What if there is no voyage?

Voyage charterparties often involve claims for demurrage, detention, deviation and other additional transit or port expenses. Disputes can arise under fixture wording set amid what has happened, but most such things are largely routine for the parties’ commercial analysts. Sometimes however the fixture is simply not performed, resulting in a damages claim when, for example, Charterers release the vessel because they cannot provide cargo.


Such charterparties sometimes give a series of dates by which arrangements may be rescheduled or even cancelled, with deadlines for issuing and responding to notices, in view of (or failing) which set alternatives follow. However, it is not usual to prescribe the result of last-minute default, and we here examine that by reference to a recent arbitration.

Damages are:

  1. Assessed at the time of the breach;
  2. Confined to what usually happens, or what (at the fixture date) the parties must reasonably have thought would be the probable result of the breach;
  3. To put the claimant in the same position as if the fixture had been performed.

Sometimes (3) overrules (1), so occasionally things that happened after the breach come into account. We discuss this further below, having referred to it in outline last year in our update headed The “NEW FLAMENCO” - Causation and credit.

A recent award

In London Arbitration 26/17 [(2017) 987 LMLN 3] the vessel was fixed to lift Australian coal for carriage to China, and on arrival at Newcastle she tendered NOR on 11 February 2015.

Laytime began at 23:12 hours that day and (at $6,500 PDPR) the vessel went on demurrage at 03:28 hours on 15 February, thus 3.18 days later. No cargo appeared, and soon after Charterers said none would and the vessel could be traded elsewhere. So at 11:34 hours on 2 March a message from Owners accepted the position as ending the charterparty, due to Charterers’ breach.

The claims

Owners sought:

(a) straightforward demurrage from 03:28 hours on 15 February to 11:34 hours on 2 March, and that claim succeeded in full; and

(b) damages for the difference between what they would have made on the charterparty voyage and what they actually achieved under a replacement fixture.

Owners calculated the freight that they would have been paid if the intended voyage had happened, less the cost of earning that, such as bunkers and port and other expenses. They then subtracted the result of a matching calculation for the actual voyage, to show what they had lost.

Such loss probably falls under both parts of principle (2) above. Owners’ inability to find a fixture as good as the one that Charterers breached is something that follows normally, and when the fixture was made both sides must have reckoned it the probable result of failure to perform.

Double counting

However, in their earnings figures for the intended voyage, Owners included the first part of the period running from the start of laytime, i.e. the 3.18 days from 23.12 hours on 11 February to 03:28 hours on 15 February. So they mixed up a demurrage calculation with a damages claim.

A demurrage calculation is time-based and a pre-agreed rate is applied.

Under principle (3) above, a damages claim is compensatory, and leaves the claimant as he would have been if the contract had been performed. If that had happened Charterers would have had the full 3.18 days’ laytime, so they should have had credit for that and Owners should have deducted it.

So the Tribunal excluded it and reduced the damages claim by $20,670.

Other arguments sometimes raised

It seems that Charterers did not run or succeed with any point that Owners should have done better in getting other work for the vessel. Defaulting Charterers sometimes say that Owners did not look hard enough, missed opportunities and should have secured a better alternative fixture than they did. So, Charterers then argue, to that extent Owners failed to mitigate loss and their claim should be reduced. This argument largely depends on the market and what was reasonably available to the vessel at the time.

Developments after the breach?

We said above that sometimes principle (3) governs over principle (1), so things that happened after the breach are taken into account.

In recent years we have seen a clear trend of defendants asking courts not to assess damages (as normal) at the time of breach, but to do so in view of later events. The argument is that “if this contract had been performed/charterparty had not prematurely ended/voyage had happened, developments since - sometimes only during the life of the claim - show that the damages would have been less”.

Sometimes the argument succeeds, and sometimes it fails as entirely opportunistic, as in the “NEW FLAMENCO”. There the defendant unsuccessfully sought credit for supposed avoidance of a reduction in capital value, allegedly due to the vessel having been sold soon after breach, rather than on expiry of the charterparty term, when the market had dropped.

Something like that would probably not occur within the scope of a voyage charterparty, but (when planning following breach) claimants should as far as possible consider all angles, remembering always that their counterparty might try to use hindsight to argue that actions at the time should be considered in the light of developments since.

For more details or a preliminary discussion please contact Maryam Taher or Paris Pantelis

Category: News

The Legal 500 2021 - M Taher & Co Solicitors ranked again among the leading UK shipping law firms

We are delighted to have maintained our ranking as one of the UK’s leading shipping law firms in the Legal 500, and for ...

Read More

COVID-19 Announcement

Dear clients and friends of the firm,   Our office swiftly adapted its working arrangements to follow the govern...

Read More

The main marine impact of COVID 19

It may seem a lot further back, but just over 7 weeks ago on 31 December the first reports of what is now called COVID19...

Read More

Maryam Taher awarded the Freedom of the City of London

On 21 January Maryam Taher received the Freedom of the City of London at a formal ceremony at the Chamberlain’s Court. T...

Read More

2020 vision - Current core sanctions issues are a good guide to what next year will bring

Sanctions regimes continue to target countries who would otherwise be main players in the hydrocarbon and other commodit...

Read More

Volcafe v CSAV [2018] UKSC 61 - what changes are needed?

Introduction This landmark case concerns the burden of proof under rule 2 of Articles III and IV of ...

Read More

90 or 180, wind-down and legacy: Iran, 8 May and the JCPOA

Introduction   On 8 May 2018 President Trump announced US withdrawal from the JCPOA and phased reintroduction of ...

Read More

War - Whether, Where and What?

This article looks at one particular charterparty and also sale contract provision in a volatile and changing world. Eve...

Read More

Sanctions following the Salisbury incident?

We write to outline this firm's relevant expertise on matters that may now arise. There has been much media specu...

Read More

Fiona Trust v Privalov - Cross-undertakings in the context of Freezing Orders - the sting in the tail?

If a Claimant with a good arguable case shows that the Defendant will probably move his assets beyond reach, the courts ...

Read More

The Legal 500 2017 - M Taher & Co Solicitors ranked among the leading UK shipping law firms

We are delighted to have maintained, for the third consecutive year, our ranking as one of the UK’s leading shippin...

Read More

The Missiles, manoeuvres and measures – a miscellany of new sanctions

Alongside brief commentary on recent developments, this article reviews some important but increasingly forgotten backgr...

Read More

The “NEW FLAMENCO” - Causation and credit

Defendants often argue that their breach of contract created no loss, or that injury resulted at least partly from somet...

Read More

Important OFAC Iran FAQs update providing additional clarity as to what would happen in the event of a sanctions snapback under the JCPOA (M.4 and M.5)

Amidst increasing political tension and uncertainty as to the future of the landmark nuclear deal, OFAC issued on 15 Dec...

Read More

Latest Significant Court of Appeal Ruling

The Court of Appeal dismissed Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co Ltd appeal and upheld that the obligation to pay ...

Read More

The new Iranian Petroleum Contracts (IPCs)

Following Implementation Day, Iran has progressively increased its oils production from 814,000 barrels per day (bpd) to...

Read More

Legal 500, 2016-17 Edition

We are delighted to announce that M Taher & Co has again been recognised as one of the UK’s leading shipping firms i...

Read More

M Taher & Co participated in the 1st International Networking Congress held in Saint Petersburg and Moscow, Russia on 27th-29th June 2016

Our senior partner, Maryam Taher, attended a series of events, organised by the European Centre of Legal Cooperation (...

Read More

The EU prolongs the Economic Sanctions against Russia for an additional 6 months

On 1st July 2016, the EU Council prolonged the Economic Sanctions on Russia until 31st January 2017. The measures were i...

Read More

M Taher & Co attended Posidonia 2016

We were delighted to attend the “Posidonia 2016 International Shipping Exhibition” in Athens, Greece earlier this month....

Read More

Moscow City Bar Council in cooperation with the World Trade Organisation – Geneva 21st - 22nd March 2016 – Presentation on the "EU Sanctions in relation to Russia"

Maryam Taher was invited by the First Vice President of Moscow City Bar, Dr. Gerni Reznik, to give a presentation, on Tu...

Read More

Case T3/2014/2545 Sarkandi & Ors – v – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

T3/2014/2545 Before Lord Justice Richards, Lord Justice Sullivan and Lord Justice McFarlane, The Queen on the applicatio...

Read More

Ocean Capital Administration and Others Re-listing

Further to our recent update about the EU Council's intention to re-list our clients, they have now done so. Please se...

Read More

EU set to re-impose sanctions on more Iranian shipping companies

Following the judgment of 22 January 2015 in Ocean Capital Administration GmbH and Others v Council of the European Un...

Read More

EU Council re-lists Gholam Hossein Golparvar for alleged connection with IRISL

Following the judgment of 12 December 2013 in Nabipour and Others v Council of the European Union (Case T-58/12) in whic...

Read More

JCPOA Dispute Resolution Mechanism – Good move or gamble?

The ‘E3’ – the European participants in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (‘JCPOA’) – have triggered the plan’s Dis...

Read More

What if there is no voyage?

Voyage charterparties often involve claims for demurrage, detention, deviation and other additional transit or port expe...

Read More

First Maritime Conference on Business Opportunities in Iran-Post Sanctions. Piraeus, Greece.

M Taher & Co Solicitors recently hosted the First Maritime Conference on Business Opportunities in Iran-Post Sanctio...

Read More

Nabipour and Others v Council of the European Union (Case T-58/12)

This case concerned an application for annulment in part of certain Council Decisions and Regulations in relation to Ira...

Read More

Good Luck Shipping LLC v Council of the European Union (Case T-57/12)

This case concerned an application for annulment in part of certain Council Decisions and Regulations in relation to Ira...

Read More

Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL) and Others v Council of the European Union (Case T-489/10)

This case concerned an application for annulment in part of certain Council Decisions and Regulations in relation to Ira...

Read More

Publication of Updated Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations

OFAC is amending the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 560 (ITSR) to expand the scope ...

Read More

Trade Receivables Securitisation – How to undertake a Survey or Audit

Understanding the key processes and adhering to best practice is essential for the smooth and successful completion of a...

Read More

M Taher & Co Solicitors’ 10 Year Anniversary Reception

M Taher & Co marked the success of the last 10 years with a champagne reception at the Fishmongers’ Hall on Tuesday ...

Read More

Courts’ semantic wrangling comes to an eventful end - Lloyd’s List

A commonly used phrase in insurance policies provokes a yawning gap in interpretation. TAKE this simple aggregation word...

Read More

The Khian Sea waste disposal incident

On August 31, 1986, the cargo ship Khian Sea, registered in Liberia, was loaded with more than 14,000 tons of non-toxic ...

Read More

A long journey

A container ship travels the equivalent of three-quarters of the way to the moon and back in one year during its regular...

Read More

Where the term Charter-party comes from?

For hundreds of years, written contracts covering the leasing of a ship have been known as “charter parties.” The term “...

Read More

The Team

We are an international law firm based in the Lloyds Building, the world's leading centre for insurance, in the heart of the financial district in the City of London.

Read More