Author: Haugen Consulting

Caytrans BBC, LLC v. Agrogen SA de CV (The “Faaborg”) – SMA No. 4025, 27 Feb 2009

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

The Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v. FR8 Singapore Pte Ltd (The “Eternity”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 21 Oct 2008

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?
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Team Tankers AS v. Tricon Shipping Ltd. (The “Siteam Merkur”) – SMA No. 4016, 25 Nov 2008

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Mansel Oil Ltd. and Another v. Troon Storage Tankers SA (The “Ailsa Craig”) – EWHC 1269 (Comm. Ct.), 9 Jun 2008

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

P v. A and Another – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 20 Jun 2008

AMERICANIZED WELSH COAL -- CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- LATE NOMINATION OF LAYDAYS -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- Owner Award On the 5th lifting under a contract of affreightment (COA) covering six voyages, the Charterer nominated the layday spread but was subsequently unable to secure a cargo, and asked Owner to move the laydays back two weeks. Due to a rising freight market, Owner was unwilling to do so, but offered to simply cancel voyage #5 and lift the cargo as the last voyage under the fixture. At issue is whether the laydays were irrevocable even though Owner had not yet nominated a Vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Mediterranean Salvage & Towing Ltd. v. Seamar Trading & Commerce Inc. (The “Reborn”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 1 Aug 2008

GENCON -- VESSEL DAMAGED WHILE BERTHING -- MULTIPLE BERTH CALLS IN PORT -- SAFE BERTH WARRANTY -- Charterer Award If a specific port is named in a voyage charterparty and there are several possible berths within that port to which a vessel could be directed and there is no express "safety" warranty of either the port or the berth, is the charterparty subject to an implied term that the Charterers must nominate a “safe” berth?
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Statoil ASA v. Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP (The “Harriette N”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 29 Sep 2008

MEANING OF "ACCEPT / EXCEPT" -- TIME-BAR -- CALCULATION ERROR -- UNILATERAL MISTAKE -- Seller Award If a demurrage claim is paid, and later discovered to have contained an error, is there an obligation to pay the additional amount, even if the time bar has long since passed? When negotiating a contract, what is the meaning of the phrase "accept/except"?
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Allied Chemical Carriers, LLC v. National Biofuels LLP (The “Fairchem Colt”) – SMA No. 3998, 30 Apr 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- DISCHARGING PREWASH SLOPS -- DEMURRAGE -- Partial Owner Award Although Charterer didn't respond to Owner's initiation of arbitration proceedings, the Panel took matters into their own hands and edited the demurrage claim for time spent discharging slops. This award explains why.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Allied Chemical Carriers LLC v. National Biofuels LLP (The “Fairchem Steed”) – SMA No. 3999, 30 Apr 2008

ASBATANKVOY --ONE SAFE BERTH -- ADDITIONAL BERTH COSTS -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award Although the Vessel was fixed basis "one safe berth" for discharging, an agreement was made after the fixture adding a second berth. Owner commenced arbitration to recover the additional costs and demurrage incurred during the voyage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

AIC Ltd. v. Marine Pilot Ltd. (The “Archimidis”) – English Court of Appeal, 07 Mar 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- SAFE PORT WARRANTY -- INABILITY TO PROVIDE FULL CARGO DUE TO SILTING -- DEADFREIGHT -- Owner Award In this dispute, the Panel was called upon to determine the Charterer's liability following their failure to provide the minimum amount of cargo stated in the charter party due to draft restrictions caused by silting. The Panel explains what other options the Charterer could have exercised other than simply loading less cargo to the Vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.