Case Digest: Olam International Ltd v Pacific Basin Supramax Ltd (The “Grande Island”) [2026] EWHC 2136 (Comm)

<center>Court: High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Circuit Commercial Court</center>

<center>Date: 14 August 2026</center>

‍

Parties and Factual Background

Olam International Ltd was the charterer and Pacific Basin Supramax Ltd the shipowner. Under a time-trip charterparty dated 26 October 2021, the owner chartered the Grande Island for a voyage from Ghent to Nigeria carrying bulk wheat.

The vessel arrived at Warri but could not berth. Between 14:00 on 13 December 2021 and 15:00 on 16 December 2021, the master caused the vessel to leave the Warri roads and return to Lagos because of piracy risk in the Gulf of Guinea. The disputed issue was whether the vessel was on or off hire throughout that period.

The charterparty incorporated the BIMCO Piracy Clause for Time Charter Parties 2013 as clause 81, but its recapitulation email expressly deleted sub-clauses 81(a) and (b). Clause 81(c)(i), which was retained, entitled the owner to take “reasonable preventative measures” to protect the vessel, crew and cargo when proceeding to or through an area exposed to piracy risk, including but not limited to specified examples. Clause 81(g) provided that acts or omissions in compliance with clause 81 were not deviations and constituted due fulfilment of the charterparty.

Arbitration Award

The tribunal found there was a piracy risk at Warri and the vessel’s temporary return to Lagos was a reasonable preventative measure. It held clause 81(c)(i) applied, such that the departure was not a deviation and the vessel remained on hire. It was unnecessary for the tribunal to determine the owner’s alternative reliance on the off-hire, liberties and war-risks clauses.

Issue on Appeal

The charterer argued the tribunal had made an error of law. It maintained that deleting clauses 81(a) and (b), which had expressly allowed the owner not to proceed to, continue through or leave a piracy-risk area, objectively demonstrated the owner had no remaining right to leave Warri while keeping the vessel on hire. It also relied on bespoke rights permitting departure from other Nigerian ports, namely Port Harcourt and Calabar, in specified congestion circumstances and contended those rights did not extend to Warri.

Decision

The Court dismissed the appeal. It held the tribunal’s conclusion was correct: clause 81(c)(i) permitted the vessel to leave the area where doing so was a reasonable preventative measure against piracy. The vessel therefore remained on hire.

Reasons

The retained words were unambiguous
The Court applied the principle that deleted contractual wording should be considered only where the wording retained is ambiguous after ordinary construction. Clause 81(c) was unambiguous: “including but not limited to” introduced illustrative rather than exhaustive examples of reasonable preventative measures. Nothing in the retained clause confined such measures to actions taken within the piracy-risk area.
Departure could be a reasonable preventative measure
On the natural meaning of the clause, leaving an area could constitute a reasonable preventative measure. Whether it did so depended on the facts. The Court regarded a construction permitting a deviation within a risk area while treating a move just outside it as off hire as commercially illogical, particularly where the ‘Area’ might be extensive or difficult to define.
Deleted sub-clauses did not restrict clause 81(c)(i)
In the alternative, even if it had been permissible to consider the deleted provisions, the result was unchanged. Clauses 81(a) and (b) created discrete and more extensive rights, together with associated obligations on the charterer, which differed from the retained right to take reasonable preventative measures under clause 81(c)(i). Their deletion did not cut down the surviving clause.
No ejusdem generis limitation and no relevant effect of bespoke Nigerian terms
The Court rejected the charterer’s reliance on the ejusdem generis principle. There was no relevant limiting genus and the express phrase “including but not limited to” left no room for the principle to operate. The bespoke provisions concerning congestion at Port Harcourt and Calabar established different, additional rights and did not qualify the piracy measures available under clause 81(c)(i).

Observations on the Alternative Clauses

Although unnecessary to the outcome, the Court stated it would not have remitted the case to the tribunal had it allowed the appeal. Clause 79(b), the CONWARTIME provision, was unlikely to assist the owner because the piracy risk near Warri was known when the charterparty was concluded.

Further, The Captain Stefanos remained binding authority that a CONWARTIME ‘due fulfilment’ provision did not override an applicable off-hire clause. The Court also held a deviation ‘for the purpose of saving life and property’ requires an immediate prospect of loss or damage and is distinct from taking precautions.

Practical Significance

The decision confirms broad, non-exhaustive wording in a piracy clause can permit a vessel to leave a risk area where departure is a reasonable preventative measure. Express deletions from a standard-form clause will not control the construction of retained wording unless that retained wording is ambiguous. The case also illustrates the narrow scope of an appeal on a question of law under section 69 and the deference given to an experienced specialist tribunal on contractual interpretation.