of rescission, but probably only if the right to rescind has not already
been lost by one of the factors mentioned above.197 In determining whether to award rescission
or damages the tribunal will take into account: (1) the seriousness of the misrepresentation; (2)
the consequences to the representor if rescission is granted; and (3) the consequences to the
representee if the contract is upheld. In Wm. Sindall v. Cambridgeshire C.C.,198 the Court of
Appeal considered that the damages under section 2(2) were intended to reflect the contractual
measure, namely, to place the claimant in the same position as if the representation had been
true. At first sight this may seem odd, since it has the effect of elevating the representation into
a contractual term, thus giving the claimant the benefit of a better bargain than he actually made.
It is submitted, however, that it is correct, and unobjectionable in practice so long as it is kept
in mind that the purpose of the power to award damages under section 2(2) instead of rescission
is to cater for those cases where the misrepresentation relates to minor or collateral matter, such
that to allow rescission would be out of proportion to its significance.
1.85 The Misrepresentation Act imposes liability in damages only on the parties to the
contract. A broker who negotiated a charter but is not himself a party thereto cannot incur liability
under the Act and is only liable, if at all, under the general law of tort for negligent or fraudulent
misrepresentations made by him.199 The principal may be liable under the Act for the agent’s
misrepresentations if made with the actual or ostensible authority of the principal.
Representation—a term of the contract

1.86 A representation which induces the contract may also become a term of the contract.
In such a case the representee may either avail himself of the remedies described above in respect
of the misrepresentation, or invoke his contractual remedies, namely, damages for loss of bargain
and, if the representation is a condition of the contract, or if its inaccuracy goes to the root of
the contract, elect to terminate.
195 Cemp Properties v. Dentsply [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 197.

196 Gran Gelato v. Richcliffe (Group) [1992] Ch. 560, where Sir Donald Nicholls V.-C. so held obiter. But contrast
the case in deceit: Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corp. [2003] 1 A.C. 159.
197 See Atlantic Lines v. Hallam (The Lucy) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 188; Huyton v. Distribuidora Internacional de
Productos Agricolas [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 780.
198 [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1016.
199 See Resolute Maritime v. Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (The Skopas) [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 431.
32
DURESS 1.89
DURESS
1.87 A contract is voidable, and thus can be rescinded at the suit of a party to it,200 if that
party’s apparent agreement resulted from coercion due to the exercise of duress by, or with the
connivance of, the other party, which is sufficient to deprive his apparent agreement of proper
voluntariness; his free will need not be destroyed, but it must be negative, vitiated or “deflected”
by the imposition of illegitimate pressure,201 giving him no practical choice other than to express
apparent consent. It is not necessary that such duress be the only reason why he expressed consent,
as long as it is a significant cause or at least a reason which satisfies the “but for” test.202
A written agreement to the sale and purchase of shares followed A’s making very real threats of murder
and violence against B and his family. Although the threats were of coercive effect and were a reason
for B’s signature of the agreement, he might still have signed it anyway for commercial reasons and
B had not proved that he would not have signed but for the threats.
The Privy Council held by a majority that duress was akin to fraudulent misrepresentation and that,
just as a contract would be rescinded for fraud once reliance on the fraud is shown even though there
may be other contributing causes, so also in the case of duress. If A’s threats were “a” reason for B’s
executing the agreement, B was entitled to the relief of having it set aside even though he might well
have entered into the contract even if A had uttered no threats to induce him to do so. The burden lay
on A to prove that his threats did not contribute to B’s decision to sign.
(Barton v. Armstrong [1976] A.C. 104 and see generally Lynch v. D.P.P. of Northern Ireland [1975]
A.C. 653.)
1.88 Not all pressure, even of the strongest sort, is regarded as illegitimate.203 Actual or
threatened violence to the person, or imprisonment, may amount to duress unless justified in
law.204 Money, not lawfully due, paid under protest in the face of actual or threatened illegitimate
seizure or detention of goods may be recovered as money had and received,205 and the threat to
destroy or damage property may amount to duress and it may also amount to the tort of
intimidation.206
1.89 It was once thought that unlawful seizure or detention of goods was incapable of
amounting to duress, but the principle that agreements can be avoided if entered into under duress
of goods or economic duress is now tolerably well established.207 In the commercial context,
illegitimate economic duress is likely to be more significant than any other type.208 The exertion
of pressure by lawful means does not necessarily prevent the operation of the doctrine of
200 The precise nature of the remedy is however very fact-dependent: Halpern v. Halpern [2008] Q.B. 195.
201 A threat to perform a lawful act coupled with a demand for payment or variation might amount to economic
duress, but it would be most unlikely so to do in a commercial context: CTN Cash & Carry v. Gallaher [1994] 4 All
E.R. 714.
202 See Lynch v. D.P.P. of Northern Ireland [1975] A.C. 653; Barton v. Armstrong [1976] A.C. 104; Dimskal
Shipping v. I.T.W.F. (The Evia Luck) [1992] 2 A.C. 152 and Huyton v. Peter Cremer [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 620, esp.
p. 630.
203 See per Dyson J. in DSND Subsea v. Petroleum Geo Services ASA [2000] EWHC 185 (TCC), esp. paras 131–148.
204 Coke’s 2nd institute 482.
205 Maskell v. Horner [1915] 3 K.B. 106.
206 Occidental Worldwide Investment Corp. v. Skibs A/S Avanti (The Siboen and the Sibotre) [1976] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 293, 335 and Kolmar Group AG v. Traxpo Enterprises PVT Ltd [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 653, esp. para. 119 of the
judgment.
207 Vantage Navigation v. Suhail and Saud Bahwan Building Materials (The Alev) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 138, 145
and Kolmar Group AG v. Traxpo Enterprises PVT Ltd (above), esp. paras 93–94 of the judgment. However, there is
much debate about the exact limits of the doctrine: see Borrelli v. Ting [2010] U.K.P.C. 21 [2010] Bus. L.R. 1718, where
the unlawful means of threatening a lawful act were held to create actionable duress, and the commentary in [2011]
L.M.C.L.Q. 333.
208 See generally The Siboen and the Sibotre, ibid. and The Evia Luck (above).
33
economic duress.209 Economic duress must, however, be distinguished from commercial

pressure which does not vitiate consent.210 The effect of the duress must be to make an apparently
voluntary act involuntary. Lord Scarman offered some guidelines in Pao On v. Lao Yiu Long211:
There must be present some factor which could in law be regarded as coercion of his will so as to
vitiate his consent . . . In determining whether there was coercion of will such that there was no true
consent, it is material to enquire whether the person alleged to have been coerced into making the
contract did or did not protest; whether, at the time he was allegedly coerced into making the contract,
he did or did not have an alternative course open to him such as an adequate legal remedy; whether
he was independently advised; and whether after entering the contract he took steps to avoid it.
1.90 A threat to break an existing contract may, but will not always, constitute duress. If it
is to do so, the consequences of the refusal to submit to the terms demanded must be serious and
immediate, so that there is no reasonable alternative open, such as legal redress by injunction or
otherwise.
On 2 April, the Cenk Kaptanoglu was voyage chartered for the carriage of scrap to China with a laycan
range of 15 to 21 April. There was no right of substitution and the identity of the vessel was important
to the charterers as the receivers’ approval of her was critical under their sale contract. The owners
then, in repudiation of the charter, fixed her to other charterers on 7 April. They acknowledged that
this was in error and promised to find an alternative vessel. On 23 April the owners nominated Agia
with an ETA of 8 May and the receivers agreed to accept her with an amended laycan on condition
that the sale price was reduced by US$8 per mt. On 27 April, the owners refused to pay that sum and
made a “take it or leave it” offer of a US$2 per mt discount on the freight rate with the charterers
abandoning all their claims for repudiation. The charterers were forced to accept this offer, but they
then brought a claim for damages, arguing that the agreement was voidable for duress. Arbitrators
held that the agreement to abandon all claims in respect of the owners’ prior repudiation had been
procured by economic duress even though the owners had done nothing illegal.
Cooke J. upheld the award. He held that the issue is not whether the conduct alleged to amount to
duress is lawful or unlawful, but whether it is morally or socially acceptable, with a standard of
impropriety rather than technical unlawfulness. He adopted the exposition of the potential considerations
for determining whether there has been actionable duress as stated in Adam Opel GmbH v. Mitras
Automotive (UK) Ltd [2007] EWHC 3205 (Q.B.): whether there is actual or threatened breach of
contract, whether the person exerting the pressure has acted in good faith or bad faith; whether the
victim had any realistic practical alternative but to submit to the pressure; whether he protested at the
time and whether he later affirmed the contract or sought to rely on it.
(Progress Bulk Carriers v. Tube City IMS Ltd (The Cenk Kaptanoglu) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 501,
see the interesting note by Prof. Pey-Woan Lee [2012] L.M.C.L.Q. 478. See also B & S Contracts v.
Victor Green Publications [1984] I.C.R. 419, applied in The Alev (above) and Huyton v. Peter Cremer
[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 620. In Kolmar Group AG v. Traxpo Enterprises PVT Ltd [2010] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 653, Christopher Clarke J. held (at paras 93 et seq.) that there was economic duress where the
claimant had “no practical choice” but to pay an increased price to the defendant since there was no
realistic prospect of speedy legal redress and any rights they may have had were unsecured (see also
Lupofresh v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444, at para. 11). Likewise in Atlas Express
v. Kafco [1989] Q.B. 833, Tucker J. set aside a variation made unwillingly and under compulsion
when the party had been “over a barrel”, but contrast to Williams v. Roffey Bros. [1991] 1 Q.B. 1,
where the increase in price was due to an unanticipated difficulty which itself imperilled the performance
of the contract.)
209 Progress Bulk Carriers v. Tube City IMS Ltd (The Cenk Kaptanoglu) [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 501.
210 See Atlas Express v. Kafco [1989] Q.B. 833, 839; the “rough and tumble of the pressures of normal commercial
bargaining”: The Cenk Kaptanoglu (above).
211 [1980] A.C. 614.
34
THE TERMS OF THE CHARTER 1.94
1.91 Threats not to effect salvage except on extortionate terms have resulted in the terms
being set aside or not enforced.212 However, it is generally true that the threat not to contract can
hardly ever be illegitimate even where the commercial necessity is great.213
1.92 The right to rescind a contract entered into as a result of duress will be lost if the innocent
party affirms the contract after the duress has ceased to operate. A failure to take any steps to
have the contract set aside may amount to affirmation.214 Damages may nonetheless perhaps be
recovered if the duress is actionable as a tort.215
Duress and the conflict of laws

1.93 In Dimskal Shipping Co. v. International Transport Workers’ Federation,216 the
blacking of a vessel by the I.T.W.F. was threatened in Sweden where such blacking was lawful
and not classified as duress. In the face of the threat, the shipowners entered into agreements
with the I.T.W.F. under which they covenanted to make increased and backdated payments to
the crew. The agreements were governed by English law. The issue was whether the English
courts would hold that the economic duress entitled the shipowners to avoid the agreements
notwithstanding that in Sweden, where the duress was exerted, it was legitimised. The House of
Lords held that the question was governed by English law and the lawfulness or otherwise of
the duress in Sweden was to be determined by English law, as the proper law and by English
principles.217 The same reasoning should apply where the proper law of the agreement is foreign,
bearing in mind that an express choice of law may have been induced by the duress. However,
there are some types of duress which are regarded by English public policy as so unconscionable
that a contract induced by that duress will be avoided whatever may be the position under the
proper law. In Royal Boskalis v. Mountain,218 Phillips L.J. concluded219 that there are still these
two types of duress: (1) that which is so unconscionable that it will cause an English court, as a
matter of English public policy, to override the effect of the proper law of the contract on the
issue of duress; and (2) that which does not so offend English public policy and its effect will
be determined by the proper law of the contract.
THE TERMS OF THE CHARTER
Express terms
1.94 The express terms of the charter are those which have been expressly agreed upon by
the parties, whether orally or in writing. Where the parties have reduced their agreement to a
signed document, as is usually done with agreements for the chartering of a ship, two consequences
follow:
212 E.g., The Rialto [1891] P. 175 and The Crusader [1907] P. 196.
213 See, e.g., Morton Construction v. City of Hamilton (1961) 31 D.L.R. 323.
214 See Northern Ocean Shipping v. Hyundai Construction (The Atlantic Baron) [1979] Q.B. 705; Pao On v. Lao
Yiu Long [1980] A.C. 614 and DSND Subsea v. Petroleum Geo Services ASA [2000] EWHC 185 (TCC), esp. paras
131–148.
215 See the differing views of Lord Diplock and Lord Scarman in Universe Tankships of Monrovia v. I.T.W.F.
[1983] A.C. 366, 385 and 400. Or if the same facts constitute the tort of intimidation – see Kolmar Group AG v. Traxpo
(above).
216 [1992] 2 A.C. 152.
217 But see Lupofresh Ltd v. Sapporo Breweries [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 444, where the governing law was that of
Japan, esp. paras 42–52 of the judgment of Tomlinson L.J.
218 [1999] Q.B. 674; [1997] L.R.L.R. 523, esp. per Phillips L.J. at 639 et seq. applying Kaufman v. Gerson [1904]
1 K.B. 591.
219 [1997] L.R.L.R. at 642.
35
(1) Any provision incorporated in the document will normally be regarded as a contractual
term. Thus, statements in the charter as to the capacity of the ship, her whereabouts and the date
of her expected readiness to load are generally treated as contractual terms binding on the owner,
rather than as mere representations. The distinction may be important for the reasons described
at paragraph 1.83 above.
(2) There is a presumption that the signed contract document was intended by the parties
to contain all the express terms of the contract. Thus, a party who contends that a further term,
not included in the signed document, was intended to be incorporated into the agreement, must
first rebut this presumption. This can sometimes be done by showing that there is a collateral
contract, or warranty, the consideration for which is entering into the main contract.220 Thus, in
Hassan v. Runciman,221 where a ship was chartered to carry a cargo of esparto, a statement made
by the owners, prior to the conclusion of the charter, as to the amount of esparto carried by the
ship on a previous voyage was held to be a contractual warranty although not embodied in the
charter. The presumption that the contractual document contains all the terms does not apply
with the same force to bills of lading, which, being issued after the contract is made and not
being signed by both the parties are not themselves the contract, but are merely evidence of its
terms (see Chapter 18). Thus, in The Ardennes,222 a statement of the vessel’s intended route, not
incorporated in the bill of lading, was held to be a contractual term.
Interpretation of charterparty terms
The general principle of interpretation

1.95 Charterparties, as other commercial contracts, are to be interpreted with the object of
ascertaining and giving effect to the intention of the parties. This overriding principle is, however,
subject to two important qualifications.
(1) The intention of the parties must be ascertained objectively. What is relevant is not what
the parties (or still less one of the parties) actually intended, but the intention which would be
gleaned from the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used by the parties to express their
agreement by reasonable business people placed in the context of the agreement, the parties’
relationship and all the relevant facts surrounding the transactions so far as known to the
parties.223
(2) Except to the extent described below, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained
exclusively from the words of the contract itself as used in their context and external evidence
of that intention, including the actual negotiations for the contract, is inadmissible and, in
particular, “without prejudice” negotiations.224
220 See Heilbut, Symons v. Buckleton [1913] A.C. 30; De Lassalle v. Guildford [1901] 2 K.B. 215.
221 (1904) 10 Com. Cas. 19.
222 [1951] 1 K.B. 55.
223 See BCCI v. Ali [2002] 1 A.C. 251, per Lord Bingham summarising the principles found now in many cases
from Reardon Smith v. Hansen Tangen [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 621, 625, per Lord Wilberforce culminating recently in
Rainy Sky v. Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2900, although the limits of this approach are to be carefully confined: see
BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd v. Dolphin Drilling Ltd (The Byford Dolphin) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 192. See also
Lord Hope’s speech in Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd v. North Lanarkshire Council [2011] 1 All E.R. 175 at
para. 11, referring to Moore-Bick L.J.’s judgment in Ravennavi SpA v. New Century Shipbuilding Co. Ltd [2007] 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 24, at para. 12.
224 Ocean Bulk Shipping and Trading v. TMT Asia [2011] 1 A.C. 662, where the exceptions to that principle are
fully elaborated.
36
Circumstances in which external evidence is admissible as an aid to interpretation

1.96 The factual background and the commercial purpose of the contract. Although the
parties’ intention must be ascertained objectively, it must be ascertained by reference to the
reasonable intentions of people in the situation of the parties at the time when the contract was
concluded.225 It follows that evidence of the background and object of the transaction is always
admissible. This is now the dominant principle of contractual construction and it is not dependent
upon prior proof of ambiguity. In Reardon Smith v. Hansen Tangen,226 Lord Wilberforce
explained the basis for this rule and its limits as follows:
No contracts are made in a vacuum; there is always a setting in which they have to be placed. The
nature of what is legitimate to have regard to is usually described as “the surrounding circumstances”,
but this phrase is imprecise: it can be illustrated but hardly defined. In a commercial contract it is
certainly right that the Court should know the commercial purpose of the contract and this in turn
presupposes knowledge of the genesis of the transaction, the background, the context, the market in
which the parties are operating . . .
It is often said that, in order to be admissible in aid of construction, these extrinsic facts must be
within the knowledge of both parties to the contract, but this requirement should not be stated in too
narrow a sense. When one speaks of the intention of the parties to the contract, one is speaking
objectively—the parties cannot give evidence of what their intention was—and what must be ascertained
is what is to be taken as the intention which reasonable people would have had if placed in the situation
of the parties. Similarly when one is speaking of aim, or object, or commercial purpose, one is speaking
objectively of what reasonable persons would have in mind in the situation of the parties.
1.97 The extent to which external evidence is admissible, and the correct approach to the
problem of interpretation, was summarised by Lord Hoffmann in Investors Compensation Scheme
v. West Bromwich Building Society,227 in a judgment in which three other members of the House
of Lords concurred:
(1) Interpretation is the ascertainment of the meaning which the document would convey to a
reasonable person having all the background which would reasonably have been available to the parties
in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract.
(2) The background was famously referred to by Lord Wilberforce228 as the “matrix of fact”, but
this phrase is, if anything, an understated description of what the background may include. Subject to
the requirement that it should have been reasonably available to the parties and to the exception to be
mentioned next, it includes absolutely anything which would have affected the way in which the
language of the document would have been understood by a reasonable man.
(3) The law excludes from the admissible background the previous negotiations of the parties and
their declarations of subjective intent. They are admissible only in an action for rectification. The law
makes this distinction for reasons for practical policy and, in this respect only, legal interpretation
differs from the way we would interpret utterances in ordinary life . . .
(4) The meaning which a document or other utterance would convey to a reasonable man is not the
same thing as the meaning of its words. The meaning of words is a matter of dictionaries and
grammars; the meaning of a document is what the parties using those words against the relevant
background would reasonably have been understood to mean. The background may not merely enable
the reasonable man to choose between the possible meanings of words which are ambiguous but even
(as occasionally happens in ordinary life) to conclude that the parties must, for whatever reason,
have used the wrong words or syntax: see Mannai Investments Co. Ltd v. Eagle Star Life Assurance
[1997] A.C. 749.
225 See Lloyds Bank Foundation for Scotland v. Lloyds Banking Group [2013] 1 W.L.R. 366, a case where the
Supreme Court held that one had to ignore unforeseeable intervening changes in the law which did not frustrate the
contract, but which had an uncovenanted material impact upon the construction and effect of the contract.
226 [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 621, 624–625 and see also Lake v. Simmons [1927] A.C. 487, 509.
227 [1998] 1 W.L.R. 896.
228 In Prenn v. Simmonds [1971] 1 W.L.R. 1381.
37
These principles requiring the objective ascertainment of the parties’ intention in the context in
which they made the contract were explicitly applied by the House of Lords in BCCI v. Ali,229;
in which Lord Hoffmann (dissenting on the facts) said he was not encouraging a trawl through
irrelevant facts. Thus, evidence is admissible to identify the subject matter of the contract or the
identity of the parties, where this is not clear from the terms of the charter itself, but evidence
of the negotiations themselves, and drafts of the contract, are not admissible as an aid to
construction.230 Therefore, once the formal charterparty has been drawn up and signed by the
parties or their agents, it is not permissible to have regard to fixture telexes, or the pre-fixture
negotiations, in order to construe the terms of the charterparty.
1.98 An agreed meaning of an expression. An exception to this rule which excludes evidence
of negotiations is that evidence may be admitted that the parties habitually used language in
an unconventional sense in order to support an argument that words in a contract should bear
a similar unconventional meaning, the so-called “private dictionary” principle.231 If the
circumstances are such that each party is estopped from resiling from the agreed meaning, then
each is bound by it.232 The parties’ conduct after the conclusion of the contract may also be relied
upon where it amounts to an agreement to vary the contract, or where it gives rise to an estoppel.
However, where the circumstances fall short of this, the parties’ subsequent words or conduct
are irrelevant, and cannot be used as an aid to interpretation.233
1.99 A special or technical meaning. As mentioned below, the language of a contract is
normally interpreted according to its ordinary meaning. However, evidence may be admitted to
show that the parties intended the language to be interpreted in a special or technical sense, and
to explain its special or technical meaning.234
1.100 Custom. Custom may become relevant in two ways. First, the parties may have used
language that has, by custom or trade usage, achieved a special sense. In such a case, evidence
is admissible to explain the special meaning. Secondly, provided that it is not inconsistent with
the express terms of the charter, custom may be relied upon to annex terms to the charter, and
in particular to resolve questions of detail upon which the charter is silent, such as where and
how loading, discharging and delivery are to be effected.
1.101 To resolve ambiguity.235 Although it is not necessary to establish ambiguity before
considering evidence of the background and context of the contract, where the parties use language
that is capable of referring to more than one subject matter, whilst it is plain that a reference to
one was intended, they may give evidence as to what their intention was.236 Where the ambiguity
results merely from the fact that the language used is, on the face of it, vague or confusing, the
old rule was that evidence could not be adduced to resolve what it was intended to mean. That
rule seems to have been absorbed by the more general principles of contractual construction
described above, but it is clear that even in such a case the court will not admit evidence of the
parties’ actual intentions, or of their negotiations (except for the purpose of establishing an agreed
meaning), and the evidence will therefore be confined to that which is admissible on one or more
of the above grounds.
229 [2002] 1 A.C. 251.

230 Chartbrook v. Persimmon Homes [2009] A.C. 1101.
231 Chartbrook (above), at paras 45–47 disapproving The Karen Oltmann [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 708 as not involving
an agreed unconventional meaning of words and thus as an illegitimate extension of the private dictionary principle, but
acknowledging that the doctrines of rectification or estoppel by convention may fill the gap.
232 See Amalgamated Investment & Property v. Texas Commerce International Bank [1982] Q.B. 84, and most
recently ING Bank v. Roc Rosa [2012] 1 W.L.R. 472.
233 James Miller v. Whitworth Street Estates [1970] A.C. 572; Schuler v. Wickman Sales [1974] A.C. 235.
234 See Schuler v. Wickman Sales, at p. 261.
235 It is not necessary to find an ambiguity of language before one may have regard to the background of the contract:
Chartbrook (above), para. 37.
236 See Raffles v. Wichelhaus (1864) 2 H. & C. 906.
38
1.102 Subsequent communication. Generally subsequent communications are irrelevant to

the construction of a contract, but they may be relevant to the issue of whether the parties have
varied their contract.237
1.103 It may also be possible to have regard to subsequent communications if they create
an estoppel as to the parties’ mutual understanding of the effect of their agreement,238 or if there
is a representation by one party about his agreement to treat the contract as having a particular
effect or having an effect different from that apparent from its express terms, which is then relied
upon by the counterpart making it inequitable to allow the former to go back on his representation.
Other more specific guidelines for interpretation

1.104 In addition to the general principles discussed above, the courts occasionally invoke
more specific guidelines or canons of construction to resolve problems. With certain exceptions,
these are better not regarded as rules, since the circumstances of any particular case may render
them inapplicable, and it has been said that they are “good servants but bad masters”. Some of
those more likely to be of relevance in the interpretation of charterparties are set out below.
1.105 (1) Words to be given their ordinary meaning. Unless it is clear from the context or
proved by evidence (which is admissible for this purpose) that the contrary was intended, words
are to be understood in their ordinary, popular and business sense, rather than in a technical
sense.239 Where a contract or clause is professionally drafted, it is to be presumed that the draftsman
has in mind previous decisions on the meaning of particular words and phrases and intends such
meaning to apply.240 If there is to be a departure from the ordinary meaning of the language used,
it should be demonstrable that something must have gone wrong with the language, since
linguistic mistakes are not readily or easily established in a formal document. The mere fact that
a contract might appear to be unduly favourable to one of the parties is not a sufficient reason
to conclude that there must have been such a linguistic mistake. It has to be clear that something
has gone wrong with the language and also clear what a reasonable person would have understood
the parties to have meant.241
1.106 (2) The charterparty must be construed as a whole. As emphasised by Lord Hoffmann
in the passage quoted above, all words and phrases depend upon their context for their meaning,
and must not be construed in a vacuum.242 The context includes not only the other provisions of
the charter itself, but also the commercial background. Notable recent examples of this approach
are Charter Reinsurance v. Fagan243 and Mannai Investments v. Eagle Star.244 In the context of
a carefully drafted document, this principle may give rise to a presumption that it should be so
construed that none of the provisions are unnecessary surplusage, but this presumption has been
held not to apply to charterparties:
237 Allscan Services v. Dougland Support Service [2003] All E.R.(D) 199 (Jan.); see also the comments of Lord
Hoffmann in Carmichael v. National Power [1999] 1 W.L.R. 2042, 2050–2051.
238 See, e.g., Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. v. Texas Commerce International Bank [1982] Q.B. 84; The
Vistafjord [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 243; ING Bank v. Ros Roca [2012] 1 W.L.R. 472.
239 See Sailing Ship Garston v. Hickie (1885) 15 Q.B.D. 580 (“port”); Mendl v. Ropner [1912] 1 K.B. 27 (“improper
opening of valves”); The Aragon [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 343 (“USA East of Panama Canal”).
240 The Kleovoulos of Rhodes [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 138 at 143–145.
241 BP Exploration Operating Co. Ltd v. Dolphin Drilling Ltd (The Byford Dolphin) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 192.
242 See also Dreyfus v. Parnaso [1959] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 125; The Laura Prima [1982] A.C. 1, 6; The Product Star
[1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 268, 278; The Fina Samco [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 344; but this may be taken to extremes and
may produce surprising results: see The Star Sea [2001] 2 W.L.R. 170 (H.L.).
243 [1997] A.C. 313 and see also Pratt v. Aigaion Insurance Co. S.A. (The Resolute) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 225
and Lloyds Bank Foundation for Scotland v. Lloyds Banking Group [2013] 1 W.L.R. 366.
244 [1997] A.C. 749.
39
I think it would be wrong to treat the charterparty as if it were divided into parcels, each labelled with
the name of an individual subject and constituting, as it were, a complete code on that subject. A
charterparty is built up of clauses generally agreed in the trade; and when they are added to or varied
from time to time, as not infrequently they are, I doubt that the commercial draftsmen pay much attention
to overlapping or that they are afraid of repetition.45
1.107 (3) Construction to avoid absurdity and to achieve a “reasonable interpretation”.

Where the language of the contract is capable of more than one interpretation, that interpretation
which most accords with commercial commonsense is to be preferred. As Lord Reid said in
Schuler v. Wickman246
The fact that a particular construction leads to a very unreasonable result must be a relevant
consideration. The more unreasonable the result, the more unlikely it is that the parties can have intended
it, and if they do intend it the more necessary it is that they should make that intention abundantly
clear.
And Lord Hoffmann reiterated the point in I.C.S. v. West Bromwich Building Society, after the
passage quoted above:
(5) The “rule” that words should be given their “natural and ordinary meaning” reflects the common
sense proposition that we do not easily accept that people have made linguistic mistakes, particularly
in formal documents. On the other hand, if one would nevertheless conclude from the background that
something must have gone wrong with the language, the law does not require judges to attribute to
the parties an intention which they plainly could not have had.
This principle has been somewhat extended by the Supreme Court in Rainy Sky,247 where Lord
Clarke JSC said (at paragraphs 21, 23 and 30):
. . . the exercise of construction is essentially one unitary exercise in which the court must consider
the language used and ascertain what a reasonable person, that is a person who has all the background
knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they
were at the time of the contract, would have understood the parties to have meant. In doing so, the
court must have regard to all the relevant surrounding circumstances. If there are two possible
constructions, the court is entitled to prefer the construction which is consistent with business common
sense and to reject the other . . . Where the parties have used unambiguous language, the court must
apply it . . . it is in essence that, where a term of a contract is open to more than one interpretation, it
is generally appropriate to adopt the interpretation which is most consistent with business common
sense.
1.108 However, this approach must be adopted with caution. As noted by Lord Clarke, there
is no place for it where the words themselves are clear, and their effect, if given their natural
245 Royal Greek Government v. Minister of Transport (1950) 83 Ll. L. Rep. 228, per Devlin J. at p. 235. See Cobelfret
Bulk Carriers NV v. Swissmarine Services S.A. (The Lowlands Orchid) [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 357 and The Petroleum
Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) v. FR8 Singapore Pte. Ltd (The Eternity) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.107.
Sometimes arbitration clauses and jurisdiction clauses appear together: see how the apparent repugnancy was resolved
by Darius Chan A.R. in Tri-MG Intra Asia Airlines v. Norse Air Charter [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 258.
246 [1974] A.C. 235. Similar views were expressed by Lord Diplock in Antaios Cia. Naviera v. Salen Rederierna,
where he said: “If detailed semantic and syntactical analysis of words in a commercial document is going to lead to a
conclusion that flouts business commonsense it must be made to yield to business commonsense.” See also Lloyds Bank
Foundation for Scotland v. Lloyds Banking Group [2013] 1 W.L.R. 366. But commercial commonsense has its limits
and is not to be elevated to an overriding criterion of construction: BMA Special Opportunity Hub Finance Ltd and
others v. African Minerals Finance Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 416 and Cottonex Anstalt v. Patriot Spinning Mills [2014]
1 Lloyd’s Rep. 615 paras 52–58.
247 Rainy Sky v. Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2900.
40
meaning, falls short of a result that flouts business commonsense.248 This is consistent with the
view of Lord Mustill in The Gregos249:
Naturally no judge will favour an interpretation which produces an obviously absurd result unless the
words drive him to it, since it is unlikely that this is what the parties intended. But where there is no
obvious absurdity, and simply assertions by either side that its own interpretation yields the more sensible
result there is room for error.
Also, it is necessary to guard against approaching the question with preconceived ideas, based
on generally accepted rules for the sharing of risk, as to what is unreasonable:
The task of the court is to construe the meaning of the special condition without any preconceptions
as to what the parties intended. In other words, it is wrong to introduce uncertainty by starting from
the viewpoint of a general rule governing such clauses, and then to resolve the question of construction
by reference to it. The court’s task is simply to determine the meaning of the provision against its
contextual and contractual scene.250
The starting point must be the words and phrases which the parties have chosen to use. It is not a
permissible method of construction to propound a general or generally accepted principle for sharing
the risk of delay between owners and charterers or seeking in the abstract to determine a reasonable
allocation of risk between them and then to seek to force the provisions of the charter into the straitjacket
of that principle or into that concept of reasonableness.251
1.109 (4) Surplusage. In general a contract ought to be interpreted so as to give effect to all
of its provisions, with the result that an interpretation which renders certain words or clauses
redundant ought to be avoided. It has been said, however, that this guideline is of little value in
the interpretation of charterparties, which often contain many surplus words and phrases.252 Even
so, one should “lean toward treating words as adding something rather than as mere surplusage”.253
1.110 (5) Eiusdem generis. The so-called “eiusdem generis rule” lays down that where a
list of specific items is followed by general words such as “any other cause” the general words
should be interpreted as being restricted to things of the same kind as the specific examples. In
charterparty cases its application has been sporadic, and unattended by any generally accepted
principles. In Chandris v. Isbrandtsen-Moller,254 Devlin J. refused to apply it to a provision in
a charterparty which prohibited the shipment of “acids, explosives, arms, ammunition or other
dangerous cargo”. He relied primarily on the ground that there was no presumption to the effect
that it should be applied, and nothing in the context to show that it was intended to apply. Other
charterparty cases, however, in the context of liberty clauses and laytime exceptions clauses,
have adopted the approach that the eiusdem generis rule is generally applicable unless there is
something in the language or the context to rebut its application.255 Another matter of debate is
whether the rule can only apply if the specifically enumerated items form an identifiable class
or kind. This was the view taken in Magnhild v. McIntyre,256 but other decisions have been to
the opposite effect, holding that the rule should be applied in other cases also, by limiting the
248 See The Byford Dolphin (above).

249 Torvald Klaveness v. Arni Maritime [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1.
250 Pagnan v. Tradax Ocean Transportation [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 646, 652, per Steyn J. For a particularly powerful
example of this approach see: Lloyds Bank Foundation for Scotland v. Lloyds Banking Group (above).
251 The Sea Queen [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 500, 502, per Saville J. and see also Sinochem v. Mobil Sales & Supply
[2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 339.
252 See Chandris v. Isbrandtsen-Moller [1951] 1 K.B. 240; The Angelos Lusis [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 338, 350.
253 See S.A. Maritime et Commercial v. Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. [1954] 1 W.L.R. 492, 495.
254 [1951] 1 K.B. 240.
255 See Knutsford v. Tillmanns [1908] A.C. 406, affirming [1908] 2 K.B. 385; Thorman v. Dowgate [1910] 1 K.B.
410.
256 (1920) 25 Com. Cas. 347.
41
general words to matters which are similar to one or more of the enumerated items.257 In principle
the latter approach seems preferable. The operation of the rule can be excluded by words which
indicate that no limitation on the general words is intended.258
1.111 (6) General and specific provisions. Where there is a conflict between different
provisions in the charterparty the more specific provision will prevail. For example, in Marifortuna
v. Government of Ceylon259 it was held that a clause which provided that the owners should pay
the additional costs incurred by the charterers if the vessel arrived late at the loading port should
prevail over a Hague Rules Clause Paramount which exempted the owner from liability for loss
or damage caused by act, neglect or default of the master in the navigation of the ship.
1.112 (7) Exemption clauses. It is a general rule that if a party wishes to exclude or limit
his liability by exemption clauses he must do so in clear language,260 and for this reason
exemption clauses are always construed strictly, and any genuine ambiguity is construed against
the person relying on them.261 The principle applies equally to mutual exemption clauses which
protect both parties.262 However, as Lord Diplock said in Photo Production v. Securicor,263 “it
is wrong to place a strained construction upon words in an exclusion clause which are clear and
fairly susceptible of one meaning only”. It was suggested by Lord Diplock in the same case that
the degree of strictness appropriate might depend on the extent to which the exemption clause
made inroads into what would, in its absence, be the contractual responsibility of the person
relying on it. Where the charter contains several exemption clauses covering similar events, some
in wider terms than others, the rule of strict construction may produce the result that only the
narrower can be relied on.264 There is a general presumption that an exemption clause which
does not expressly refer to negligence does not protect a party from the consequences of his own
negligence or that of his servants. This presumption does not apply if the party relying on the
clause would clearly not be liable in the absence of negligence for any of the matters covered
by the clause, or could only be liable on some ground which is “so fanciful or remote that [he]
cannot be supposed to have desired protection from it”, since in such a case to interpret the clause
as inapplicable to negligence would deprive it of all effect.265 Since it is debatable whether the
257 See, e.g., Thorman v. Dowgate [1910] 1 K.B. 410.

258 See The Notos [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 503 (“any other cause of whatsoever nature or kind over which the Charterer
has no control”).
259 [1970] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 247 as applied in The Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) v. FR8
Singapore Pte Ltd (The Eternity) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 107.
260 Great Elephant Corp. v. Trafigura Beheer BV (The Crudesky) [2013] EWCA Civ 905: a force majeure clause
relating to matters “beyond the reasonable control of Charterers or Owners or their respective servants or agents” in the
BP Voy 3 form approving the view of Moore-Bick J. in Fyffes Group Ltd v. Reefer Express Lines (The Kriti Rex) [1996]
2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 that “In general it is fair to approach such clauses with the presumption that the expression force
majeure is likely to be restricted to supervening events which arise without the fault of either party or for which neither
of them has undertaken responsibility”.
261 Dairy Containers v. Tasman Orient Line (The Tasman Discoverer) [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 647, at para. 12. This
principle does not permit expanding the ambit of exclusion so as to make the entire clause inconsistent with the main
purpose of the contract: Mitsubishi v. East Wind (The Irbenskiy Proliv) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 383. Limitation clauses
are not construed with the same exacting standards as exclusion clauses, although still construed strictly: Ailsa Craig
Fishing Co. v. Malvern Fishing Co. [1983] 1 W.L.R. 964.
262 The Pera [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 363, 366.
263 [1980] A.C. 827 at p. 850 and see Ocean Chemical Transport v. Exnor Craggs [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 446. It
is increasingly the case that, in commercial contracts, the courts are prepared to allow the parties latitude in apportioning
risk and liability: see Cero Navigation Corp. v. Jean Lion [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 292; Frans Maas (UK) Ltd v. Samsung
Electronics (UK) Ltd [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 251; Tradigrain S.A. v. Intertek Testing Services (ITS) Canada Ltd [2007]
C.L.C. 188; Stocznia Gdynia v. Gearbulk Holdings [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 461 and Onego Shipping and Chartering v.
JSC Arcadia Shipping (The Socol 3) [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 221, at paras 50–60 and 86, referring to the three-stage
guidance set out in Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v. R. [1952] AC 192, at p. 208.
264 Elderslie v. Borthwick [1905] A.C. 93.
265 See Canada Steamship Lines v. The King [1952] A.C. 192; Smith v. South Wales Switchgear [1978] 1 W.L.R.
165 and the valuable analysis in The Socol 3 (above), at paras 50–60 and Pratt v. Aigaion Insurance Co. S.A. (The
Resolute) [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 225.
42
underlying liability of a carrier by sea for loss of or damage to cargo is strict or based on
negligence, it cannot be said that an exceptions clause which does not cover negligence is deprived
of all effect or lacks substance. Thus exceptions in favour of the shipowner will normally be
construed as not extending to negligence.266
1.113 In order to cover negligence it will normally suffice if the clause contains general
words which make it clear that the exemption applies whatever may be the cause of the occurrence
of the excepted perils. Thus, the words “howsoever caused” have been held to cover negligence,267
even of a gross degree,268 but not dishonesty or wilful default or fraud.269 The terms “howsoever
caused” and “howsoever arising” may suffice to exclude liability for unseaworthiness, outside
the context of the Hague Rules,270 but this is not a view which has achieved universal approval.271
1.114 Contractual discretions may often amount to effective exemption clauses.272
1.115 (8) Written and printed clauses. In the event of inconsistency between the printed
clauses of a standard form and printed or handwritten provisions negotiated between the parties
the latter will prevail.273 However, the court is not astute to find inconsistency, and will attempt
to give effect to all the provisions; there is no inconsistency when a standard clause merely
modifies or qualifies a negotiated term, “to be inconsistent a term must contradict another term
or be in conflict with it, such that effect cannot fairly be given to both clauses”.274
1.116 (9) Standard clauses. When the parties contract upon a standard form of charter, or
incorporate standard clauses into their charter, it may normally be presumed that they intend
these standard terms to receive the same interpretation as in any other case. These terms should
therefore be interpreted in a way which accords with business common sense in any of the
circumstances in which the form is likely to be used.275 However, this presumption must yield
where the standard interpretation of the standard clause would deprive it of all effect276 or where
it would conflict with the main object of the contract.277
1.117 (10) Deletions in a printed form. Much controversy has surrounded the question
whether it is admissible, as an aid to construction, to look at deleted words in a standard printed
form which the parties have adapted. It is submitted that the question has been conclusively
answered by the House of Lords in Mottram Consultants v. Bernard Sunley.278 In that case Lord
Cross, with whom the majority agreed, decided that it was permissible to have regard to deletions.
The reasons why it should be permissible are also explained by Lord Reid in The London
266 See The Satya Kailash [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 465, [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 588; The Emmanuel C [1983] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 310 (“errors of navigation”). See also paras 6.34 et seq. “at shipper’s risk”.
267 Travers v. Cooper [1915] 1 K.B. 73; Mitsubishi v. East Wind (The Irbenskiy Proliv) [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 383.
Contrast Canadian Pacific v. Belships (1996) 111 F.T.R. 11, where the Canadian Federal Court held that an exclusion
of liability for loss of deck cargo “however the same may be caused” would, if read by itself, have covered a loss by
negligence, but since the bill of lading contained other clauses which referred specifically to negligence, which the deck
cargo clause did not, the latter should not be construed as extending to negligence. This decision, however, seems
questionable.
268 Mackay v. Scott Packing [1966] 2 F.C. 36 (Canadian Federal Court of Appeal).
269 The Irbenskiy Proliv [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 383; Mackay v. Scott Packing (above).
270 See The Imvros [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 848; The Irbenskiy Proliv [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 383.
271 See Sunlight v. Ever Lucky Shipping [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 174 (C.A. of Singapore).
272 See para. 1.120 below
273 See The Brabant [1965] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 546; The Starsin [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85.
274 Pagnan v. Tradax Ocean Transportation [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 342, 351; see also Bayoil v. Seawind Tankers
Corp. (The Leonidas) [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 533.
275 Miramar Maritime Corp. v. Holborn Oil [1984] A.C. 676, per Lord Diplock at p. 682.
276 As in Adamastos Shipping v. Anglo Saxon Petroleum [1959] A.C. 133.
277 See Glynn v. Margetson [1893] A.C. 351.
278 [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 197, 209.
43
Explorer,279 and further support is provided by Lord Hoffmann in paragraph (2) of the passage
quoted above; the reasons of public policy which exclude evidence of negotiations are hardly
applicable to deletions. For a contrary view, however, see the judgment of Bingham J. in The C
Joyce.280
1.118 (11) Displacement of general legal rights. Where the common law or equity confers
a right, it takes very clear words to remove that right.281 Thus, where there are parallel rights of
termination at common law and under the terms of the contract, clear words must be used to
demonstrate the intention to abandon the legal right; the more valuable the right, the clearer the
language needs to be for it to be lost.282
1.119 (12) Reliance on one’s own wrong. It is a general presumption that a person may not
rely upon his own wrong,283 but this is a rule of construction not a rule of law.284 The rule is
confined to the case where a party seeks to take advantage of his own breach of a legal obligation
owed by him to the party opposite.285 Where, in breach of a contractual obligation, express or
implied, a party has prevented the fulfilment of a condition precedent, he may not only be liable
in damages, but may also be precluded from claiming that the condition has not been fulfilled.286
1.120 (13) Discretions. When a contract gives a discretion to one party, that discretion will
be limited, as matter of necessary implication, by concepts of honesty, good faith and genuineness,
and the need to avoid arbitrariness, capriciousness, perversity and irrationality. The concern is
that the discretion should not be abused and the criterion is whether a reasonable person in the
same position could exercise it in a particular way.287
Implied terms
1.121 The process whereby a term will be implied into a contract is an exercise in the
construction of the contract as a whole.288 The decisions of courts and arbitrators have long
emphasised that the courts will not be over-ready to imply terms or to make presumptions about
the intention of the parties.289
279 [1972] A.C. 1, at pp. 15–16.

280 Ben Shipping v. An Bord Bainne [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 285.
281 See, e.g., Gilbert-Ash (Northern) Ltd v. Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd [1974] A.C. 689, applied in Seadrill
Management Services Ltd v. OAO Gazprom [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 543.
282 Stocznia Gdynia S.A. v. Gearbulk Holdings Ltd [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 461.
283 Alghussein Establishment v. Eton College [1988] 1 W.L.R. 587; see also New Zealand Shipping Co. v. Société
des Ateliers et Chantiers de France [191] A.C. 1 and per McCarthy J. in Scott v. Rania [1966] N.Z.L.R. 527 at 534.
The words of a contract may be so “crystal clear” as to override the principle: Decoma UK Ltd v. Haden Drysis
International Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 723, and Petroplus Marketing AG v. Shell Trading International Ltd [2009] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 611. Although the point is clear under English law (see, e.g., BDW Trading Ltd v. JM Rowe (Investments) Ltd
[2011] EWCA Civ 548). The position in the law of Hong Kong may be more nuanced (see Kensland Realty Ltd v. Whale
View Investment Ltd [2001] HKCFA 57).
284 Cheall v. Association of Professional Executive Clerical and Computer Staff [1983] 2 A.C. 180.
285 Although in the context of construction contracts’ liquidated damages provisions (and possibly even shipbuilding
contracts), mere prevention without breach may suffice: see Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v. Honeywell Control
Systems Ltd [2007] EWHC 447 and Adyard Abu Dhabi v. SD Marine Services [2011] EWHC 848 (Comm). See also
the excellent note of Pickavance and Mendelblat at www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/mediaw.
286 Little v. Courage Limited (1994) 70 P. & C.R. 469 at p. 474.
287 See the authorities discussed by Popplewell J. in Barclays Bank plc v. UniCredit Bank AG [2013] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 1, paras 56–67 and Socimer International Bank v. Standard Bank [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 558.
288 Mediterranean Salvage & Towage v. Seamar Trading & Commerce (The Reborn) [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 639,
at para. 9, referring to the opinion of Lord Hoffmann in the Privy Council in Attorney-General of Belize v. Belize Telecom
Ltd [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1988.
289 Where there are various possibilities about what the parties would have agreed if they had directed their minds
to the problem, it is almost certain that there can be no implication at all, however otherwise reasonable it might have
been: see per Lord Pearson and Lord Cross in North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board v. Trollope & Colls
[1973] 1 W.L.R. 601.
44
1.122 A term will be implied into a charterparty only if it is necessary to do so in order to

give business efficacy to the transaction, that is to say where the contract will not work, or leads
to manifestly absurd consequences, unless the term is implied, but not otherwise.
The owners of The Moorcock entered into a contract with the defendant wharfingers for the discharging
and landing of the ship’s cargo at the defendants’ jetty. Whilst alongside the jetty the ship, as was
contemplated, took the ground at low tide, and since the bottom was uneven, she was damaged.
The Court of Appeal held that a term was to be implied into the contract that the defendants would
take reasonable care to ensure that the riverbed adjacent to the jetty was a reasonably safe place for
ships to lie aground. Bowen L.J. said:
“The implication which the law draws from what must obviously have been the intention of the
parties, the law draws with the object of giving efficacy to the transaction and preventing such a failure
of consideration as cannot have been within the contemplation of either side; and I believe if one were
to take all the cases, and they are many, of implied warranties or covenants in the law, it will be found
that in all of them the law is raising an implication from the presumed intention of the parties with
the object of giving to the transaction such efficacy as both parties must have intended that at all events
it should have.”
(The Moorcock (1889) 14 P.D. 64, 68; the test has been expressed in different ways over time. One
which had currency for many years is the “officious by-stander” test, referring to the words of
MacKinnon L.J. in Shirlaw v. Southern Foundries [1939] 2 K.B. 206, 227: “Prima facie that which
in any contract is left to be implied and need not be expressed is something so obvious that it goes
without saying; so that, if, while the parties were making their bargain, an officious bystander were
to suggest some express provision for it in their agreement, they would testily suppress him with a
common ‘Oh, of course!’.” It is now probably somewhat outmoded, but it still sets the tone for the
process that the term obviously goes without saying since that is what a reasonable person would
understand the contract to mean: see per Lord Hoffmann in Attorney-General of Belize v. Belize Telecom
Ltd [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1988.)
As Lord Clarke put it in The Reborn290:
. . . the question of implication arises when the instrument does not expressly provide for what is to
happen when some event occurs. The most usual inference in such a case is that nothing is to happen.
If the parties had intended something to happen, the instrument would have said so. Otherwise, the
express provisions of the instrument are to continue to operate undisturbed. If the event has caused
loss to one or other of the parties, the loss lies where it falls.
1.123 It is not sufficient (but it is a necessary requirement) that the implication of the term
should be fair and reasonable and consistent with the express terms, since the touchstone is
necessary in order to give the contract business efficacy, that is to say necessary to make the
contract work as a piece of business consistently with its evident purpose291 but, as Lord
Hoffmann said in the Belize case:
There are dangers in treating these alternative formulations of the question as if they had a life of their
own. Take, for example, the question of whether the implied term is “necessary to give business efficacy”
to the contract. That formulation serves to underline two important points. The first, conveyed by the
use of the word “business”, is that in considering what the instrument would have meant to a reasonable
person who had knowledge of the relevant background, one assumes the notional reader will take into
account the practical consequences of deciding that it means one thing or the other. In the case of an
instrument such as a commercial contract, he will consider whether a different construction would
frustrate the apparent business purpose of the parties. That was the basis upon which Equitable Life
Assurance Society v. Hyman [2002] 1 A.C. 408 was decided. The second, conveyed by the use of the
word “necessary”, is that it is not enough for a court to consider that the implied term expresses what
290 Ibid., para. 10; see also North Sea Ventures v. Anstead Holdings [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 265, paras 246–251.
291 See Reigate v. Union Manufacturing [1918] 1 K.B. 592, per Scrutton L.J. at p. 605.
45
it would have been reasonable for the parties to agree to. It must be satisfied that it is what the contract
actually means.
The danger lies however in detaching the phrase “necessary to give business efficacy” from the
basic process of construction of the instrument. It is frequently the case that a contract may work
perfectly well in the sense that both parties can perform their express obligations, but the consequences
would contradict what a reasonable person would understand the contract to mean. Lord Steyn made
this point in the Equitable Life case (at page 459) when he said that in that case an implication was
necessary “to give effect to the reasonable expectations of the parties”.
Lord Hoffmann approved a list of overlapping criteria for testing whether a term should be
implied292: (1) it must be reasonable and equitable; (2) it must be necessary to give business
efficacy to the contract, so that no term will be implied if the contract is effective without it; (3)
it must be so obvious that “it goes without saying” (4) it must be capable of clear expression;
(5) it must not contradict any express term of the contract.
1.124 The courts have refused to imply terms in the following circumstances:
No implied term that a shipowner would not sell the ship during the currency of the charter, thereby
bringing to an end the broker’s right to earn commission on hire: French v. Leeston Shipping [1922]
1 A.C. 451.
No implied term that a vessel chartered to load at a Syrian port (but which had, unknown to the
charterers, traded to Israel) would obtain permission to load, the “expected ready to load” stipulation
being sufficient for business efficacy: Compagnie Algerienne v. Katana Soc. [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
132.
No implied term in a port charter for a range of ports that the charterers would pay for waiting time
if they nominated a port where the waiting area was outside port limits: Federal Commerce &
Navigation v. Tradax (The Maratha Envoy) [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 217, 228–229; affirmed on this
point [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 301.
However, a term will normally be implied that one party will not prevent the other from
performing293 and will co-operate to bring about the fulfilment of the contract, the degree of co-
operation required being determined by reference to the express obligations imposed by the
contract on each party.294 Thus, if a charterer has to obtain some form of pre-loading clearance
document before a vessel can tender Notice of Readiness, it has been implied that the charterer
should obtain that clearance.295 Where the contract provides that a party shall perform an
operation such as loading or stowage, it is necessary, in the absence of an express term, to imply
a term as to the standard of performance to be attained and the time within which it is to be
completed. In such circumstances the term normally implied is that the operation will be carried
out with reasonable care and skill, and within a reasonable time.
1.125 There are certain terms which the court will imply into all contracts of a particular
kind, and to these a different test applies, as explained by Lord Cross in Liverpool C.C. v. Irwin296:
When it implies a term in a contract the court is sometimes laying down a general rule that in all
contracts of a certain type—sale of goods, master and servant, landlord and tenant and so on—some
provision is to be implied unless the parties have expressly excluded it. In deciding whether or not to
292 Derived from the Opinion of Lord Simon in BP Refinery (Westernport) v. Hastings (1978) 52 A.L.J.R. 20 (P.C.).
293 The Unique Mariner (No. 2) [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 37, 51–52; The Atlantic Sunbeam [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
482, 486–488. “The Prevention Principle” as developed in Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v. Honeywell Control Systems
Ltd [2007] EWHC 447.
294 Liverpool C.C. v. Irwin [1977] A.C. 239.
295 The Atlantic Sunbeam [1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 482; The Boral Gas [1988]1 Lloyd’s Rep. 342; The World Navigator
[1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 23.
296 At pp. 257–258.
46
lay down such a prima facie rule the court will naturally ask itself whether in the general run of such
cases the term in question would be one which it would be reasonable to insert. Sometimes, however,
there is no question of laying down any prima facie rule applicable to all cases of a defined type but
what the court is being in effect asked to do is to rectify a particular—often a very detailed—contract
by inserting in it a term which the parties have not expressed. Here it is not enough for the court to
say that the suggested term is a reasonable one; it must be able to say that the insertion of the term is
necessary to give—as it is put—”business efficacy” to the contract and that if its absence had been
pointed out at the time both parties—assuming them to have been reasonable men—would have agreed
without hesitation to its insertion.
1.126 Terms may also be implied by reference to customs of the port. The following are
among the terms which have been implied into charterparties; they are considered in greater
detail elsewhere in the appropriate chapters.
Implied obligations of the owner

1.127 That the ship is seaworthy. This implied obligation is nearly always modified by the
express terms: such as Clause 2 of the Gencon charter, or the Hague Rules.
Where an “expected ready to load” date is given, that the owner honestly and on reasonable
grounds expects that the ship will be ready to load by that date (Chapter 4).
That he will take reasonable care of the cargo.
That he will perform the voyage with reasonable despatch and without deviation (Chapters 4
and 9).
Implied obligations of the charterer

1.128 In certain circumstances, to have the cargo ready for loading by the time of the arrival
of the ship (Chapter 7).
In certain circumstances, to nominate a safe port or berth (Chapter 5).
Not to ship dangerous cargo without giving advance notice (Chapter 6).
Not to present for signature bills of lading containing terms inconsistent with the charter,
alternatively to indemnify the owners against liability to bills of lading holders in excess of owners’
liability under the charter (Chapter 18).
Classification of terms
1.129 Whenever a term of the charter is breached, the innocent party is entitled to claim
damages. In certain circumstances he may also have the right to treat the breach as a repudiation
of the contract and to bring the contract to an end. Whether or not this latter right will arise
depends upon the importance of the term which has been broken, and for this purpose terms fall
into three classes, namely: (1) conditions, (2) warranties and (3) intermediate terms.
1. Conditions
1.130 A condition of the contract is a promise or undertaking by one party which is
fundamental to the contract, with the result that any breach of it will entitle the innocent party
to terminate (or rescind) the contract, even if the breach is minor in degree or in effect. An example
of a condition is the implied obligation of the owner that the ship will proceed on the voyage
without unjustifiable deviation.
47
1.131 A condition in the sense described above is sometimes called a promissory condition,
and must be distinguished from a suspensive condition. The latter is a condition (e.g., that some
event will occur) which must be fulfilled before the contract itself, or the obligations of one or
both parties under it, come into effect, but which does not form the subject matter of a promise
or undertaking by either party. Examples of suspensive conditions are given at paragraphs 1.16
et seq. Although a suspensive condition, in contrast to a promissory condition, does not amount
to a promise by either party that the condition will be fulfilled, there may be an implied term
that neither party will prevent fulfilment of the condition, or that the parties will use their best
endeavours to ensure that the condition is fulfilled.
2. Warranty
1.132 A warranty is a term of the contract of minor importance, such that no breach of it
will give rise to any right to the innocent party to terminate the contract.
3. Intermediate term
1.133 Upon the breach of an intermediate term, the question whether the innocent party has
a right to terminate depends upon the nature and effect of the breach. In order to give rise to a
right of termination the breach must be so serious that it goes to the root of the contract297 or
deprives the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit which the parties intended that he
should obtain from the contract.298 Where the effect of the breach is delay in the performance of
the contract, the question whether the delay is sufficiently serious to go to the root of the contract
depends upon whether it would be sufficient to frustrate the contract, and it is not enough that
the delay is such that it can be regarded as unreasonable.299
1.134 The question whether a term is a condition, warranty or intermediate term is one of
construction of the contract. However, the fact that the parties, in the contract, refer to a term
as a “condition” or a “warranty” is not necessarily conclusive, since the parties may not intend
to use those expressions in the technical legal sense described above.300 It is rather a question of
ascertaining from the terms of the contract as a whole, construed against its commercial
background, whether the parties intended that the right of termination should arise upon breach
of the term, and if so in what circumstances. The so-called “warranty of seaworthiness” is in
reality an intermediate term.301 “Conditions” in bill of lading incorporation clauses conversely
has a special meaning unrelated to their status.302
Affirmation
1.135 The right to terminate of the innocent party will be lost if he affirms the contract, that
is to say, if, with knowledge of the breach (and in the case of an intermediate term, with knowledge
of its consequences), he so conducts himself as to demonstrate clearly that he regards the contract
297 See the test applied in The Hansa Nord [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 445.
298 See Photo Production v. Securicor [1980] A.C. 827, 849.
299 Hongkong Fir Shipping v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha [1962] 2 Q.B. 26, 60, 65. See the discussion of Cooke J. in
Wuhan Ocean Economic and Technical Cooperation Co. Ltd v. Schiffs. Hansa Murcia GmbH KG (The Hansa Murcia)
[2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 161 and his somewhat surprising conclusion in the light of the clear statement of opinion of the
arbitrators.
300 See Schuler v. Wickman [1974] A.C. 235, where a term referred to in the contract as a “condition” was held to
be an intermediate term.
301 See Hongkong Fir Shipping v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (above).
302 The Varenna [1984] 1 Q.B. 599.
48
as still in existence, for example, by calling for performance, or accepting performance, from
the other side, or by continuing to perform the contract himself.303
Bringing the charter to an end

1.136 The obligations of the parties under the charter may be brought to an end in a number
of different ways. These are listed below.
Performance
1.137 When both parties have fulfilled all their obligations under the contract no further
liability exists under it.
Agreement
1.138 The parties may agree that the charter shall be terminated completely or partially, or
that it shall be varied.
Accepted repudiation
1.139 Where one party commits a breach of condition or a sufficiently serious breach of an
intermediate term the innocent party usually has an option whether or not to accept the breach
as terminating the contract: see paragraphs 1.129 et seq. Where he elects not to terminate, the
contract remains in existence for all purposes, but where he elects to accept the repudiation and
to terminate the contract, the further obligations of both parties to perform the contract are brought
to an end, and the contract remains in existence only for the following purposes:
(1) The enforcement of claims for damages for any breaches of the contract by either party
occurring before termination. The claim for damages of the party not in repudiation may include
a claim for loss of the benefits which would have occurred to him under the contract had it been
fully performed.
(2) The enforcement of claims for sums due under the contract which were earned and
payable before the contract terminated.
Provision in the charter

1.140 The charter may be subject to a condition precedent (see paragraphs 1.16–1.28), or
may confer upon one party an option to cancel in certain events (see Chapter 19).
Frustration
1.141 This is dealt with in Chapter 22.
303 See the thorough exposition of this area of law in the speech of Lord Goff in The Kanchenjunga [1990] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep. 391, applied in Argo Systems FZE v. Liberty Insurance (Pte) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 61.
49
1A.1 FORMATION AND TERMS OF THE CHARTER
U.S. Law
Formation and terms of the contract
1A.1 A voyage charter is a contract between an owner or disponent owner of the vessel and
a charterer to carry an agreed cargo from one or more loading ports to one or more discharge
ports. Voyage charters are maritime contracts and, as such, are governed by the general maritime
law of the United States in the absence of a choice of law clause specifying the application of
other law. A particular state or foreign law will be enforced unless the applicable provision is
contrary to public policy.1 Oral contracts are enforceable although the parties may agree that
only a written contract can be enforced. In The Strider Isis and Strider Juno,2 it was held that
an oral agreement was not valid because “The need for a writing, although not a requirement of
maritime law, was certainly provided for in the Contract of Affreightment.” A charterparty will
be deemed to have come into existence when the parties have reached agreement on its essential
terms and conditions. Thus, it is not necessary that agreement be reached on each and every
detail before the charter becomes valid and binding unless the parties have specifically agreed
otherwise.3 Moreover, in some circumstances, a court can find a contract “implied in law.” The
critical inquiry is whether one party has conferred a benefit on another party under circumstances
in which the other has been unjustly enriched.4
1A.2 Disputes arise from time to time whether the terms of the recap, or the terms of the
eventual charter or of a pro forma should prevail. In The Gertrud Salamon,5 the panel ruled,
despite the admission of one broker that he made a mistake, the fixture recap prevails: “The
fixture recap is the clearest representation of the parties’ intentions at the time of the negotiations
and outweighs the alternative language of the pro forma charter party.”
1 See, e.g., Watts v. Camors, 115 U.S. 353, 361–362 (1885); Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. The Jasmine,
983 F.2d 410, 1993 AMC 957 (2d Cir. 1993) and The Yorkgate, SMA 3273 (1996) (Jacobson, Siebel, Arnold). See also
The Astra Lift, SMA 3270 (1996) (Arnold, Bulow, Hansen) where the arbitration agreement provided that the dispute
would be governed by the “Federal Maritime Law of the United States,” while the bill of lading provided for the application
of the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules. The panel held that adoption of the Federal Maritime Law of the U.S. did not
displace or substitute for the express intentions stated in the bill of lading; that the law was not automatically inclusive
or limited to U.S. COGSA, but recognizes the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules in appropriate cases and co-exists with these
Conventions; and that if the parties had intended to substitute COGSA for them, their intent to do so should have been
explicitly stated. See The Bona Fulmar, SMA 3787 (2003) (Arnold, Sheinbaum, Martowski) in which Part I, Clause K
of the Asbatankvoy form provided for New York arbitration and a special typewritten term stated “GA-Arb-New York/US
Law”. The panel concluded that reference to “US Law” should be consistently read together with printed clause 20(b)(i)
to mean that U.S. law is generally applicable but the choice of law provisions of clause 20(b)(i) were to be applied,
citing The Astra Lift (ibid.). As the bills of lading were issued in Belgium, the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules were held
to govern. See also Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp. et al., 435 F. Supp. 2d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
2 SMA 2296 (1993) (Arnold, Berg, Martin).
3 See Time Charters, paras 2A.6–2A.39, for a full discussion of these principles. See also U.S. Titan, Inc. v. Guangzhou
Zhen Hua Shipping Co. Ltd., 241 F. 3d 135, 2001 AMC 2080 (2d Cir. 2001) (rehearing en banc denied).
4 Contship v. Howard, 309 F.3d 910, 2002 AMC 2727 (6th Cir. 2002) (owner was entitled to payment of freight
from the shipper even though there was no signed bill of lading and shipper booked cargo through a freight forwarder
and had no direct dealings with owner, because owner conferred a benefit to the shipper by carrying its cargo. Shipper
paid a freight forwarder who arranged the booking at its own risk).
5 SMA 4036 (2009) (Dooley, Mordhorst, Ring).
50

Previewpdf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Previewpdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VOYAGE

LLOYD’S SHIPPING LAW LIBRARY

Time Charters Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice

Marine Insurance: Law and Practice Shipping and the Environment

Berlingieri on Arrest of Ships Ship Registration: Law and Practice

Enforcement of Maritime Claims

Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims

Marine War Risks

Merchant Shipping Legislation

The Law of Ship Mortgages

CMR: Contracts for the International

JULIAN COOKE JOHN D. KIMBALL

TIMOTHY YOUNG DAVID MARTOWKSI

MICHAEL ASHCROFT L E ROY LAMBERT

ANDREW TAYLOR MICHAEL STURLEY

Typeset in Times New Roman

SECTION I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND GENCON CHARTER

CHAPTER 2. PARTIES TO THE CHARTER 2.1

“Piercing corporate veils” 2A.7

CHAPTER 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE SHIP 3.1

CHAPTER 4. PROCEEDING TO THE LOADING PORT 4.1

The effect of excepted perils 4.15

CHAPTER 5. LOADING AND DISCHARGING PORTS, PLACES AND BERTHS 5.1

The right to reject the order 5.109

CHAPTER 6. THE CARGO 6.1

CHAPTER 7. CHARTERERS’ OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE CARGO 7.1

CHAPTER 8. DUNNAGE 8.1

CHAPTER 9. PROCEEDING ON THE CARGO VOYAGE 9.1

CHAPTER 10. DELIVERY 10.1

When mixing of goods is due to the fault of the shipowner 10.15

CHAPTER 11. OWNERS’ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSE 11.1

Financial unseaworthiness 11A.27

CHAPTER 12. DEVIATION AND DELAY 12.1

CHAPTER 13. FREIGHT 13.1

Other stipulations: conclusive evidence 13.10

Recovery of trans- or on-shipment costs 13A.48

CHAPTER 14. LOADING AND DISCHARGING 14.1

CHAPTER 15. LAYTIME 15.1

4. The period covered by the exception 15.26

Any cause [whatsoever] beyond the control of charterer 15A.158

CHAPTER 16. DEMURRAGE 16.1

CHAPTER 17. LIENS 17.1

Charterer relieved from liability incurred subsequent to loading and issuance of

CHAPTER 18. BILLS OF LADING 18.1

The liabilities of bailees 18.119

CHAPTER 19. CANCELLING CLAUSE 19.1

CHAPTER 20. GENERAL AVERAGE 20.1

General average “forum” clauses 20.52

CHAPTER 21. REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF THE CHARTER 21.1

The settlement 21.83

Currency in which damages awarded 21A.84

CHAPTER 22. FRUSTRATION OF THE CHARTER 22.1

CHAPTER 23. AGENCY 23.1

CHAPTER 24. BROKERAGE 24.1

CHAPTER 25. GENERAL STRIKE CLAUSE 25.1

CHAPTER 26. WAR RISKS (“VOYWAR 1950”) 26.1

CHAPTER 27. GENERAL ICE CLAUSE 27.1

“This Charter shall be null and void” 27.8

SECTION II. GENCON CHARTER 1994

CHAPTER 28. CLAUSE 1 28.1

CHAPTER 29. OWNERS’ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSE 29.1

CHAPTER 30. DEVIATION CLAUSE 30.1

CHAPTER 31. PAYMENT OF FREIGHT 31.1