Danish bunker and tanker group Monjasa is appealing a UK court decision to kick out claims against Libyan shipowner GNMTC because it was too late in filing for the action.
It was suing Deep Sea Maritime, the owner of GNMTC's 115,000-dwt aframax Alhani (built 2007), over a bunker deal that went wrong in 2011.
Deputy high court judge David Foxton QC said in July that Deep Sea Maritime had sought a judgement on whether Monjasa's claims were time-barred under Article III Rule 6 of the Hague Rules because legal action was not brought within a year.
Monjasa told TradeWinds: “We have carefully studied the verdict and we are confident that the conclusions are wrongful.
"We have thus decided to file the ruling to the Court of Appeal.”
The vessel was hired by Monjasa under a bill of lading dated 12 November 2011 to carry 4,845 tonnes of bunkers, of which 499mt was bunker fuel for the vessel.
Monjasa started four sets of proceedings in relation to the alleged non-delivery of the cargo, with suits also filed in Tunisia, China and France.
The Tunisian action was begun by a motion for an order for the ship's arrest. It was held in April 2012.
A claim was also brought against the owner and the master.
Vessel released
The Tunisian court ordered the release of the vessel on 6 March 2013.
"It is clear from Monjasa's motion for an order of arrest that it was aware that there was a charterparty to which owners were parties, and that the bill referred to a charterparty," Foxton said.
"However, it is Monjasa's case that the charterparty was first disclosed to a court-appointed expert at some point between July and December 2014 and Monjasa says it first saw the charterparty in January 2015."
In 2015, the Tunisian court dismissed the proceedings for want of jurisdiction.
Monjasa commenced proceedings in the English high court on 17 March 2017.
It claimed damages in contract against the owner.
Article III Rule 6 says: "In any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered".
The key question for the judge was whether the Tunisian proceedings could be relied upon by Monjasa as the bringing of suit for the purposes of Article III Rule 6 in other proceedings commenced outside the one-year period, including the English proceedings.
"The answer to this question is, in my opinion, no, because the Tunisian proceedings were brought in breach of the exclusive jurisdiction clause," Foxton ruled.
"Ordinarily the English court will not regard proceedings commenced in a foreign court in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration clause as 'suit' for the purposes of Article III Rule 6 in respect of the issue of whether proceedings before the English court are time-barred," he said.
All of Monjasa's claims against the owner are subject to Article III Rule 6, the ruling said.
