Insights

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.

Shipping cases rarely make the European Court of Justice and when the FronT Comor struck a jetty in Sicily in August 2000 the idea that several judges would be debating the consequences in Luxembourg some nine years later would have seemed improbable. However the incident has resulted in a ruling that the English Court does not have the power to grant anti-suit injunctions restraining a party from commencing or continuing proceedings in an EU member state where those proceedings are in breach of an arbitration clause.