Author: Haugen Consulting

Byzantine Maritime Corp. v. Adam Maritime Inc. (The “Mountain Lady”) – SMA No. 3821, 6 Jan 2004

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- NAPHTHA -- CARGO -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- INDUSTRY -- Charterer Award The Charterer ordered the Vessel to arrive at loadport ready in all respects and duly cleaned to load a cargo of naphtha. Upon berthing, the inspector rejected the Vessel’s tanks and ordered them to be fresh water rinsed. Afterwards, the Owner filed for demurrage claiming that fresh water rinsing was neither required nor industry standard.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Odfjell Americas AS v. El Bravo Investment Group (The “Bow Antisana”) – SMA No. 3824, 20 Jan 2004

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- DEADFREIGHT -- VOYAGE -- ARBITRATION -- INVOICE -- Partial Owner Award After the Vessel tendered NOR at loadport, the Charterer responded that the cargo was unavailable and agreed to pay the contracted deadfreight. The Charterer tried to make allowances for the deadfreight by negotiating another voyage, however, the new voyage was never carried out and the Owner subsequently began arbitration to recover the outstanding invoice.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

A/S Dampskipsselskabet Torm v Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Sitamarie”) – SMA No. 3828, 6 Feb 2004

ASBATANKVOY -- COASTGUARD -- BERTH -- LOADPORT -- CHARTER PARTY -- LAYTIME -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award Once inspected by the coastguard, the Vessel was required to undergo minor repairs in order to comply with berthing standards at loadport. The Charter Party stipulates that any time loss resulting from non-compliance to safety regulations shall not count as laytime; however, the Owner filed for demurrage claiming that the infractions were minor and did not hinder the loading process.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 26/04

NYPE -- CHARTER -- VOYAGE -- ARBITRATION -- CONTRACT -- RE-DELIVERED VESSEL BUNKER COSTS -- Owner Award The governing period charter rate, in this case, is defined by "per Platts Oilgram average on delivery." However, the delivery day price was not available until after voyage, so the prior day’s rate was used and then updated when the delivery day price was published. The Charterer refuted this change arguing that the updated average became available only after delivery and was in breach of the contract.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 24/04

ARBITRATION -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- CONTAMINANTS -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- DELAY -- Owner Award This arbitration dispute centers around the fault of cargo contamination and the proper evidence to support the blame. After contaminants were found in the tank samples, the Vessel was forced off berth and the Owner filed demurrage for the cleaning time. The Charterer counterclaimed that the contamination came from the Vessel’s tank, so therefore, any delays came from Owner unreadiness.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

A/S D/S Torm v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Olga”) – SMA No. 3818, 22 Dec 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- GANGWAY -- Partial Owner Award The Vessel arrived at loadport and tendered NOR, but was forced to wait for the berth to be free. The Owners filed demurrage for this lost time, however, the Charterers wanted to offset this claim with the delays resulting from Vessel unreadiness when berth became free (lack of proper gangway rigging).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 27/04

SHELLVOY 5 -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER PARTY -- LAYCAN -- LAYTIME -- EARLY LOADING CLAUSE -- Owner Award This arbitration settles a dispute pertaining to the Shellvoy 5 charter party clause that defines the savings earned by the Charterers if loading ends before laycan begins. The Charterers interpret the clause as crediting their savings from when laytime begins to the beginning of laycan, while the Owners argue that the savings period begins only after the end of the early laytime.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Katong Investments, Ltd. v. Betoil, Ltd. (The “Front Breaker”) – SMA No. 3803, 7 Oct 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- BERTH -- LOADPORT -- VOYAGE -- LAYTIME -- DEMURRAGE -- DISPORT -- Owner Award Before leaving berth at loadport, the voyage’s laytime had already expired and the Vessel was now on 5H demurrage. This claim continued to accumulate during the voyage, however after tendering NOR at disport, the Owner granted the Charterer 6H "free time".
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Katong Investments, Ltd. v. Betoil, Ltd. (The “Front Breaker”) – SMA No. 3804, 8 Oct 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- LAYTIME TERMINAL -- DISCHARGE RATE -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award In this case, the Vessel arrived at disport with 6H 48M of laytime left. But in addition to the little remaining laytime, the terminal’s restrictive discharge rate further increased the eventual demurrage claim.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Sea Goddess Shipholding, Inc. v. Standard Tankers Bahamas, Ltd. (The “Strimon”) – SMA No. 3807, 15 Oct 2003

EXXONVOY 90 -- ACT OF GOD -- DISPORT -- DRAFT -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- DEMURRAGE RATE -- Charterer Award Because of high winds pushing water out of the Houston Channel, the Vessel was unable to arrive at disport with its ordered draft. The Owners demanded that this extensive delay be paid in full by the Charterers, however, the Charterers cite the contract which stipulates that any delay due to adverse weather is paid at half the Demurrage Rate.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.