Author: Haugen Consulting

Interchem 2000 Logistics BV v. Suffolk Tankers Co. Ltd. (The “Rachel B”) – SMA No. 3920, 12 Apr 2006

BURDEN OF PROOF -- SEAWORTHY -- BARGING COSTS -- STORAGE FEES -- THROUGHPUT CHARGES -- Partial Owner Award The Charterers sought arbitration for additional barging costs, storage fees, and throughput charges because of Owner's failure to provide a seaworthy vessel. Such charges, however, require the Charterers to support their claim with ample evidence.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Arcadia Petroleum Ltd. v. Sun International Ltd. (The “Madelaine”) – No. 05-1259. 3rd Circuit, 18 Aug 2006

ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME BAR -- Charterer Award A clause in this case’s Charter Party stated that all claims become void unless arbitration begins within one year post-voyage. But after reaching a subsequent demurrage agreement with the Charterer within the specified timeframe, the Owners began arbitration several years later stating that this informal agreement constituted a recognizable second contract.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 3/06

VOYAGE CHARTER PARTY -- DEADFREIGHT -- DRAFT RESTRICTIONS -- DISCHARGE PORT -- CHARTER PARTY -- QUANTITY IN OWNER’S OPTION -- Charterer Award In order to meet draft restrictions at disport, the Charterers loaded less than the maximum capacity allowable by the Vessel. In response to the subsequent deadfreight due to the Charterers’ port selection, the Owner started arbitration referencing that the Charterers violated the "always accessible" port clause in their charter and demanded that the deadfreight be compensated.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 4/06

SYNACOMEX -- DEADFREIGHT -- CHARTER PARTY -- CARGO -- DOCK -- BUNKER -- PORT -- SHIFT TIME -- SHORTLOAD -- SHIFT TIME -- ONCE ON DEMURRAGE ALWAYS ON DEMURRAGE -- DETENTION -- Partial Charterer Award In this case, the Charterers failed to provide the contracted amount of cargo and agreed to pay the deadfreight rate stipulated in the Charter Party. However, the Charterers argued that the benefits of deadfreight, such as dock savings, bunker savings, and savings on port charges, should offset the net deadfreight cost billed to them.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 5/06

FIXTURE RECAP -- CHARTER PARTY -- TIME CHARTER RECAP "A.D.A. WOG" -- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION WARRANTY -- Owner Award The central conflict of this case is the language and intention of "A.D.A. WOG" (“All Details About Without Guarantee”) in the context of contracts. In this case, the Charterer claimed that the acronym only applies to the recaps containing “about” in their description. The Owner, on the other hand, argues that because - in this instance - it concludes the speed and consumption recap, it applies to all preceding statements.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 6/06

POSSESSORY LIEN -- ARBITRATION -- DISPORT -- BERTH -- TIME CHARTER TRIP -- DEVIATION -- OFF-HIRE DEDUCTION -- CARGO LIEN -- Owner Award En route to disport, the Charterers deducted an off-hire deviation from the Owner without consent. Subsequently, the Owner exercised his right of a possessory lien by refusing to berth at the discharge port until properly reimbursed. At arbitration, the two major issues were if the Owner had acted in the right by refusing discharge and if the initial deduction by the Charterers was properly submitted.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Tidebrook Maritime Corp. v. Vitol SA of Geneva (The “Front Commander”) – Court of Appeal [2006] EWCA Civ 944, 05 July 2006

ASBATANKVOY -- LAYCAN -- LAYTIME -- NOR -- APPEAL -- LOADING PRIOR TO LAYCAN -- Partial Owner Award This is the appellate award for Tidebrook v. Vitol. Upon acknowledging that the Vessel would arrive before laycan, the Charterer sent several messages to the Vessel requesting that she tender NOR upon arrival with the intent of commencing loading prior to laycan; which she did. The Owner argued that this signified the commencement of laytime due to Charterer-given consent; however, the Charterer contends that they merely requested an early NOR.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Interchem 2000 Logistics BV v. Suffolk Tankers Co., Ltd. (The “Rachel B”) – SMA No. 3889, 11 Jul 2005

ASBATANKVOY -- VESSEL -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER PARTY -- LOADPORT -- CANCELLATION DUE LATE ARRIVAL – MARKET LOSS -- Owner Award After engine problems delayed the original Vessel from arriving at loadport, the Charterers cancelled the Charter Party with the Owners and chartered another vessel to take its place. At arbitration, the Charterers held the Owners in full responsibility for failing to provide a timely vessel and demanded compensation for resulting market loss.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Greenfleet Chartering BV v. Bunge Global Markets, Inc. (The “Express Patriot”) – SMA No. 3899, 28 Oct 2005

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- PORT -- LAYTIME -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- NOR VALIDITY -- Owner Award After arriving at port and once approved for loading, the Vessel tendered NOR, but waited fourteen days before berthing. However, before load operations could commence, onboard hydraulic problems delayed cargo loading further and gave the Charterers fodder to claim that the NOR tender was premature. The Charterers argued that if the Vessel was not ready to load in all respects, then laytime cannot commence.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Stena Bulk AB v. Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. (The “Goldmar”) – SMA No. 3902, 22 Nov 2005

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- BERTH -- DETENTION -- DEMURRAGE -- INDEMNITY -- CONSOLIDATION OF POTENTIAL CLAIMS INVOLVING MULTIPLE PARTIES -- Partial Charterer Award A collapsed breasting fender at loadport caused an eleven day berthing delay for the Vessel, subsequently allowing the Owner to file for a demurrage claim. The Charterers counterclaimed that the fender collapse was caused by the Vessel and demanded indemnity for demurrage on four other vessels and indemnity for a potential damages claim from the dock owner.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.