Yong Jin: on the importance of back-to-back indemnities
The Commercial Court has dealt with the issue of whether a guarantee given by sub-charterers to the Master was given to and accepted by the Master in his capacity as a representative of the head owners or on behalf of the intermediate charterers.
The guarantee was intended as an indemnity against any damage caused by the vessel loading a cargo quantity on the basis of a maximum draft of 13.3m. The head owners brought a claim directly against the sub-charterers on the basis of an alleged grounding of the vessel.
The court held that the guarantee was given to and accepted by the Master on behalf of the intermediate charterers, not the head owners, with the result that the claim brought by the head owners failed. The judgment highlights the importance of obtaining any indemnities/guarantees on a back-to-back basis throughout the charterparty chain…
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.