Publikation
Distress signals: Cooperation agreements or mergers to the rescue?
The current volatile and unpredictable economic climate creates challenges for businesses.
Global | Publikation | March 2016
Much has been written in recent years concerning the quantification of damages for breach of a time charter. Little has, by comparison, been written concerning the equally important quantification of damages for breach of voyage charters. The recent decision of Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA v MT Maritime Management BV, “MTM Hong Kong” [2015] EWHC 2505 (Comm) provides both a welcome addition to the body of law addressing this important point and much needed clarification of the damages available to an owner of a ship on voyage charter, following breach by a charterer.
The ship MTM Hong Kong was chartered on an amended Vegoil form for the carriage of crude/refined vegoil from one or more safe ports South America to one or more safe ports Gibraltar-Rotterdam. Prior to this charter being performed, the ship suffered a grounding in the River Congo which caused delay, the consequences of which led to the owners accepting the charterers’ repudiatory breach which brought the charter to an end.
The owners continued to direct the ship to South America in aid of a substitute charter. After a lengthy delay, a substitute charter was concluded from Argentina to Rotterdam. The substitute charter was performed and the ship completed discharge on 12 April 2011 in Rotterdam.
If the original voyage charter had been performed, the voyage would have taken 43.6 days, completing on 17 March 2011. The ship would then have carried a cargo of urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) from the Baltic to the United States, followed by a chemical cargo from the United States to Europe.
The owners claimed damages consisting of the difference between:
The charterers disputed this method of calculating the owners' damages, contending that it was wrong (as a matter of law) to take into account the position up to the end of the substitute fixture which had terminated long after the charter voyage itself would have terminated. The charterers submitted that the correct approach was to apportion the earnings under the substitute charter, so as to reflect the amount earned up to the date on which performance of the voyage charter between the parties would have been completed.
The arbitrators agreed with the owners. In doing so, they determined that the loss claimed had actually been suffered by the owners, that damages were to be awarded to compensate the owners and that there was no rule of law which prevented the full application of the compensatory principle by limiting damages by reference to the period when the contract voyage would have come to an end. The charterers appealed, contending that the arbitrators, in failing to award damages in accordance with the compensatory principle set out in Smith v M'Guire (1858) 3 H & N 554, made an error of law. They appealed pursuant to section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
In Smith v M'Guire, the court directed the measure of damages in the following terms:
… the legal damage was the loss which had arisen from the breach of the contract; that from the amount of the freight which the ship would have earned if the charter-party had been performed, there ought to be deducted the expenses which would have been incurred in earning it, and also any profit which the ship earned between the expiration of the lay days and the time when the employment of the ship under the charter-party would have ended.1
The Court in MTM Hong Kong stated that the Smith v M'Guire measure represents the prima facie measure of damages for loss of the profit which would have been obtained by a shipowner from performance of the repudiated charter. It reflects the compensatory principle and the related principles of causation and mitigation. In most cases it would not be necessary (and wrong) to look beyond the damages resulting from the application of the prima facie measure. The Court, however, reasoned that the Smith v M'Guire measure is only the prima facie measure and, under appropriate facts, it may be necessary to depart from it in order to give full effect to the compensatory principle (see The Elbrus [2010] 2 Lloyd's Rep 315). The Court went on, however, to note that:
It is hard to imagine circumstances where the owners’ damages for loss of the profit which would have been obtained from performance of the repudiated charter could exceed the net freight (and if applicable demurrage) which would have been earned if that charter had been performed. An owner cannot lose more by way of lost profit from a charterer's repudiation than the freight (and any demurrage) which he would have earned by performing the charter. In that sense the net freight and demurrage represent a cap on the owners' damages. That is not because of any rule of law but simply because of the nature of the loss.2
The position is different if the owner suffers a different kind of loss or, in other words, a loss which is something different from loss of the profit which would have been obtained from performance of the repudiated charter. In such a case there is no general reason why such a different loss should not be recoverable in damages in addition to damages for loss of the profit from performing the charter subject to the principles of causation, mitigation and remoteness. Failure to consider such a loss would, the Court reasoned, be contradictory to the compensatory principle.
In applying the principles to the facts the Court found:
Performance of the contract voyage would not only have enabled the owners to earn the freight payable under the voyage charter, but would have positioned the vessel in Europe without delay, ready to take advantage of the higher freights available in the North Atlantic market. The consequence of the charterers' repudiation was therefore twofold. The owners lost the charter freight and had to make do with the lesser freight earned under the Glencore charter. But they also suffered a delay in repositioning the vessel in Europe and thereby lost the benefit of the two transatlantic voyages which, on the arbitrators' findings, the vessel would have been able to perform in about the same time as was taken up by actual performance of the Glencore fixture. These were two distinct heads of loss, both of which were caused by the charterers' breach.3
On this basis, the Court found that there was no reason why damages for the consequence of the ship’s delay in returning to the North Atlantic market should not be awarded in addition to the loss of the profit which would have been earned from performing the contract voyage.
The following four specific criticisms were made by the charterers and responded to by the Court:
The decision in MTM Hong Kong has reinforced the principle set out in Smith v M'Guire, while acknowledging the deficiency in that it limits the assessment of damages when the compensation principle can be expected to extend further. In this, the Court has helpfully split damages between the two heads of loss which an owner can (potentially) recover, being (i) those recoverable under Smith v M'Guire, and (ii) those recoverable as consequential losses and which extend beyond the end of the charter period.
While the decision is a helpful clarification on the jurisprudence governing recovery of damages for termination of voyage charterers, it is nonetheless very fact dependent and consequently will continue to cloud certainty governing the assessment of damages for breach. The decision does not, however, disturb the approach the English courts will take when applying the compensatory principle, as the leading case in this area remains the Golden Victory [2007] UKHL 12.
"MTM Hong Kong” [2015] EWHC 2505 (Comm), para. 24.
"MTM Hong Kong” [2015] EWHC 2505 (Comm), para. 60.
"MTM Hong Kong” [2015] EWHC 2505 (Comm), para. 65.
"MTM Hong Kong” [2015] EWHC 2505 (Comm), para. 69.
"MTM Hong Kong” [2015] EWHC 2505 (Comm), para. 70.
"MTM Hong Kong” [2015] EWHC 2505 (Comm), para. 71.
"MTM Hong Kong” [2015] EWHC 2505 (Comm), para. 74.
"MTM Hong Kong” [2015] EWHC 2505 (Comm), para. 75.
Publikation
The current volatile and unpredictable economic climate creates challenges for businesses.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2025