Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
EARNED FREIGHT: HOW SACROSANCT?
The Dominique
1. The facts
By an assignment under seal dated 14 April 1982 the owners of the vessel Dominique assigned absolutely to their mortgagee bank all the earnings of the Dominique, including all freight. By a Gencon form of charterparty dated 16 June the owners chartered the Dominique to the defendant charterers to proceed to Kakinada in India and there load a cargo of agricultural products in bulk for carriage to European ports. Under that charterparty the Dominique loaded at Kakinada between 28 June and 13 July various parcels of cargo, in respect of which bills of lading were signed between those dates and on 14 July. On that date the Dominique left Kakinada bound for Colombo to collect bunkers. At about the same time the bank received notice that the vessel’s Club entry would be cancelled with effect from 28 June and they accordingly gave to the charterers written notice of the assignment. On 19 June the Dominique arrived at Colombo and was arrested by previous bunker suppliers. The vessel remained under arrest and it became apparent to both the charterers and the bank that the owners had no funds of their own with which to procure her release and that the Club would not assist them. By a telex from the charterers to the owners dated 22 July, the charterers justifiably elected to treat the owners’ conduct as a repudiation of the charterparty. By 26 July, all the bills of lading previously signed had been surrendered to the shippers. On 12 August, the charterers obtained the leave of the court in Colombo to discharge the cargo from the Dominique. During September the cargo, following such discharge, was transhipped to another vessel. That vessel then on-carried the cargo to European ports, where it was discharged during November. The Dominique was later sold by order of the court in Colombo.
The cost to the charterers of discharging and transhipping the cargo at Colombo, and of having it on-carried to European ports and discharged there, exceeded the amount of the advance freight claimed from them by the bank. The bank’s claim for the freight was referred to arbitration in London and dismissed. On appeal to the High Court,1 the bank succeeded. But this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal (Mustill, L.J., giving the main judgment).2 The Court of Appeal held that, in the context of a repudiation of a voyage charterparty by a shipowner and the
1. [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 239 (Hobhouse, J.).
2. Colonial Bank v. European Grain & Shipping Ltd. (The Dominique) [1988] 3 W.L.R. 60 (Fox, Mustill, Croom-Johnson, L.JJ.).
289