Author: Casey Edeiken

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 4/25

TIME CHARTER – NYPE FORM – SPEED PERFORMANCE CLAIM – DEDUCTIONS FROM HIRE – GRAB PERFORMANCE – PARTY REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE The Owners entered into an agreement under an updated NYPE 1981 form, and commenced arbitration when a dispute arose around deductions for hire. The Owners were granted a defense submission order by the tribunal, which issued a warning: non-compliance would result in the issuance of a final order within 7 days. The Charterers did not comply; the Owners were granted a final order by the tribunal.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases

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

SALE OF CARGO – EFFECT OF LIEN – ARBITRATION ACT OF 1996 – PARADIGM CASE – CHARTERER OWNED CARGO – RECEIVER AS OWNERS’ AGENT – FAILURE TO RECEIVE BILL OF LADING Lord Marine (the Owners) and their vessel, Lord Hassan, entered into a voyage charterparty with Vimeksim (the Charterers) on or before April 12, 2024. By May 18, 11,000 mt of cargo had been loaded at Chornomorsk. Lord Marine issued the bill of lading on a standard Congenform 1994 form, which went on to name AAK, the consignee, as the “Receivers”, despite neither them, nor the Charterers ever receiving it. In error, the freight was categorized as “Prepaid”, despite not being paid at that time, or at all.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

English Maritime Cases

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.

Current / Featured / U.S. Maritime Cases

CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. (The “Athos I”) – Supreme Court of the United States, No. 18-565 – 30 March 2020

OIL SPILL – SAFE-BERTH CLAUSE – LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – UNQUALIFIED CLAUSE – STRICT LIABILITY – SAFE VS. UNSAFE BERTH SELECTION – EXPRESS CLAUSE – EXPRESS LIABILITY In 2004, Frescati Shipping Co. (the Owners) allowed CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. (CARCO) to charter their vessel Athos I. While attempting to dock in Port of Paulsboro, New Jersey, the vessel collided with an abandoned anchor, resulting in a major oil spill in the Delaware River. The arbitration primarily focused on the Charterers’ (CARCO) liability for the spill per the charterparty’s Safe-Berth Clause.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.