Worldwide: Effect Of Non-Payment Of Hire: After The Astra Comes Another Twist In The Tale

Last Updated: 14 April 2015
Article by Nick Austin and Chris Moxon

On 18 April 2013, Flaux J handed down a judgment in Kuwait Rocks Co v AMN Bulkcarriers Inc. (The Astra) that surprised many in the shipping community with its analysis that a charterers' failure to pay hire amounted to a breach of a condition, thereby entitling an owner not only to cancel the charter and escape future performance but also to claim damages for the unperformed part. The recent judgment of Popplewell J in Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co., Ltd, handed down on 18 March 2015, challenges that conclusion in a thorough and significant review of this important area of law.


Clearly a refusal or failure to pay hire according to the terms of the charter, or a late payment, amounts to a breach of contract. The difficulty comes in determining whether that breach gives rise to a right to terminate the contract and claim damages. Although in most cases the charterparty will contain provisions that grant the owner a contractual right to withdraw the vessel in the event of non-payment, this will generally only provide the owner with the right to claim hire that is payable and earned up to that point. For the owner to establish a claim for damages for loss of the value of the rest of the contract, or the "bargain" - usually the difference between the market rate of hire and the charterparty rate for the remaining period of the charter – there must either be a breach of condition or some other breach that is deemed to be sufficiently serious to amount to a repudiation or renunciation of the charter.

If the payment provisions in the charterparty (for example, Clause 5 of the NYPE 1946 form) do not amount to a condition, then in practice the owner would need to show that the breach was sufficient to amount to an unambiguous representation that the charterers would not or could not perform their obligations under the charter. This will not always be easy for an owner and so the legal and commercial significance of whether or not the payment provisions are a condition of the contract entitling termination for even the slightest of breaches, together with a right to claim damages for the unexpired period, becomes immediately apparent.

The generally accepted position prior to The Astra was that although the owner may often have had a contractual right to withdraw the vessel for non-payment of hire, it would also have been necessary to establish a repudiatory breach by the charterers if the owner was also to recover additional damages. In other words, the payment provisions were not treated as a contractual condition but merely gave the owner a right to stop further performance in the event of unpaid hire, and claim the debt.

However, although it is correct to describe this as the "generally accepted position", the issue had not been conclusively settled. Perhaps the clearest statement on the subject was provided in The Brimnes [1972] where Brandon J, considering whether Clause 5 of NYPE 1946 amounted to a condition, said:

"..... I have reached the conclusion that there is nothing in Clause 5 which shows clearly that the parties intended the obligation to pay hire punctually to be an essential term of the contract, as distinct from being a term for breach of which an express right to withdraw was given."

Although this decision was approved in the Court of Appeal, in other cases a contrary view had been expressed, albeit in obiter comments. The authors of Time Charters perhaps provide the best summary of the pre- Astra position when noting:

"Despite these dicta, it is thought the better view is that the obligation to pay hire is by nature an intermediate term, so damages for the loss of the charter are recoverable only where the failure to pay hire by the due date can be shown to be repudiatory.... It may be that the judicial remarks [contrary to this view] should not be understood as meaning that Clause 5 [of NYPE] is a condition, but only that its draftsman, by adding an option to withdraw to the obligation to pay hire, had given to that obligation one characteristic of a condition, namely that any breach gives a right of termination. But uncertainty will remain until the House of Lords has shed more light on this important question."

The Astra

It was against this background that Mr Justice Flaux came to examine the issue in The Astra and, contrary to the view of the Tribunal in that case and also that expressed in Time Charters, concluded that the obligation to make punctual payment of hire was a condition.

The Judge's view was:

  • The fact that Clause 5 gave a right to withdraw the vessel was a strong indication that it was intended that a failure to pay hire promptly would go to the root of the contract
  • As time was made of the essence, it was consistent with the requirement being a condition
  • The Brimnes could be distinguished as it was a decision where there was no anti-technicality clause making time of the essence – however, the Judge stated that he would still have refused to follow the decision due to obiter dicta in subsequent decisions, and the fact that one of the authorities relied on in The Brimnes had been overruled; and, perhaps most importantly
  • The importance to businessmen of certainty in commercial transactions – an owner would need to know whether he could withdraw the vessel and claim damages or whether he should persevere with his inconsistently performing charterers

Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics

As in The Astra, the facts of the case before Popplewell J were such that the "condition" point in relation to the payment of hire proved not to be decisive because the charterers' conduct was found to be repudiatory. Nevertheless, the issue was fully argued and considered in great detail by the Judge.

The dispute arose in relation to three long term time charterparties on amended NYPE 1993 forms between Spar and CGL. Difficulties arose in relation to the payment of hire in respect of all three vessels, and eventually Spar withdrew the vessels and terminated the charterparties. After the charterers went into liquidation, claims were brought under guarantees that had been issued by charterers' parent company for the balance of unpaid hire before termination. In respect of the three vessels, this element of the claim totalled just over USD 561,000.

In addition, Spar claimed under the guarantees for damages for loss of bargain in respect of the unexpired term of the charters. The market for the vessels had deteriorated significantly with the result that this element of the claim, even allowing for owners' efforts to employ the vessels in mitigation totalled in excess of USD 23 million.

A significant part of the judgment dealt with issues relating to the validity of the parent company guarantees and whether (irrespective of the "condition" point) the charterers' failures to pay hire were sufficiently serious to amount to a renunciation of the charterparties. Spar were successful on both these issues which, in itself, was enough to ensure their entitlement to recover the full amounts claimed under the guarantees. However, just as in The Astra, and given the obvious significance of the point, the Judge embarked upon a detailed analysis of whether the failure to pay hire also amounted to a breach of condition.

In doing so, Popplewell J had the benefit of considering the extensive commentary within the shipping community following The Astra decision which indicated, as the Judge noted, "that Flaux J's decision has not been universally welcomed or treated as settling the position."

Popplewell J also had the benefit of being referred to the decision in Financings Ltd v Baldock [1963] which, it seems, may not have been considered in argument before Flaux J. This Court of Appeal decision concerning a hire purchase contract provided significant support for the contention that a contractual right of termination conferred for any breach of a term, however trivial (for example, the right of withdrawal for non-payment of hire under NYPE 1993) could not of itself be relied on to provide a conclusive answer as to whether the term should be treated as a condition. The "critical question" as Popplewell J saw it remained as follows:

"'[W]hether the contractual right to terminate by withdrawal of the vessel for non-payment of hire conferred by clause 11 is to be construed as indicating that the parties intended that payment of hire was a condition, or whether it is to be construed simply as an option to cancel in circumstances where payment of hire is an innominate term and a breach will not give rise to a right to damages in the absence of a repudiatory breach or renunciation."

Popplewell J was also unpersuaded by other key arguments relied upon by Flaux J in support of the contention that failure to pay hire amounted to a breach of condition. In particular, the Judge did not accept that considerations of commercial certainty pointed in that direction. The Judge noted that commercial certainty, though desirable, "must be counterbalanced by the need not to impose liability for a trivial breach in undeserving cases". Furthermore, Popplewell J noted that a very considerable measure of certainty was provided anyway by the withdrawal clause because it provided an option to cancel. The additional question as to whether damages for loss of bargain could also be claimed undoubtedly raised issues of commercial risk. However, these were not unrealistic risks for the shipowner to bear in circumstances where it was not uncommon in the commercial world to rely on prompt payment in order to finance performance of a contract.

Popplewell J also did not feel that the existence of the anti-technicality clause was significant as it had been for Flaux J. Such a clause simply indicated that the strictness of the right to withdraw under the clause was to be tempered to avoid it being triggered by mere mishaps. Taken as a whole, the language of the clause was "more naturally indicative of an option to cancel directed solely to future performance, not as something intended to impose new liabilities."

It followed that Popplewell J's extensive review of the authorities and of the basis of Flaux J's conclusion in The Astra led him to reach a quite different conclusion, namely that the failure to pay hire in accordance with Clause 11 of NYPE 1993 did not amount to a breach of condition.


As in The Astra, the decision on the "condition" point in Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics is, strictly speaking, obiter dicta, given that its determination did not affect the outcome of the case. However, given the detailed nature of both judgments and the arguably more complete review of the relevant authorities by Popplewell J, it must be considered highly unlikely that the Commercial Court or arbitration tribunals will now adopt a different approach to that of Popplewell J, at least until such time as the issue can be considered by the Court of Appeal.

So for now at least, the pre-Astra status quo has prevailed: although the owner may often have a contractual right to withdraw for non-payment of hire, it will remain necessary to establish a repudiatory breach or renunciation on the part of the charterers if the owner is also to be able to recover the often very substantial extra damages for loss of bargain.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions