ED & F Man Sugar Ltd v Unicargo Transportgesellschaft mbH

Mr Timothy Young QC (instructed by Jackson Parton) for the Claimants Mr Nevil Philips (instructed by Waltons & Morse LLP) for the Respondents Hearing dates: 16 October 2012 ____________________

ii) Clause 28 made no mention of "fires" as an excepted peril and "in common sense terms", the inoperability of the conveyor belt appeared to have been the result of physical damage due to the fire rather than any mechanical breakdown (paragraph 68 of the Award). I will refer to this as "the fire and mechanical breakdown point".

iii) Any refusal of permission by the Port Authority of Paranagua to vessels to load at the CBL terminal was not "government interferences" which term in Clause 28 related to such things as embargoes and export bans and not simple administrative re-scheduling of cargoes due to a fire (paragraph 69 of the Award). I will refer to this as "the government interference point".

i) The Charterers cannot rely upon a problem at a berth to which the Vessel was never ordered and which was never nominated (i.e. the CBL terminal);

ii) Once the Pasa terminal or the Centrosul terminal was effectively nominated, such nomination was to be treated as if written in to the Charterparty from the outset (see The Vancouver Strike Cases [1961] 1 Q.B. 42 per Sellers L.J. at p. 86 and per Willmer L.J. at p. 115; The Jasmine B [1992] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 39 per HHJ Diamond QC at p. 42);