IN THE UK SUPREME COURT

B E T W EE N:
AMERICAN OIL
Appellant
-VBRITISH PETROLEUM
Respondent
APPELLANTS SKELETON ARGUMENT
Introduction
1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. It is respectfully
submitted that the decision should be overturned on the basis that the lower court
erred on the deciding grounds.
Summary of the facts
1. Charterers British Petroleum (BP) entered a voyage charter with LEAKY BARREL
owners American Oil. The voyage agreement was to carry loads of fuel oil from
Rotterdam, stopping for discharge and reloading at Singapore then finally to
Shanghai. The voyage encountered BP related delays; an 8-day delay in Rotterdam
and a 5-day delay in Singapore including, incorrect cargo loading and BP employee
insubordination. BP acted on a rumour of a Chinese import ban and was deemed to be
in repudiatory breach by American oil which in turn terminated the same day. The
import ban was imposed the next day for 12 hours though would not have affected
cargo discharge by the time the vessel arrived in Shanghai. It is speculated the ban
would have been lifted before the vessel would complete its second loading at
Singapore. 10 days later, American Oil claimed demurrage for cumulative 13-days at
Rotterdam and Singapore demurrage. They had all supporting documents for
Rotterdam but not in respect to Singapore. American Oil submitted the documents 2
months later but British Petroleum refused to pay in accordance with clause 12(d) of
the voyage charter.
American Oil claimed for cumulative demurrage at both
locations and damages for BPs repudiatory breach.
High Court proceedings
2. The proceedings before Strident J saw a withdrawal of the Singapore demurrage
claim. Both parties agreed on an 11- day demurrage claim for the second leg of the
voyage.
American Oil was successful and British Petroleum was ordered to pay (1) unpaid
Demurrage for the claim at Rotterdam US$ 800,000. (2) Damages equivalent to the
demurrage accumulated had the voyage been completed.
Court of Appeal Decision
3. On dissent by Lord Justice Beabonnett who preferred the type of approach in The
Eternity the court denied (1) the demurrage claim and (2) the claim for damages.

Submissions
4. There are two separate claims and the claim for demurrage accrued in Rotterdam is
tenable based on the discussion in Petroleum Oil & Gas Corp of South Africa v FR8
Singapore Pte Ltd, The Eternity [2009] 1 ALL ER (Comm) 556
5. This is supported by the discussion in National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia v
BP Oil Supply Company (The Abqaiq) [2011] EWCA Civ 1127
6. It is submitted that the decision in Golden Strait Corp v Nippon Yusen Kubishika
Kaisha, The Golden Victory [2007] 2 A.C. 353 is contrary to principle and should
be overturned.
7. Policy issues should be taken into consideration based on The Golden Victory
Conclusion
On the basis of the above submissions, it is respectfully requested that the Supreme Court
overturn the Court of Appeal ruling and uphold appeal.

Senior Counsel: Chvanev Charles

Junior Counsel: Adrianna Jankowiak
18th March 2013