Insights

As many Members will be aware shipping cases in the US are generally conducted under the auspices of the Society of Maritime Arbitrators (“SMA”) and its rules which differ in a number of respects from the LMAA. Over the years concerns have been raised with regard to SMA arbitrations with the result that the number of SMA arbitrations has declined. There are however signs that this might now be changing.

One of the few things that can be said with certainty following the US Second Circuit Court’s decision in The Shipping Corporation of India -v- Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd is that Rule B procedures can no longer be used to attach wire transfers passing through New York bank accounts, and that the New York banking community (and a significant section of the judiciary) is very relieved about this.

The increase in the volume of China’s international trade in recent years has resulted in the rapid increase of maritime disputes in China. Since 1984, China has set up a comprehensive network of maritime courts to deal with maritime disputes. The number of regional maritime courts has over the years increased from 5, when they were first set up, to 10. The courts are situated from north to south, respectively in Dalian, Tianjin, Qingdao, Shanghai, Ningbo, Wuhan, Xiamen, Guangzhou, Beihai and Haikou. Each of the regional maritime courts may also set up branches at local port areas within their respective jurisdictions.

In the recent case of The Zenovia ([2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 139) the English High Court ruled that a time charterer is not bound by a qualified 30 day redelivery notice. Given that redelivery notices are almost always qualified in some way, can an owner ever rely on such a notice?

In a recent case which involved the Association (TS Lines Ltd. V Delphis NV [2009] EWHC 933 Comm). The English High Court ruled that if a ship is proceeding in the same direction as she has been ordered, but is ultimately heading for somewhere else, she cannot be on hire.