A tiny thing, the comma – but all-important in Osmium Shipping Corp v Cargill International SA, [2012] EWHC 571 (Comm).
[Link available here].
The ship Captain Stefanos was captured by pirates off the coast of Somalia, which gave rise to a dispute about who was to bear the costs associated with the suspension of the voyage. The charterparty provided that the owners of the vessel were on the hook in the event of ‘capture/seizure, or detention or threatened detention by any authority including arrest...’ The owners contended that ‘by any authority’ qualified ‘capture/seizure’ and that because the pirates did not constitute an ‘authority’, the owners were not responsible for costs incurred as a result of the ship’s seizure. The charterers argued that the placement of the comma made it clear that ‘by any authority’ referred only to detention or threatened detention by a government authority, but that capture or seizure could be by anybody, including pirates. An arbitration panel agreed with the charterers’ construction, and this was upheld by the English Commercial Court in a brief and sensible judgment.
See also Herbert v JP Morgan Chase & Co (EWHC (QB), March 2012; No HQ11X02595), where the bank successfully argued that the plaintiff was aware of a missing decimal point when he signed the bank’s offer to relocate to South Africa (subsequently rescinded), and therefore couldn’t claim lost earnings based on an annual salary he said would have been R24 million (US$3.1 million).
[Link available here].
Closer to home, see the case of the ‘million-dollar comma’: AMJ Campbell Inc v Kord Products Inc (2003) 63 OR (3d) 575 (SCJ).
[Link available here].
