This matter concerned the appeal of an arbitration award under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, granted by Mr. Justice Males, on a specific question of law, namely: “Where under a time charter the owner warrants to the time charterer that the vessel shall maintain a particular level of performance throughout the charter period, and the time charterer alleges underperformance in breach of that warranty, is it a defence for the owner to prove that the underperformance resulted from compliance with the time charterer’s orders?”

The Court of Appeal had looked at the matter in simpler terms of whether the arrest was caused by a party on ‘Charterers’ side of the line’: Transclear and IBG being clearly on ‘Charterers’ side of the line’. Some may argue that the Court of Appeal judgment was too broad brush and gave too wide a definition of agency and that the Supreme Court was correct to look at the scope of the agency and limit it accordingly.

In this recent arbitration appeal the Commercial Court considered the meaning of a time charter trip and concluded that, ultimately, the scope of any “trip time charter” will depend upon the particular terms agreed between the parties.  However, the court also gave a number of useful general insights into the nature of a time charter trip.