Author: Haugen Consulting
DEMURRAGE – ENGINE BREAKDOWN – SIX MONTH DELAY – CHANGES TO PORT REGULATIONS – CHANGE TO DISCHARGING PORT – DELAY TO DISCHARGE – SEAWORTHINESS OF VESSEL – ENGINE REPAIRS DELAYED DUE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC CONDITIONS
A vessel was chartered to carry part cargo of steel pipes from Turkey to Futuna Island in the French Pacific Ocean Islands. An engine breakdown off Mauritius required lengthy repairs and was complicated by shortages due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nearly a year later, the vessel arrived at the intended discharge port but was turned away due to new port entry requirements. The vessel was quickly rerouted to Fiji and incurred demurrage of US$37,317.71 while awaiting discharging operations to begin. Charterers refused to pay, claiming the delay was the owners’ fault, and arbitration proceedings commenced.
TIME CHARTER – BIMCO – ADDENDUM VALIDITY – BALANCE OF HIRE – CARGO CLAIMS – COUNTER-
SECURITY
A vessel was chartered for a time charter trip from India to Cotonou and Tema. The cargo was bagged
rice, and the charter included the BIMCO Standard Dispute Resolution Clause. A sole arbitrator presided
over the arbitration, which addressed the validity of an addendum agreement after the arbitration
proceedings had started, balance of hire, and counter-security for cargo claims.
AMENDED NYPE – TIME CHARTER – DEDUCTIONS FROM HIRE- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION- GOOD WEATHER AND SMOOTH SEA- WEATHER CONDITIONS – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY REPORT
The subject vessel was chartered on an amended NYPE to transport steel from Brazil to Baltimore. After the voyage, the owners claimed a balance of hire which the charterers subsequently denied. Under dispute were speed and consumption, vessel weather reporting, and the weather routing company report.
DEMURRAGE – TROPICAL STORM- FORCE MAJEURE – DUE DILIGENCE – BAD WEATHER CLAUSE – TERMINAL CLOSING – PORT CLOSING – HURRICANE
A vessel chartered under a contract of affreightment was scheduled to load 60,000 mt of coal from a terminal on the Mississippi when the terminal ordered her to vacate the berth due to an impending hurricane. The owner claimed demurrage of US$330,495 for the time spent awaiting the vessel’s return to the berth, however, the charterer denied any liability for the demurrage incurred claiming bad weather, events outside of their control, and force majeure.
NYPE – DEDUCTION FROM HIRE – SHORE CRANE CHARGES – SPEED – CONSUMPTION
After Charterers had deducted hire based on shore crane charges as well as claimed underperformance and overconsumption from a chartered vessel, the Tribunal was left to determine if these charges were reasonable or if the shipowner’s evidence would disprove these actions.
CHARTER PARTY – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION CLAIM – WHETHER CHARTERER ENTITLED TO MAKE DEDUCTION FROM HIRE – WHETHER VESSEL UNDER PERFORMED
After Charterer filed a claim against shipowner for speed and over consumption as well as deduction of hire based on a report made by an independent weather bureau, the Tribunal was left to determine if the claim was unreasonable or if the shipowner had failed to make correct claims about the performance of their vessel.
Charterer time barred Owner’s claim for demurrage when it failed to include documents required within the time bar clause. Owner contested Charterer’s position as the documents in question had been received by Charterer prior to receipt of the demurrage claim.
Upon arrival at the disport, cargo damage was discovered which delayed discharge. Charterers argued they are not liable for the delays or damage to the cargo on the account of owners failing to properly care for the cargo or choose the “usual and reasonable route”. The key issues addressed for a decision were: choice of route, vessel speed/reasonable despatch, ventilation, re-infestation, quarantine, and delays in discharging.
Sub-Charterer cancelled the Sub-Charter on the grounds that although the NOR was tendered prior to the end of the cancellation date, the NOR was not tendered within the permitted hours denoted in the Sub-Charter. The charterer subsequently cancelled the Head Charter basis the same grounds.
Owner claimed damages against the charterers for detention for the extensive delay leaving berth due to a damaged bridge and lock. Owners’ supported their argument by claiming charterers were in breach of the “always accessible” warranty found in the charterparty. The question for decision was if the warranty was to include both the arrival and departure to berth.
