Author: Haugen Consulting
FRAME CONTRACT -- VOYAGE -- TIME-BAR --CARGO CONTAMINATION -- LIMITATIONS ACT 1980 -- Seller Award
This arbitration began as a result of two disputed "frame contract" voyages between the same Buyer and Seller. The first dispute centered around a potential time-bar exception under the Limitations Act 1980 to the Buyer’s presented claim. The second dispute concerned contaminated cargo onboard the Vessel, the resulting demurrage at disport and the liability of such contamination and delays.
GENCON -- IMPORT -- CARGO -- POSSESSORY LIEN -- DETENTION AT DISPORT -- ARBITRATION ACT 1996 -- PROPER CHARTER PARTY CANCELLATION -- Owner Award
Because the Receivers recently had their import license revoked, the Vessel was unable to discharge cargo at the nominated disport. The Owners responded by exercising their possessory lien on the cargo and ordered the Vessel to remain outside of port while concurrently accruing demurrage. The Owners began arbitration with the threat of charter party cancellation if the cargo was not received commercially acceptable time.
TIME CHARTER -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- WAR OUTBREAK -- COMPENSATION FOR MARKET LOSS -- Charterer Award
The Owners began arbitration when the Time-Charterers returned the Vessel in 2001, several years before the conclusion of their time charter period without reimbursement for the remainder of the charter. The Owners argued that the Time-Charterers were liable for the outstanding payment and demanded compensation. Conversely, the Time-Charterers cited a wartime exception clause which made them indebted only up to the Second Gulf War in 2003.
FROZEN BALLAST -- PROOF OF PUBLIC HOLIDAY -- SUBSTANTIVE PROOF -- Charterer Award
Two separate demurrage issues arose over the course of the voyage. At loadport, the Vessel appeared to be fully loaded when, in fact, there was frozen ballast water remaining on board. The Charterers argued that the time spent waiting for the ice to thaw and loading recommencement should not count as used laytime. A second arbitration issue concerned the Charterers’ belief that December 27 was a national holiday (and a laytime exception) at disport.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEVIATION -- FREIGHT -- HURRICANE -- WORLDSCALE -- ACT OF GOD -- STORM -- HURRICANE -- DEVIATION COSTS -- Owner Award
After arrival in the Mississippi River for discharge, the Vessel was subsequently ordered to sail to Houston for discharge in order to avoid a hurricane. At issue is the calculation of freight and deviation costs; whether Houston constituted the Charterer’s second discharge port option as per Charterer’s Diversion Clause or did the sole disport with the Mississippi River constitute a deviation.
ASBATANKVOY -- BERTHING ORDERS -- CANCELLATION -- MITIGATE -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- LOST PROFITS -- Owner Award
Three days after laycan, the Charterers declared that the cargo transaction had failed and cancelled the charter. The Vessel sailed to fulfill other pre-existing contracts, and initiated arbitration to recover lost profits.
PUMP WARRANTY -- DELAY -- DISCHARGE -- INTERPRETATION -- INTEREST ON UNCONTESTED DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
At discharge, the Vessel failed to meet the 100 PSI pump warranty, which thereby faulted the Owners for subsequent delays. Because the 100 PSI limit was not reached, the Charterers argued that any time over 24H was delay time. The Owners, on the other hand, felt that this method did not accurately interpret the clause’s definition of true Vessel underperformance delays.
ASBATANKVOY -- CLINGAGE -- SHORTAGE -- BILL OF LANDING -- SHORT OUTTURN OF GASOIL -- RIGHT TO DEDUCT FREIGHT -- INDEPENDENT SURVEYOR -- Owner Award
This dispute arose from the Vessel having 1.06% less cargo at the discharge port than what was specified in the Bill of Lading. Referencing the "Cargo clingage" clause in the contract, the Charterers argued that any short cargo in excess of 0.5% shall be deducted from freight, which they proactively did. However, the Owners counterclaimed that this clause deals only with cargo clingage and that the Vessel survey report did not mention any such clingage.
SHELLVOY 5 -- DISCOLORATION -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- VESSEL -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE WITHOUT SECURITY -- DEMURRAGE LIABILITY -- Owner Award
When the Vessel arrived at the discharge port, the Charterer refused to accept apparently contaminated cargo without the Owner’s security. In the initial contract, the Owner would be liable for the cargo if it became contaminated because of any breakdowns, but the Owner argued that the Charterer had no proof of any condition change in the cargo during voyage.
ASBATANKVOY -- HARBOR -- GROUNDING -- PORT -- SAFE PORT WARRANTY -- CHANNEL BLOCKAGE -- PREVAILING CONDITIONS DO NOT AMOUNT TO A TEMPORARY HAZARD -- Owner Award
Upon tendering NOR, the Vessel’s arrival to and departure from port was impeded by two separate occurrences of other vessels grounding in the channel. The issue at arbitration became whether the Charterers were accountable for damages from delays because of their failure in nominating a safe port or if the grounding of the other vessels truly influenced the safety of the designated berth.
