Author: Haugen Consulting
ASBATANKVOY -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- LOSS OF PROFITS -- FRESHWATER EXPENSE -- Owner Award
The Charterer failed to provide any cargo whatsoever, and the Panel determined how to assess Owner’s damages for lost profits. Additionally, the Panel ruled on how to compensate Owners for the Vessel’s long wait at anchorage subsequently requiring her to shift to berth for freshwater.
NORGRAIN -- DEMURRAGE -- NOR TENDERED PRIOR TO LAYDAYS -- HURRICANE -- ACT OF GOD -- FORCE MAJEURE -- Partial Owner Award
A hurricane swept through the loadport while the Vessel was awaiting berthing. The Panel was asked to determine the scope of Charterer's liability to the Owner regarding the lengthy waiting period caused by the aftermath.
NYPE -- DISCHARGE OF CARGO WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILLS OF LADING -- MISDELIVERY OF CARGO -- RESPONSIBIILITY FOR PROVISION OF SECURITY TO PREVENT ARREST -- PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF LETTER OF INDEMNITY -- Preliminary Owner Award
In a chain of back-to-back charters with sub-Charterers (with identical terms and LOI clause), the Judge decides who is responsible for putting up security to prevent the Vessel’s arrest by the bill of lading holder for alleged non-delivery of the cargo.
NYPE -- OFF-HIRE -- CHARTERER'S RIGHT TO CANCEL -- WHETHER “COMMON ROUTE” QUALIFIES AS ON-HIRE WHEN VESSEL UNDER OWNER’S ORDERS -- Charterer Award
Under a time charter contract, the Vessel incurred damage necessitating transit to a repair port along the same voyage route as the Charterer’s next intended port call. The Judge decides whether that constitutes off-hire, or if the vessel was operating under the Charterer’s instructions.
NYPE -- LATE REDELIVERY -- ILLEGITIMATE LAST VOYAGE -- PENALTY CLAUSES -- GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF DAMAGES -- Charterer Award
This ruling concerns a time charter clause which stipulates a remedy for a vessel’s late redelivery including compensation to the Owner if the market has risen and is calculated commencing a period of 30 days prior to the maximum period date until actual redelivery. The question posed to the Judges was, is that considered a penalty clause and thus illegal under English law?
NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- NOTICE OF VESSEL REDELIVERY -- MEANING OF THE ACRONYM “WP” -- Charterer Award
After submitting an approximate notice of redelivery, Charterer revised the date of redelivery in order to complete an additional voyage. Though the revised date still fell within the contractually stated range of delivery, Owner rejected the change and withdrew the Vessel from Charterer's service. Charterer claimed damages, alleging wrongful withdrawal.
ASBATANKVOY -- CONOCO WEATHER CLAUSE- CARGO AVAILABILITY -- WEATHER DELAYS -- WAITING TIME -- Owner Award
This dispute revolves around the interplay of Asbatankvoy's clauses 6, 8, and 9, as well as whether of not the Conoco Weather Clause applies during periods of bad weather, which occurred while the Vessel was awaiting berthing due to unavailable cargo. In addition to the award, one dissenting arbitrator recontructs the facts in the case and presents his own conclusion.
GENCON -- NO RESPONSE TO DEMURRAGE CLAIM OR ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS -- RULES OF ARBITRATION -- Owner Award
The Panel makes several attempts to contact the Charterer for participation in the proceedings, but received no response whatsoever. The Panel examines the demurrage claim at the heart of the award.
ASBATANKVOY -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- CONFIDENTIALITY -- IMPROPER CANCELLATION -- Owner Award
While the Vessel was in port awaiting cargo for another charterer, Owner was approached with the opportunity to load another cargo in the interim. The second fixture was quickly made, and Owner re-negotiated their laydays with the first charterer. The second charterer then promptly cancelled the fixture. Owner submitted a claim for lost profits, which the second charterer refuted due to the brevity of the fixture.
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- PRIMA FACIE -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award
On arrival at the discharge port, the cargo was found to be contaminated and the Receivers refused delivery. Charterer presented a prima facie claim showing that there was no apparent contamination in the cargo as it was delivered to the Vessel. The Panel sorted through a wealth of information to ascertain the source of cargo contamination, and explains the process of discovery.
