Search filters
China recently amended its Civil Procedure Law (“CPL”), which will come into force from 1st January, 2024. Among the amendments, there are several issues that may impact on international shipping cases as...

The following FAQs have been put together to provide general guidance and to highlight the type of contractual issues that might arise following the conflict in Israel-Gaza. The situation is very fluid and Members are advised...

The quality of bunker fuel continues to be a source of concern to shipowners and charterers. Over the last 40 years or so, enhanced refining techniques have resulted in a decline in the quality of residual fuel. Unfortunately,...

Earlier in the year the Managers became aware that the Nigerian Federal Internal Revenue Service (FIRS) had begun issuing tax demands to tanker owners/ships in respect of calls at Nigeria between 2010 and 2019. It is...

Time charterparties usually require the charterer to provide a series of notices prior to redelivering the ship, informing the owner of the time and place of the redelivery. Very often, this will take the form of a series of “approximate” notices giving a decreasing amount of notice, followed by a series of “definite” notices even closer to redelivery. This should enable the owner to arrange for the ship’s next fixture and minimise any unemployment. But what happens if a charterer does not give some (or all) of the required notices, or does not redeliver the ship in line with the notices that are given? In such situations an owner may look to claim damages, and in this regard might be attracted to an argument based on a case called The Great Creation [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 315, which provides a seemingly straightforward way to calculate damages.   However, for the reasons set out below we would caution against relying too heavily on The Great Creation decision.


Our newsletter update gives you insight into what's going on in the maritime industry


You are currently offline. Some pages or content may fail to load.