No notice required before suspending performance under Supplytime 1989
The Commercial Court has recently determined a question of law arising under the Supplytime 1989 charterparty form. The dispute arose in connection with Clause 10(e) of the form which provides for a right, where there has been a failure to pay hire, to withdraw the vessel and/or to suspend performance under the contract.
Due to the non-payment of hire, the owners suspended the provision of the vessel’s services under the charterparty. The owners submitted in arbitration that there was no obligation under the Supplytime 1989 form to give notice before exercising that right. The relevant part of Clause 10(e) of the Supplytime 1989 form reads: “While payment remains due Owners shall be entitled to suspend the performance of any and all of their obligations hereunder…”
By contrast, the charterers submitted that there was an express or implied requirement that the owners would give five banking days’ notice before suspending performance. Amongst other arguments, the charterers relied upon an earlier part of Clause 10(e) which, in relation to the right to withdraw, reads: “In default of payment as herein specified, Owners may require Charterers to make a payment of the amount due within 5 banking days of receipt of notification from Owners; failing which Owners shall have the right to withdraw the vessel…”
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.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Ince & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Ince & Co
B Atlantic provides a good example of the courts’ approach to construing exclusions (with perhaps surprising outcomes) and in assessing whether a foreign court has acted perversely or by reason of political interference.
The ECJ has confirmed that the Brussels Regulation does not prevent a EU member state court from recognising and enforcing an anti-suit injunction granted by arbitrators.