{
  "id": 15730326,
  "title": "The Grande Island: What you delete is only half the story",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/20/the-grande-island-what-you-delete-is-only-half-the-story",
  "topic": "finance",
  "section": "Finance & Markets",
  "published": "2026-10-20T10:00:51.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Hellenic Shipping News",
    "slug": "hellenic-shipping-news",
    "url": "https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/the-grande-island-what-you-delete-is-only-half-the-story-2/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The recent decision in Olam International Ltd v Pacific Basin Supramax Ltd, known as The Grande Island case, dealt with the implications of deleting specific clauses within a charter party. The case involved the chartering of the Grande Island, a ship, from Ghent to Nigeria under an amended NYPE form, which incorporated the BIMCO Piracy Clause for Time Charter Parties 2013. However, sub-clauses 81(a) and (b) were expressly deleted from the clause.\n\nClause 81(a) would have granted Owners a broad right to refuse to proceed to or through an area considered dangerous due to piracy, or to leave such an area, based on their reasonable judgement or that of the Master. Clause 81(b) outlined the alternative orders to be given by Charterers following the exercise of that right. Clause 81(c) allowed Owners to take reasonable preventative measures to protect the vessel, crew, and cargo when navigating through or operating in an area exposed to piracy risk.\n\nAfter arriving near Warri, Nigeria, the ship was unable to berth. The Owners decided to temporarily leave the area and return towards Lagos, only to return to Warri around three days later. The dispute arose over whether the temporary departure was permitted under Clause 81(c), which would otherwise render the vessel not on hire.\n\nThe Charterers argued that the deletion of Clause 81(a) and (b), which granted Owners the right to leave the area due to piracy risk, meant that the owners could not rely on Clause 81(c) for protection. They also contended that the preventative measures identified in Clause 81(c) were consistent with navigating through or operating in the area rather than leaving it altogether.\n\nOn the other hand, the Owners argued that the deleted and retained provisions served different purposes. While Clauses 81(a) and (b) provided broader rights, Clause 81(c) was narrower, requiring actual exposure to piracy risk and the measures taken to satisfy an objective standard of reasonableness. They emphasized that the deletion of the broader rights did not mean the parties removed the separate protection under Clause 81(c). Additionally, the Owners highlighted the non-exhaustive nature of the listed preventative measures.\n\nThe arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the Owners, finding that there was a piracy risk at Warri, and that temporarily leaving the area was a reasonable preventative measure. Consequently, the vessel remained on hire. The Commercial Court upheld this award, considering the retained wording of Clause 81(c) broad and clear enough to encompass leaving the area as a reasonable preventative measure. The examples listed in the clause were seen as illustrative rather than exhaustive, reinforcing the Owners' right to take such actions.\n\nThe decision emphasizes the importance of thoroughly testing amendments against the entire charter party, as removing one right may not achieve the intended result if other provisions can authorize similar conduct under different tests. It also advises Charterers to be cautious when interpreting contractual rights, especially when a broad right is followed by a non-exhaustive list of examples. In such cases, Charterers should not assume that the right is confined to the situations expressly listed. If the parties intend to limit permitted measures to specific actions, clear wording may be necessary.",
  "summary": "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 partynegotiations 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 was ...",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}