Could owners be liable for conversion by retaining bunkers on board the vessel after withdrawal?
In Daebo Shipping Co Ltd v The Ship GO STAR  FCAFC 156, the Federal Court of Australia considered whether, as a matter of English law, head owners could be liable to disponent owners for conversion or detinue as a result of retaining bunkers on board the vessel after lawful withdrawal from the head charter. The court also dealt with a claim for interference with disponent owners’ contractual relations, arising from various notices sent by head owners to the charterers at the end of the chain. The vessel was chartered under a string of time charters on the 1981 NYPE form in the following charterparty chain: SA – BMS – Bluefield – Daebo – Nanyuan…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Ince & Co briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Ince & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Ince & Co
Ince & Co provides an overview of the contractual issues that may arise should matters escalate in Ukraine.
The recent case of Astipalaia v Hanjin Shenzhen  EWHC 120 (Admlty) has revisited the existing case law on assessment of damages following a collision.