The Grande Island: What you delete is only half the story
The recent decision in Olam International Ltd v Pacific Basin Supramax Ltd (The Grande Island) [2026] EWHC 2136 (Comm) concerned a familiar feature of charter party negotiations where standard wording had been incorporated but parts of it deliberately deleted. The question was what those deletions meant for the provisions left behind. Background The Grande Island ...
Olam International Ltd v Pacific Basin Supramax Ltd (The Grande Island) [2026] EWHC 2136 (Comm) is a recent decision that highlights the complexities of charter party negotiations. The dispute centered on the deletion of specific clauses from the BIMCO Piracy Clause for Time Charter Parties 2013, which had both deletion and retention of clauses.
The charterers argued that the deletion of Clause 81(a) and (b) meant they lost their right to leave an area due to piracy risk, while the owners contended that Clause 81(c) provided a separate right to take preventative measures. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the owners, stating that the deleted and retained provisions served different purposes.
The tribunal found that the deletion of Clause 81(a) and (b) did not mean the parties had removed the protection under Clause 81(c), as it required actual exposure to piracy risk and reasonable preventative measures. The court emphasized that the non-exhaustive list of examples in Clause 81(c) did not limit the broader wording, and that removing one contractual right did not necessarily narrow the retained rights.
The case underscores the importance of carefully considering the interactions between various clauses in a charter party and the potential consequences of removing or retaining specific provisions.
Written by urgent.news from Hellenic Shipping News's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.