News 10 Jun, 2021 Briefcases - Waypoints article Julien Rabeux Head of Claims (Singapore) We look at the details of some recent cases, discuss the lessons to be learnt and examine the consequences and potential implications of each decision.  Download PDF Eternal Bliss: claiming damages beyond demurrage  In the Eternal Bliss case, the voyage charterer failed to discharge a cargo within the time allowed (laytime). As a result of the delay, and while the ship was on demurrage, the cargo deteriorated. This exposed the shipowner to a cargo claim from  the receivers. The Commercial Court held that notwithstanding the ship being on demurrage, it was possible for the shipowner to also claim an indemnity against the charterer for the costs of the cargo claim.  The consequence of this decision is that an owner may recover damages in addition to demurrage, if the  owner can prove a separate type of loss which is unrelated to the loss  of the use of the ship as a freight-earning vessel. Why is this decision so important? Prior to this decision, it was thought that demurrage was the only remedy, and that an owner had to prove both: A separate type of loss, and; A separate breach of contract distinct from the failure to load or discharge the ship within the laytime. What are the possible implications? Owners may try to argue that if the ship suffers physical damage as the result of a delay beyond the laytime period, hull fouling or even if the vessel is liable to pay terminal charges or penalties, then these losses, in addition to related cargo losses, may be recoverable without having to prove a separate breach.  Deck cargo exclusion clauses: Aprile SPA v Elin Maritime Ltd (‘The Elin’). Carrier’s liability excluded for unseaworthiness and/or negligence.  In the case of The Elin, the court held that a clause in a bill of lading, providing that certain cargo was ‘loaded on deck at shipper’s and/ or consignee’s and/or receiver’s risk; the ca