There is a long-standing issue about the circumstances in which a shipowner may recover damages at large rather than demurrage for the consequences of delays after his vessel has become an arrived ship and before the completion of loading/discharge. It is argued (contrary to recent authority) that a “separate type of loss” (without any “separate breach” of the charterparty) is enough and a suggestion is offered as to what should be considered as a “separate” type of loss. Intuitively, a “separate breach” without any “separate type of loss” should also be enough. However, well-established authority leaves very little room for that .

Commercially, it is natural to think of demurrage as a daily rent for a ship. One way to conceptualize this would be to think of a voyage charterparty as working in the same way as some construction contracts now work. For example, a contract for the repair of a motorway may be structured so that the contractor formally goes into occupation of the employer’s property, and is required to pay a rent in respect of this occupation. The parties agree the period which the job should take, and for that period the rent is a peppercorn if demanded. For every day thereafter the rent may be a serious representation of the social costs of the motorway not being available for use, perhaps several million pounds per day. In the same way, the charterer who is to load or discharge the shipowner’s vessel is to perform a task which is for the shipowner’s benefit but which will occupy the vessel and prevent it from being used elsewhere. The charterer is allowed so many days’ occupation free of charge (having “bought” these days with the freight) and thereafter has to pay a rent for each day that he remains in occupation past the time which he was allowed free.