Review of the English Court of Appeal judgment in The NIKMARY (Triton Navigation Ltd v Vitol SA) [2003] EWCA Civ 1715 - 2 December 2003 The English High Court passed judgment on this matter earlier this year and the appeal has now been heard, upholding judgment in Owners' favour. The facts of this case may well strike a familiar note to many tanker members regarding tank cleaning. The NIKMARY arrived outside loadport where she spent some time cleaning tanks (her previous cargo was vegoil and her expected cargo was gasoil). The vessel then entered port and gave Notice of Readiness on 2 December 2000. She proceeded to berth the next day where the terminal, Reliance, had a cargo of gasoil ready for loading. A local surveyor, jointly appointed by Reliance and Vitol (voyage charterer), rejected the tanks. The vessel shifted to anchorage for further cleaning. The next day the tanks were again rejected by the same surveyor and by a surveyor appointed by the vessel's agents. The following day, after more cleaning, the tanks were passed by three surveyors - another surveyor having been appointed by Owners' P&I Club. However, by the time the vessel was ready (a valid NOR was given at 1930 on 5 December 2000) Reliance had other commitments to fulfil and was not willing to provide a cargo for the NIKMARY. (In fact Vitol's cargo was scheduled for loading in November and the vessel had arrived late but Charterers had agreed to extend the cancelling date). On 9 December Reliance informed Vitol that it would "be able to load this vessel only by end of December 2000". In fact Reliance did not call the vessel for loading until 2 January 2001, and in the meantime she remained at anchorage. Owners claimed demurrage: the delay was due to the absence of any cargo. Vitol argued that the vessel had lost her turn in the queue as a result of the time taken to carry out additional cleaning. Sound familiar? The Court of Appeal reiterated (there are several House of Lords decisions on this