2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
London Arbitration 4/25
Lord Marine Co SA v Vimeksim Srb DOO (The “Lord Hassan”) [2024] EWHC 3305 (Comm) – King’s Bench Division, Commercial Court (Bryan J) – 14 October 2024
Sea Consortium Pte Ltd and Others v Bengal Tiger Line Pte Ltd and Others [2024] EWHC 3174 (Admlty) – Admiralty Division (Andrew Baker J) – 12 December 2024
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – DEFINITION OF CHARTERER – DEFINITION OF SHIPOWNER – SLOT CHARTERER – CONTAINERIZED CARGO – VESSEL AND CARGO CASUALTY/LOSS
Killiney Shipping and Sea Consortium (the Charterers) entered into a Bareboat and a Time Charter, respectively with EOS RO (the Owners). Multiple contract agreements existed between the Parties. When a vessel laden with cargo under these multiple contracts caught fire, a limitation ruling was publicized, resulting in subsequent claims. In question was who was considered the charterer and who the shipowner with regard to the losses and liability.
London Arbitration 11/24
London Arbitration 12/24
Bulk & Metal Transport Pte Ltd v Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. dba Consolidated Terminals and Logistics Company (The “Bi Jia Shan”) – SMA 4478 – 22 May 2024
London Arbitration 15/24
London Arbitration 1/24
NORGRAIN FORM – CHANGE OF PORTS – CHANGE IN FREIGHT DUE TO CHANGE OF PORTS – DESPATCH TERMS – DO LOCAL PUBLIC HOLIDAYS COUNT FOR LAYTIME PURPOSES
A vessel chartered under an amended Norgrain agreement was to transport dense grains from Paranagua, Brazil, to China. The discharge points were initially Zhoushan and Taixing but were later changed to Tianjin. Disputes arose over outstanding freight charges and despatch claims.
London Arbitration 2/24
TIME CHARTER – NYPE FORM – BUNKERS UPON REDELIVERY – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION CLAIM – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY – ALLEGED ADDITIONAL / UNAUTHORIZED PORT CALL
In a time charter dispute based on an amended NYPE 1946 form, Owners claimed a balance of hire for $79,103.27, while Charterers denied responsibility and counterclaimed for $100,000, alleging the vessel had traveled an extra 250 miles and did not meet speed and consumption warranties.
London Arbitration 3/24
FORCE MAJEURE – “LAWSUIT” DEFINITION – TIME-BARRED CLAIMS – TIME-CLAUSE – AGREEMENTS ON CHARTER – ARBITRATION
In March 2022, a vessel sustained propeller damage on the way to its first load port, leading to the charter party cancellation through force majeure. Charterers did not initiate arbitration proceedings until over a year later in April 2023. The dispute focused on whether arbitration proceedings were time-barred. Charterers contended that the one-year time bar did not apply due to circumstances surrounding the voyage’s cancellation.