首页 >> 国外案例 >> 油轮扣押纠纷

油轮扣押纠纷

作者: 发布时间:2007-06-26 浏览量:2854
Admiralty jurisdiction – Arrest of bunkers
The “Titan” – High Court of South Africa (Durban and Coast Local Div) (Levinsohn DJP) – 18 May 2006

(2007) 712 LMLN 4

The applicant shipowners chartered a vessel to the first respondent, America’s Bulk Transport (“ABT”). Disputes arose under that charter which were referred to London arbitration. On 12 May 2006 the applicants arrested the bunkers on board the vessel Titan in order to establish security in the London arbitration. The applicant alleged that ABT was managed by Phoenix Bulk Carriers (USA) and that ABT were the time-charterers of the Titan .

Bulk Ocean Shipping Company (“BOSC”), as intervening party, applied to set aside the arrest. BOSC alleged that ABT chartered the Titan from Fleet Marine Inc of Monrovia on the NYPE form, and that BOSC had sub-chartered the vessel from ABT, also on the NYPE form. As a result of the provisions of the NYPE form' ;%bsOE' ;%bsOC took delivery and the bunkers subsequently purchased were BOSC’s property.

The applicant contended (without any factual foundation) that BOSC and Phoenix Bulk Carriers (USA) were part and parcel of ABT.

Held , that the starting point was to look at the provisions of the relevant charterparty. The three key provisions of the NYPE form were that on delivery of the vessel ownership of the bunkers passed to the time charterer; secondly that the charterer was under an obligation to provide bunkers during the currency of the charterparty; and thirdly that English law was applicable.

Apart from the bunkers on board as at the delivery date to BOSC, bunkers had been taken on board in Rotterdam and Aden. An invoice in both instances was issued to BOSC. The clear inference was that the ownership in the bunkers vested in the sub-charterer (Ultisol Transport Contractors Ltd v Bouygues Offshore 1996 (1) SA 487). The applicant had submitted that the basis of the transaction was a sale of bunker fuel according to South African law, and that that was a “sale by measure” so that no ownership passing to the sub-charterer could take place until the quantity sold had been ascertained and the price fixed, which would take place when BOSC and ABT settled accounts at the conclusion of the sub-charter. That submission would be rejected. What was relevant was that ownership passed when the sub-charterer agreed to pay ABT for the bunkers onboard.

G D Harpur SC (Shepstone & Wylie, Durban) for the applicant; S R Mullins SC (Vann Velden’s Attorneys, Mount Edgcombe) for BOSC.

来源:LIOYD’S MARITIME LAW NEWSLETTER March

返回顶部 推荐给好友 | 收藏 | 打印

相关新闻
用户评论

 用户名   密码 

    验证码