The Inter-Club Agreement (ICA) was formulated in in order to promote amicable and equitable settlements for cargo claims under the. The Inter-Club Agreement (ICA) first came into force on 20 February It was revised in , in. and again in See 24 August , Standard. CIRCULAR REF: / CIRCULATED TO ALL MEMBERS, BROKERS AND DIRECTORS. The Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement, which.
|Published (Last):||27 October 2008|
|PDF File Size:||14.85 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.86 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The rationale behind this is that many charterparties incorporate the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules thus giving owners a complete defence to claims xgreement this kind. As with the proviso in Clause 8 ait is considered that the new words merely state expressly what was implicit in the Agreement.
The ICA appears to have become somewhat standard in the trade, since it is now often expressly incorporated into charterparties in the NYPE form. Any variation to be effective must be approved in writing by all the Clubs but it is open to any Club to withdraw from the Agreement on giving to all the other Clubs not less than three months’ written notice thereof, such inteerclub to take innterclub at the expiration of that period.
Our Club, in common with the other Group clubs is issuing a circular to inform Members of this change.
News & Events
The apparent more generous time bar for Hamburg Rules cases is necessary due to the fact that under the Hamburg Rules there is a two year limitation period 14 compared to the one intercluh under the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules. He has been involved in a number of high-value, complex and. Clause 8 d of agreekent ICA provides that:.
The ICA, since its inception, has been amended on two occasions. The apportionment 7 The amount of any cargo claim to be apportioned under this Interlcub shall be the amount in fact borne by the party to the charterparty seeking apportionment, ageeement of whether that claim may be or has been apportioned by application of this Agreement to another charterparty. Interclbu the words of the proviso may be new, it is believed that they merely state expressly what was implicit in the Agreement and therefore it is anticipated that, in practical terms, there will be no change in apportionment of claims under this heading.
This article is filed under: Governing Law 9 This Agreement shall be subject to English Law and Jurisdiction, unless it is incorporated into the charterparty or the settlement of claims in respect of cargo under the charterparty is made subject to this Agreementin which case it shall be subject to the law and jurisdiction provisions governing the charterparty.
This seemed to conflict with interckub intention behind the Agreement. If the condensation damage resulted solely from improper ventilation, interclhb were per cent liable. In 1969, it was thought inrerclub the provision of two apportionment formulae was quite confusing, so there were attempts to amalgamate them into one, without affecting the division of liability as established in the form.
These clauses seem to have fallen into disuse and therefore it is believed that the minor change will be of little or no practical significance. The form makes clear that the Agreement applies between Clubs despite any provision to the contrary in the charterparty. However, in order to ensure that no conflict arises between the main body of the charterparty and the settlement of claims under the ICA, the law and jurisdiction of the charterparty under which an apportionment is sought shall apply in the following situations: In one important decision of the English Commercial Court 3 dealt with the application of the Agreement when expressly incorporated as a term of the charterparty, against the practical background of container operations and through and multimodal transport bills of lading.
It would seem that the phrase means stowage of the container on board the chartered vessel. Instead, an alternative apportionment formula is to be applied. The ICA expressly excludes from the apportionment costs incurred in making a claim under the Agreement or in seeking an indemnity under the charterparty. He advises on “dry” shipping disputes such as charterparty and bill of intercllub disputes and is also experienced in “wet” shipping issues. This means that the simple fact that the underlying contract of carriage is a contract for through or multimodal transport is not a reason in itself to avoid application of the Agreement, even if this type of contract is not authorised under the charterparty.
Due to not having been paid for the cargo, the charterers ordered the vessel to wait off the discharge port for over 4 months. The ICA agreemenh provides, in a quite contradictory manner, that interclu addition of the words “and responsibility” in Clause 8 is in itself a material amendment, but that this does not render the Agreement inoperative.
Industry News Up-to-date information about topical issues is provided by the Industry News service. Both the ICA and the Agreement have worked well, been widely adopted by the maritime industry and have achieved their purpose. This involves cases in which the contract would have been authorised except for the inclusion of through or combined multimodal transport provisions. Under the Agreement, it is envisaged that condensation claims will be dealt with as follows: It is understood that no Club has ever withdrawn from the ICA.
From time to time the Agreement has been amended in order to keep it in line with legal developments.
However, if condensation resulted otherwise than from improper ventilation, liability was apportioned equally between owners and charterers, unless the condensation arose from poor stowage. As can be seen, despite the absence of any express reference to condensation claims, it is believed that these claims will continue to be treated in the same way as before. The ICA endeavours to remove the contradiction contained in the formula. It can also apply to contracts of carriage authorised under such charterparties.
The second inwhilst not deviating from the fundamental nature of the ICA, was more substantial and was introduced in particular to meet the needs of the container trade. The Agreement has now been amended once again in order to overcome some of the effects of the above-mentioned decision, as well as to adapt it to the carriage of containerised cargo, and to deal with other issues which have given rise to disputes over the years.
It was common ground that liability as between owners and charterers for the cargo claim was to be apportioned in accordance with clause 8 d of the ICA which had been incorporated into the charter. It took the form of re-arranging the text in a more logical way and:. Under the Agreement, written notification of a claim must be given to the other party within 24 months of the date of delivery of the cargo or the date the cargo should have been delivered, except for where the Hamburg Rules are compulsorily applicable, in which case the time limit is 36 months from the date of delivery.
Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange (N.Y.P.E.) Agreement
However, this is now subject to the express proviso that where owners can prove that the unseaworthiness was caused by the loading, stowage etc. Mr Justice Teare noted that the meaning of clause 8 d must depend on its context and it must be construed having regard to the language of the ICA as a whole. It also makes clear the fact that the charterers have the burden of proving that the cargo claim did or did not so arise.
Condensation resulting from bad stowage where the words “and responsibility” have been added to Clause 8. Since the ICA extends to claims arising under through or combined transport bills of lading, a question arises as to how “stowage” should be interpreted in respect of containerised cargo: The Group has therefore taken a decision to incorporate a new provision into the Agreement, which creates an entitlement to security on the basis of reciprocity, once one of the parties to a charterparty has put up security in respect of a Cargo Claim, provided that the time limits set out in clause 6 of the Agreement have been complied with the Security Provision.
One will also note that “delivery” has been substituted for “discharge”.
As the new agreement takes effect from 1st Septemberwe agerement its incorporation into all NYPE and Asbatime charterparties going forward. Now under the Agreement the inclusion of the words “and responsibility” in Clause 8 is no longer regarded as a material amendment and there is just one apportionment formula.