timebars, high court, contract interpretation Home Publications Articles A Tale of Two Timebars A Tale of Two Timebars Publications Lorna Watkin Published: December 05, 2018 Contact author Download article pdf Image P v Q (‘ The Capetan Giorgis’) [2018] EWHC 1399 (Comm) No one needs reminding the importance of heeding time bars in contracts, but this High Court decision is an example of the difficulties that can be caused in a charter chain and how parties may be held to strict contractual interpretation of a time bar clause. The case involved four parties in a back-to-back voyage charter chain on Norgrain 1973 form. Due to the anonymity of the underlying arbitrations they are identified as P, Q, R and S. Clause 67 in each charter party provided that any claims: “must be notified in writing to the other party and claimant’s arbitrator appointed within thirteen (13) months of the final discharge of the cargo and where this provision is not complied with, the claim shall be deemed to be waived and absolutely barred.” (Emphasis added). The timeline:  16 October 2015- discharge of cargo was completed 16 November 2016- the final day of the 13 month period- Disponent Owner China National Chartering Co Ltd gave notice to their Charterer P of a third party claim brought against them at 6:44pm when P’s office was closed. The first P knew about this was the next day on their opening, after the time bar had passed. 17 November- P gave notice to their Charterers, Q. When Q received this, they gave their own notice of claim and commenced arbitration against R, via the brokers. R then claimed that their brokers/agents did not have authority to accept service of an arbitration notice. 23 November- P’s operations department notified their legal department 25 November- P commenced arbitration against Q. 28 November- R instructed lawyers, despite being aware of the notice from Q since 18 November, 29 November- R’s lawyers appointed an arbitrator 30 November- To protect their pos