claimant

complete loading within the lay days, it is a requirement that the plaintiff
demonstrate that such additional loss is not only different in character from loss of
use but stems from breach of an additional and/or independent obligation. 60
45. The aforementioned opinion of Potter J, however, must be taken as obiter
dictum, since the ratio decidendi in The Bonde concerned a different category of
cases. The ratio in Reidar specifically dealt with a case where multiple breaches
occurred, and the ruling there did not require an additional loss different in
character from loss of use and stemming from the separate breach. Therefore,
Potter J’s obiter conflicts with the ratio in Reidar; nevertheless, if the Arbitral
Tribunal is minded to accept Potter J’s reasoning, the claimant must still succeed
in its claim for damages for detention, since it is able to make out a separate or
additional breach with an additional loss of a different nature stemming from
that separate breach. The multiple breaches are comprised, firstly, of the failure
to unload within the designated laytime period and, secondly, of the detention of
the vessel – both explained above – while the additional loss is the loss of market
that the claimant suffered when the vessel was under detention, which is
explained below.
46. Similarly, several authorities have ruled contrary to the ratio in The Luxmar and
Reimar by holding that damages for detention are available when a single breach
has occurred in tandem with the type of additional loss just explained.
47. In Total Transport Corporation v Amoco Trading Co (The Altus), 61 Webster J ruled
that a demurrage clause should not preclude the awarding of damages for
60 [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 136 at 142
19