Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
RETHINKING MONROE v RYAN
Socrates Papadopoulos *
This article examines the Monroe v Ryan line of authority, in light, in particular, of the decision in The Pacific Voyager. It considers whether the existence of an absolute obligation to commence the approach voyage in good time in a voyage charter is justified by the wording of the relevant charters and considerations of business common sense. It also considers whether the principle in its present form leads to a straining of the concepts of ETA and cancelling date and whether Monroe v Ryan has been extended beyond its original rationale. It concludes that the obligation to commence the approach voyage in good time is more naturally regarded as one of due diligence but that, whatever one’s view as to the proper shape of the law in this area, it would benefit from consideration by the Supreme Court.
1. Introduction
The Pacific Voyager
1 is the latest case in the Monroe Bros Ltd v Ryan
2 line of authority. This line of authority holds that the effect of the combination between an expected readiness to load date (ERTL) and the obligation to proceed to the loading port with despatch is that the owners are under an absolute obligation to commence the approach voyage in good time. This article explores the development of the principle before discussing The Pacific Voyager itself, and concludes with a consideration of whether the current position would benefit from review and reconsideration.
2. The Monroe v Ryan line of authority
Monroe v Ryan
In Monroe Bros Ltd v Ryan the parties entered into a voyage charter dated 2 August with Hamburg as the loading port. The ERTL date was about 11 September. There was an express term that the vessel “shall with all convenient speed proceed to Hamburg … and there load …”. After entering into this charter, the owners entered into an intermediate fixture. The vessel was delayed during the intermediate fixture by bad weather and was unable to commence the approach voyage to Hamburg in good time. The charterers claimed that owners were in breach of charter.
* Barrister, 20 Essex Street, London.
1. CSSA Chartering and Shipping Services SA v Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd (The Pacific Voyager) [2018] EWCA Civ 2413; [2019] Lloyd’s Rep Plus 9; affg [2017] EWHC 2579 (Comm); [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 57; [2017] Bus LR 2125.
2. (1935) 51 Ll L Rep 179.
Rethinking Monroe v Ryan
319