In Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement (Bermuda) Ltd Partnership v BP Shipping Ltd – Lawtel 9.2.09, the complainant ship manager stated that termination fees must be paid under crew administration contracts. The corresponding agreements on personnel management were lump sum contracts. For each vessel, a monthly lump sum was set in two figures, pounds sterling for officer payments and in U.S. dollars for rating payments and all other expenses. The lump sums were all-inclusive and covered the costs of providing the crew and all ancillary services, as well as the applicant`s administrative costs, overheads and profits. If the defendant has terminated the termination, Section 5.9, point (c) provides that the vessel or vessels concerned must be compensated up to half of the monthly lump sum payment in effect at the time of termination. A subsidiary letter moved staff management from a lump sum to a fee base plus: there was still a monthly lump sum, it was in fact an estimate that had to be adjusted upwards or downwards according to the applicant`s costs, and excluded the applicant`s fixed administrative costs, set at $1,500,000 per year and $1,067,000 per year in paragraph 4.1 of the letter motivational motivation. which had to be paid in installments with the monthly lump sum. Buzz. The Commercial Court preferred that the duty of appeal, although the commissions were payable in monthly lump sum, was merely a matter of mechanics and concluded that the obligation under 5.9 (c) crew agreements to pay compensation equal to half of the “monthly lump sum payment” in effect at the time of termination was considered an obligation to pay half of the taxes in force at point 4.1. A letter of $1500,000 and $1,067,000.
It found that it was a commercial and preferable construction. The three months were due to expire on April 30, 2015, but before that, the owners sold the ship. Cl 15 provided for an automatic termination if the owners sold the vessel, and payment of a lump sum of two months once the crew had left the vessel. Crew managers billed the owners this lump sum, and the owners paid. The owners then requested a refund of this lump sum on the basis of the payment by mistake. The shipowners entered into agreements on the administration of the crew on the B-crew forms. On January 30, 2015, the owners announced the termination in point 14, which provided for three months` notice and that occupancy fees were to be paid for the entire period of that period. When the defendants terminated the contracts, the question was whether the tax payable in the event of termination was only half of a monthly portion of the annual tax or half of the annual tax. The reference to the “monthly flat-rate payment” in Article 5.9, Point c) of the occupancy agreements also provided that the reference to taxes in point 4.1 of the mailing note should be considered. The question was whether the contracts had been terminated in accordance with section 14 or 15. Cl 14 provided that the termination takes place 3 months after the termination.
It was stated that the contract expired until the expiry of that period. On the common reading of the clauses, it was not credible that 15 rights would be removed at the end of the deadline in point 14. The delay changed the balance of non-communication: yes, for example. B the termination had been made in point 14 and if the vessel was sold the next day, the crew chiefs would receive two months` costs instead of 3. The Board found that the crew chiefs were not entitled to the lump sum payment under Regulation 15, as the termination had taken place in point 14 below. Cl 15 had no application, as the contract had already been terminated. Crew officials appealed. “I want to thank the SCCA for this excellent service! The articles in the news feeds are very useful and informative, and the user-friendly format of news feeds means that I can quickly look via the Accurate in emails to choose what needs to be