Complete PDF version - Skuld

By Nik Ivanov and Mattias HedqvistAssistant Vice Presidents, Lawyers, Skuld Oslonikolai.ivanov@skuld.commattias.hedqvist@skuld.comNEWS featureSKULD DEFENCE/Don’t delay – comply completely with demurrage time-bar clauses and ensure all documentation is attached.Against this legal background, we turn to two notable and recent casesthat underline and expand the approach adopted by the courts.Give noticeIn the first case, The Eagle Valencia [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 257, theclaimant shipowners tendered two NORs (notices of readiness), butonly submitted the first NOR (on which they relied) with the claim. Inthe Court of Appeal, it was held that the original NOR was invalid. Itwas then questioned whether the owners’ alternative demurrageclaim, based on the second NOR which had not been submitted withthe claim, was time-barred. The clause required “any demurrage claimshall be fully and correctly documented and received by charterers, within90 days after completion of discharge”. The claim was held to be timebarred.In the leading judgement, Mr. Justice Longmore said:“...an essential document in support of every demurrage claim is thenotice of readiness and, if the only notice of readiness submitted is acontractually invalid notice, the claim cannot be said to be “fully andcorrectly documented” [...]. That is not necessarily to say that alternativelaytime statements and invoices would always have to be submitted toavoid the extinction of an alternative claim but merely to say that thedocuments to be submitted pursuant to the clause must include a validnotice of readiness.”“anydemurrageclaim shallbe fully andcorrectlydocumentedand receivedby charterers,within 90days aftercompletionof discharge”In the second case, NationalShipping Company of Saudi Arabiav BP Oil Supply Company [2010]EWHC 3043 (Comm), the relevanttime-bar clause required that “allsupporting documentationsubstantiating each and everyconstituent part of the claim”should be submitted within acertain number of days.Document itThe case involves a vessel loadedby ship-to-ship transfer from twodifferent vessels at the same berth.Owners submitted sufficientdocuments in support of one claim(related to time and bunkers)without referring to laytime ordemurrage. Submission ofdocuments for this first claimwas held insufficient to supportbeacon / MARCH 201111