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.
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.