PAKISTAN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Faisal Daudpota, Daudpota International
Pakistan Court Rules on the Trickery of Adding Tort Claims to Charterparty Disputes – the Recent “Beluga A” Case Introduction The global maritime legal landscape is undergoing a sophisticated recalibration, driven by the emergence of novel technical disputes, geopolitical volatility, and a judicial push towards the harmonisation of com - mercial remedies. At the heart of this evolution is the traditional action in rem, a procedural mechanism that has historically provided claimants with a unique form of security through ship arrest. However, as maritime commerce becomes increasingly complex, involving intricate layers of charterparties, technical certifica - tions, and liquidated damages provisions, the High Courts of common law jurisdictions are being forced to delineate more precisely the thresholds between breach of contract and tortious negligence. A recurring theme in common law courts is the effort to maintain the balance between tort and contract law. This is most evident in the application of the “Eco - nomic Loss Rule”, which seeks to prevent parties from using tort law to recover losses that are essentially the result of a failed commercial agreement. This article examines the recent jurisprudence from the High Court of Sindh in Pakistan, which illustrates a shifting paradigm where the sanctity of contract is prioritised to prevent the “drowning” of commercial law in a sea of tort. Issues in Sucres et Denres SA v MV Beluga A The adjudication in the recent case of Sucres et Den- res SA v MV Beluga A or “ Beluga A ” (Admiralty Suit No 13 of 2025 before the High Court of Sindh) repre - sents a seminal first impression ruling in the Pakistani context, particularly regarding the interplay between technical certification, waiver, and the thresholds for negligence. The case involved a sugar charterparty for the transport of 25,000 metric tons of sugar from Brazil to Pakistan. The plaintiff sought the arrest of the vessel based on two primary contentions: a breach of an express term regarding gear certification and a breach of a duty of care (negligence) due to crane failures that delayed loading.
The court was presented with a technical conflict: Clause 42 of the charterparty required a gear certifi - cate attesting that the vessel’s cranes had been tested within one year prior to the notice of readiness. The vessel provided certificates showing that while the “annual thorough surveys” were valid through 2026, the last “load test” had been conducted in Novem - ber 2021 – nearly four years prior to the voyage. The plaintiff accepted these documents at the start of the voyage but subsequently sought to rely on the non- conformity as a ground for arrest following loading delays. The High Court’s reasoning focused on the doctrine of waiver. By accepting the non-conforming techni - cal documents and proceeding with the charter, the plaintiff was deemed to have waived their right to later assert a breach of that specific term. This highlights a critical issue: the extent to which a commercial party is bound by its initial acceptance of technical risks. The court signalled that in the absence of fraud, the formal acceptance of certificates – even if they do not strictly meet the contract’s requirements – bars subsequent claims for breach of those terms. The court’s analysis of the weather-related delays further underscored the complexity of causation in these disputes. The loading statement of facts (SOF) indicated that approximately 321 hours (over 13 days) were lost solely due to rain and fog, which were cat - egorised as laytime-interrupting events under the charterparty. The judicial refusal to attribute these weather delays to the defendant’s negligence, even when the cranes were simultaneously inoperative, reflects a robust application of the principle that “pure economic loss” resulting from external environmental factors cannot be recovered in tort if it falls within the risk allocation of the contract. Breach of contract v tort The distinction between contract and tort in ship- arrest cases is summarised by the “form and sub - stance” of the injury. • Nature of the breach – In contract, the focus is on the failure to fulfil a specific promise (eg, providing
468 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook