Service of NOR by email not permissible under this voyage charterparty
The Commercial Court decision in Trafigura Beheer BV v. Ravennavi SpA (Port Russel) (unreported, published on 1 March 2013) deals with only one issue: namely whether notices of readiness (NORs) could be validly served by email pursuant to the relevant provisions of the voyage charterparty in question. Nonetheless, it is an issue of practical importance and one that the court resolved by considering what the parties could objectively be taken to have intended at the time of entering into the voyage charterparty, as ascertainable from the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used in their agreement.
Mr Justice Popplewell concluded that the relevant charterparty wording did not allow for NORs to be validly served by email…
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
The Court of Appeal has confirmed the meaning of the expression “in-transit loss” in a voyage charter party in the Trafigura Beheer case.
A recent Commercial Court decision considered the position when a contract provides for the law of one jurisdiction to be applicable, but for the arbitration to take place outside that jurisdiction.