THE GRANDE ISLAND: The relevance of deleted words in charterparty construction

The English Commercial Court's decision in Olam International Ltd v Pacific Basin Supramax Ltd (The Grande Island) [2026] EWHC 2136 (Comm) provides useful guidance on the relevance of deleted wording when construing standard-form charterparties.

The case arose from a dispute over whether a vessel remained on hire after temporarily leaving a Nigerian port because of piracy risk. More broadly, however, the Court considered whether provisions deliberately deleted from a standard BIMCO clause could be relied upon to restrict the meaning of wording which the parties had retained.

Background

The GRANDE ISLAND was chartered on an amended NYPE form for a time charter trip from Ghent to Nigeria carrying bulk wheat.

The charterparty incorporated the BIMCO Piracy Clause for Time Charter Parties 2013, but the parties deleted sub-clauses 81(a) and (b). Had clause 81(a) remained, it would expressly have permitted Owners, in certain circumstances, to leave an area considered dangerous because of piracy.

Clause 81(c) remained. It permitted Owners, where the vessel proceeded to or through an area exposed to piracy risk, to take "reasonable preventative measures" to protect the vessel, crew and cargo, "including but not limited to" various specified measures.

When the vessel arrived at Warri and was unable to berth, the Master decided not to remain in the area because of piracy risk and temporarily returned towards Lagos. The vessel returned approximately three days later.

The question was whether she remained on hire during that period.

The arbitration and appeal

The Tribunal found that Warri was exposed to piracy risk and that temporarily leaving the area was a "reasonable preventative measure" under clause 81(c). The vessel therefore remained on hire.

Charterers appealed, arguing principally that the parties had deliberately deleted the provisions which expressly permitted Owners to leave an area because of piracy. They contended that Owners could not obtain substantially the same right through the more general wording of clause 81(c). 

The Commercial Court dismissed the appeal.

The Court's decision

The Court's starting point was that where the words which remain in a contract are unambiguous, deleted wording is not a permissible aid to their construction. Deleted wording may be relevant where the surviving language is ambiguous, but even then, care must be taken in drawing conclusions from why particular words were removed.

Clause 81(c) was not ambiguous. The right to take "reasonable preventative measures" was deliberately broad and the examples which followed were expressly stated to be non-exhaustive. Nothing in the clause required those measures to be taken while the vessel remained within the piracy-risk area. The Court rejected an interpretation which would effectively allow Owners to take any reasonable preventative measure except leaving the area. 

The wider charterparty supported that conclusion. The incorporated CONWARTIME clause contemplated the vessel not proceeding or continuing through an area exposed to piracy risk. The piracy clause also provided that the vessel would remain on hire for time lost following a pirate attack and, for an initial period, following seizure. Charterers therefore had a significant financial interest in reasonable measures being taken to avoid those events.

Importantly, the Court reached the same conclusion even if the deleted wording were taken into account. Clauses 81(a) and (b) and clause 81(c) conferred different, albeit potentially overlapping, rights with different triggers. Deleting the former did not require the latter to be read more narrowly.

The bespoke Nigerian trading provisions concerning other ports did not change the position. They addressed different circumstances and created separate rights. As the Court recognised, overlapping rights are common in charterparties assembled from standard forms, incorporated clauses and bespoke terms. 

Comment

The Grande Island is an important reminder that deleting wording from a standard form does not necessarily produce the opposite contractual result.

The starting point remains the language the parties chose to retain. If that language is clear, deleted wording cannot be used to qualify it. Even where a deletion may properly be considered, it does not necessarily follow that the parties intended to exclude a similar or overlapping right arising elsewhere.

This is particularly relevant to charterparties, which commonly combine standard forms, BIMCO clauses and bespoke terms. When making amendments, parties should therefore consider not only what a deletion removes, but also how the provisions which remain operate together.

The Court's reasoning in The Grande Island accords closely with the approach likely to be adopted by a South African court. South African courts similarly place primary emphasis on the language chosen by the parties, read in its proper context, and are generally reluctant to infer limitations which the contractual wording does not support.

Although decided against the backdrop of piracy in the Gulf of Guinea, The Grande Island is ultimately a useful drafting case: deleting one contractual route to a particular outcome does not necessarily remove another.