Author: Haugen Consulting
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.
GENCON -- NO RESPONSE TO DEMURRAGE CLAIM -- AWAIT CARGO DOCUMENTS -- SHIFT OFF BERTH -- BROKERAGE COMMISSION -- Owner Award
Even though the Charterer doesn't repond to the arbitrator's request to participate in the arbitration, the arbitrator looks critically at Owner's demurrage claim and makes revisions to reduce the demurrage amount. A key question in this award is what time counts as used laytime when the Vessel shifts off the berth to await documents at the anchorage prior to departure.
BPVOY -- TIME BAR -- SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- INERT GAS SYSTEM -- ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION VS USE OF DUE DILIGENCE -- NEGLIGENCE -- Partial Charterer, Owner Award
If the Vessel’s crew failed to secure the common Inert Gas line resulting in the contamination of Charterer’s two cargoes, is the Owner excused under Hague Visby Article IV rule 2(a) i.e. "an act, neglect or default of the master and/or servants of the carrier in the management of the vessel"? Regarding demurrage time bar requirements, if the governing clause stipulates that the Vessel’s pump log is to be counter-signed by the Terminal and said signature is not obtained, is this cause for barring the entire claim or just that one aspect of the claim? If the operative demurrage time bar clause requires the Vessel’s documents to be counter-signed by a “Terminal” representative and the cargo transfer takes place at anchorage in a ship-to-ship (STS) transfer, does the lack of the Terminal’s signature give cause to bar that aspect of the claim?
ASBATANKVOY -- WITHHELD FREIGHT -- SECURITY -- CONDITION OF TANKS -- Partial Final Owner Award
On arrival at the third loading port, the inspectors found the Vessel's remaining tanks unsuitable to load, calling the epoxy coating too badly deteriorated. The Vessel sailed to the discharge port without loading the balance cargo. The Charterer withheld freight, citing the Vessel's condition and the cost of acquiring alternate carriage for the unloaded cargo.
SHELLTIME 4 -- TIME CHARTER -- VESSEL NOT DELIVERED BY CANCELLATION DATE -- DELIVERY PORT NOT NAMED -- RIGHT TO CANCEL -- FUTILITY -- Charterer Award
Although the Vessel was due to be delivered to Nigeria to commence a time charterer contract, she was at drydock in Greece and missed the deadline for the delivery date. Charterer cancelled the charter, which Owner refuted, citing additional work which Charterer had ordered on the Vessel's tanks which made the deadline impossible to meet. Owner also argued that Charterer failed in their obligation to nominate a specific delivery port, which would have given Owners 30 days to make delivery.
