skip to main content
Close Icon

In order to deliver a personalized, responsive service and to improve the site, we remember and store information about how you use it. This is done using simple text files called cookies which sit on your computer. By continuing to use this site and access its features, you are consenting to our use of cookies. To find out more about the way Informa uses cookies please go to our Cookie Policy page.

Global Search Configuration

FULTON SHIPPING INC OF PANAMA v GLOBALIA BUSINESS TRAVEL SAU (FORMERLY TRAVELPLAN SAU) OF SPAIN (THE NEW FLAMENCO)

 

Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger PSC, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge JJSC) [2017] UKSC 43 – 28 June 2017

 

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that in calculating damages for the repudiation of a charterparty, shipowners were not obliged to give credit to charterers for sale proceeds made by a sale in opportune market conditions. Reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal, the highest court held that damages owed by charterers for the repudiation of the charterparty should be calculated without taking into account that benefit.

 

i-law.com studies this key judgment, with commentary put together by our expert writers and contributors. Our varied publications, including Lloyd’s Law Reports, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly and Shipping & Trade Law, provide breadth of discussion and analysis.


 

The following insights on the Supreme Court decision are featured on i-law.com:

 

Lloyd’s Law Reporter

“Contracts - Breach - Repudiation of charterparty - Damages - Mitigation - Shipowners selling vessel upon repudiation of charterparty by charterers - Vessel subsequently losing market value - Whether owners obliged to account for benefit of early sale in calculation of damages”

 

Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter

“Most damages issues arose from the default rules which the law devised to give effect to the principle of compensation, while recognising that there might be special facts which showed that the default rules would not have that effect in particular cases. On the facts of the present case the fall in value of the vessel was irrelevant because the owners’ interest in the capital value of the vessel had nothing to do with the interest injured by the charterers’ repudiation of the charterparty.”

 

Shipping & Trade Law

“If the question at hand is difficult to fathom, it might be considered in this way: the normal measure of loss would be the difference between the hire payable under the charterparty and the hire achieved on a substitute charterparty, or failing that, the market rate. If the owners had accepted a lower hire rate in the spot market, or indeed a higher rate, that would in the ordinary way have been taken into account in the assessment of damages. Here, because the owners sold the vessel, they had no need for a substitute charterparty and it might be considered a logical step to take into account the sales proceeds in place of the substitute hire.”

 

Lloyd's Law Reports Plus

Charterparty (Time) – Repudiation - Damages – Time-charterers redelivering vessel early – Owners selling vessel upon repudiation for a greater sum than the value of the vessel at contractual date for redelivery – Whether owners bound to give credit for difference in capital values.


 

Analysis from earlier in the litigation:

 

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

"Choice, benefits and the basis of the market rule" (Court of Appeal)
Andrew Dyson, Assistant Professor in Private Law, LSE

[2016] LMCLQ 202

 

"Mitigated loss or collateral benefit?" (Court of Appeal)
David McLauchlan, Professor of Law, Victoria University of Wellington; Professorial Fellow, The University of Melbourne; Honorary Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland.

[2016] LMCLQ 459

 

"Mitigation, causation and policy" (Commercial Court)
Paul Todd, Professor of Commercial and Maritime Law, University of Southampton.

[2014] LMCLQ 481

 

Lloyd's Law Reports

[2016] 1 Lloyd's Rep 383 (Court of Appeal)

[2014] 2 Lloyd's Rep 230 (Commercial Court)

 

Lloyd's Maritime Law Newsletter

(2016) 942 LMLN 1 (Court of Appeal)

(2014) 900 LMLN 2 (Commercial Court)

 

Shipping & Trade Law

(2014) 14 STL 5 4 (Commercial Court)

Understand the most important maritime law developments of 2016

The scope of this analysis encompasses the common law jurisdictions of England and Wales as well as Singapore, Australia and Hong Kong.

Why download the article?

Highlights include:

  • the Supreme Court’s decision that the shipowner must pay for bunkers received in the OW insolvency;
  • a decision establishing the Australian position on maritime liens;
  • a definition of insurance fraud, with a controversial departure from 15 years of established thinking;
  • a rare decision to break the shipowner’s right to limit liability.
Maritime_law_2016_review

Have any questions? Speak to a specialist.

Getting a demo tailored to your needs is the best way to see how our solutions will help you gain an advantage.

Request a live demo now.

Our customers rely on us to provide the trusted answers.

Sign up for your no obligation free trial and we will get in touch shortly.

Request a callback from our sales team to learn how Maritime Intelligence can provide a solution for your business.

If you prefer to get in touch directly, please visit our contact us section for our regional telephone numbers.

If you have any general questions about our services and would like to learn more about how we can assist your business, please reach out to us via the form below and we'll get back to you shortly. If you prefer to get in touch by phone, please refer to the contact us section of our website.