Author: Haugen Consulting
ASBA II -- DISPORT -- DRAFT -- BERTH -- SHIFT -- PORT -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
En route to the nominated disport, the Vessel Master deviated course due to draft restrictions that were deemed unsafe for berth. Eventually, the Master agreed to shift to the allegedly hazardous port with additional assistance and subsequently claimed demurrage for the delayed arrival. The Charterer refuted the claim on the grounds that both the Vessel’s arrival and departure from port were safe.
VEGOILVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- TRANSSHIP -- STATEMENT OF FACTS -- PART CARGO -- Charterer Award
In order to reduce their demurrage claim, the Charterer referenced the Owner’s transshipper’s Statement of Facts clause which states that demurrage would be apportioned between Charterers in the ratio of their part cargo onboard.
VEGOILVOY -- BERTH -- PART CARGO -- TERMINAL -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
Upon arriving at the nominated Berth 2 for discharge, the Vessel was rejected at berth because of having a low flash part cargo for another Charterer. The Owners therefore deemed it unsafe and demanded another berth nomination. Conversely, the Charterer argued that the berth was safe and that it was the Owners’ responsibility to know their cargo’s compliance to the terminal’s regulations.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DETENTION -- CHARTER PARTY -- TIME CHARTERER -- VOYAGE -- LACHES -- TIME-BAR -- Partial Owner Award
The Owners began arbitration to recover detention damages from four separate charter parties that the Time Charterers had contracted. The Vessel was idle for extended periods between these voyages instead of being utilized. On the other hand, the Charterers rejected the claims basis laches and time-bar breaches.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYTIME -- BERTH -- CHARTER PARTY -- VOYAGE -- Buyer Award
This arbitration centered upon two separate claims for demurrage. In the first case, the Buyer and Seller agreed that laytime would begin upon berthing if the Vessel was late. But because the Vessel did not arrive on time, it was given an unfavorable berth rotation with no Buyer repercussion, which the Sellers now claim as demurrage. The second dispute was over whether a legal charter party existed for the voyage.
ASBATANKVOY -- BERTH -- TERMINAL -- LINE HANDLER -- STRIKE -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYTIME -- Owner Award
The Vessel was unable to berth at the Charterers’ terminal because of a line handler strike. The Owners argued that delays should be held as demurrage because the Charterers did not supply a berth "reachable upon arrival." The Charterers challenged this claim by classifying the strike as a delay “…over which the Charterer has no control, such delay shall not count as used laytime.”
ASBATANKVOY -- VOYAGE -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME-BAR -- ARBITRATION -- SHIFTING TIME -- Owner Award
The Charterer argued that the Owner’s six-year post voyage demurrage claim was time-barred and that the Owner was subsequently responsible for costs stemming from the untimely arbitration. But if the case was not deemed time-barred, then the Charterer asked for a demurrage reduction basis the "grossly excessive" shifting time.
ASBATANKVOY -- LINES -- CARGO -- TERMINAL -- BERTH -- PARCEL -- CHARTER -- DEMURRAGE -- HEDGE LOSS -- FREIGHT -- Owner Award
Due to clogged Vessel lines, the Vessel could only receive the first cargo parcel at a much slower rate than the terminal’s potential output. So, fearing additional slowdowns, the terminal forced the Vessel off berth to clean her lines before loading a second parcel and simultaneously chartered another vessel to load the third parcel. The Owner drafted a demurrage claim for off berth cleaning time while the Charterer counterclaimed for hedge loss, reduced market value, and freight compensation.
ASBATANKVOY -- GENERATOR -- DISPORT -- PUMP -- TERMINAL -- COAST GUARD -- ARBITRATION -- BERTH -- Charterer Award
Because the Vessel’s generator was damaged en route to disport, the Owner wanted to revise the discharge process in order to compensate for lost pumping power. The terminal wanted US Coast Guard approval for the new procedure before pumping was allowed. The USCG subsequently rejected the Vessel and the Owners began arbitration to recover demurrage expenses for de-berthing and re-berthing delays.
LAYCAN -- CHARTER PARTY -- LOADPORT -- LAYDAY -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- ETA -- REFINERY -- DAMAGES -- Partial Owner Award
Because the Owners advised the Charterers that the Vessel would arrive within laycan, the Charterers did not terminate the charter party before the cancellation date. The Vessel then arrived at loadport after the last layday and likewise incurred berthing delays which the Owners claimed as demurrage. The Charterers blamed the delay on the Owners’ failure to produce a good faith ETA and counterclaimed for refinery damages from the late delivery.
