Author: Haugen Consulting

ED&F Man Sugar Ltd. v Unicargo Transportgesellschaft mBh (The “Ladytramp”) – English Court of Appeal, 19 Nov 2013

SUGAR CHARTER PARTY 1999 -- FIRE DAMAGE AT TERMINAL -- MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN DEFINED -- OBLIGATION TO NOMINATE ALTERNATE BERTH -- FORCE MAJEURE -- GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE -- Owner Award The Vessel was delayed in berthing due to a fire that had destroyed the conveyor belt system at the Charterer’s regularly-scheduled terminal. Charterer submitted their case to the Court of Appeal for consideration that this situation should constitute a mechanical breakdown and likewise exempted from the Owner’s laytime calculation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Venetico Marine SA v. International General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (The “Irene EM”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 27 Nov 2013

GROUNDING -- PERIL OF SEAS OR NEGLIGENCE OF CREW -- MARINE INSURANCE -- MEASURE OF DAMAGES -- Owner Award The Vessel grounded while she was at anchorage awaiting berth and the insurance underwriters refused to compensate the Owner. The underwriters argued that the Owner had not proven how the grounding occurred. In ruling for the Owner, the Panel held that whether the grounding was due to peril of the seas or negligence of the crew, either was sufficient for insurance compensation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Atlas Shipping AS v. Olendorff GmbH & Co. KG (The “Fomalhaut”) – SMA No. 4211, 8 Jul 2013

NYPE -- CHAIN OF TIME CHARTERS -- CONTAMINATED BUNKERS -- WHETHER CHARTERER PREJUDICED BY FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN EARLIER CONSOLIDATED DISPUTE -- Owner Award After bunkering, the Vessel sailed to the next port prior to receiving the bunker test results showing that the bunkers were off-spec (after the bunkers were already partially consumed). At the consolidated proceedings, the Owner was deemed liable for the resultant machinery damage but was awarded costs for debunkering, tank cleaning, rebunkering, and associated costs. At issue in this dispute is whether the last Charterer in the chain, who freely chose not to participate in the consolidated proceedings, is liable to indemnify the Time Chartered Owner.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Zurich American Insurance Co. and Vinmar International Ltd., Inc. v. Team Tankers AS and Eitzen Chemical (The “Siteam Explorer”) – SMA No. 4216, 26 Aug 2013

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT (COGSA) -- Owner Award Charterer alleged that their cargo of Acrylonitrile (ACN) was allegedly contaminated onboard the Vessel resulting in a yellowing to a color rating of APHA 13 (exceeding the maximum resale spec of APHA 10).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Falcon Carrier Shipping, Ltd. v. ST Shipping and Transport, Pte. Ltd. and Glencore, Ltd. (The “Falcon Carrier”) – SMA No. 4217, 20 Sept 2013

SHELLTIME 4 -- TIME CHARTER -- OIL MAJOR APPROVALS -- WRONGFUL EARLY REDELIVERY -- MEASURE OF DAMAGES -- Owner Award At dispute is whether the Charterer’s clause requiring three Oil Major approvals throughout the duration of the time charter is ambiguous when blanket approvals are no longer given; and, whether Charterer’s early redelivery was wrongful.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 12/13

TIME CHARTER -- REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT BY CHARTERER -- MEASURE OF DAMAGES WHEN NO SIMILAR MARKET EXISTS -- Owner Award After non-payment of hire for 10 consecutive months, Owner withdrew the Vessel and sought restitution from the Guarantor of Charterer’s liabilities for the unpaid hire up to the point the time charter contract was deemed repudiated, damages for the unexpired period remaining, and restitution for bunker costs.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Kingsway Shipping Co. Ltd. v. STX Gulf Shipping DMCCO – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 28 May 2013

TIME CHARTER -- GROUNDING DUE EXCESS DRAFT RESULTING FROM SUB-CHARTERER’S LOAD INSTRUCTIONS -- Charterer Award Under a chain of time charters, the Vessel grounded and damaged her hull as a result of following the sub-Charterer’s load instructions to a draft of 13.3m. The Head Owner’s claim for indemnity failed because the sub-Charterer’s indemnity guarantee was given to the Master as the representative of the intermediate Charterer (not as a representative of the Head Owner) and the indemnity was not provided on a back-to-back basis throughout the chain.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Beijing Jianlong Heavy Industry Group v. Golden Ocean Group Ltd. and Others – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 1 May 2013

TIME CHARTER -- ENFORCEABILITY OF ENGLISH ARBITRATION IN CONTRACT CONTAINING AN ILLEGAL GUARANTEE -- NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CHINESE "SAFE" (STATE ADMINISTRATION FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE) REGISTRATION -- Owner Award The background to this case involved five claims pursued by various ship owners against Beijing Jianlong Heavy Industry Group (hereinafter "Charterer") against the Charterer’s guarantor to resolve essentially the same issue i.e. Charterer’s repudiation of its obligations under several time charter contracts. Due to the similarities, the dispute was consolidated at London arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Metall market OOO v. Vitorio Shipping Co. Limited (The “Lehmann Timber”) – English Court of Appeal, 7 Jun 2013

CARGO LIEN -- RIGHT TO RECOVER STORAGE COSTS -- GENERAL AVERAGE -- CONGEN BILLS OF LADING -- Owner Award Owner exercised his right of lien on the cargo while awaiting the Charterer’s General Average payment due to the Vessel’s main engine breakdown en route to the discharge port. At issue is whether the lien was waived when an average guarantee (rather than an average bond) was given by the consignee; and, whether the Owner could claim the expense of storage costs when exercising the lien.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Great Elephant Corp. v. Trafigura Beheer BV (The “Crudesky”) – English Court of Appeal, 25 Jul 2013

BPVOY 3 -- VESSEL DETAINED -- RESTRAINT OF PRINCES -- DEMURRAGE LIABILITY -- FORCE MAJEURE -- FOB Buyer Award In overturning the lower Court ruling, the Court of Appeal held that parties may not be able to rely on Force Majeure clauses where the event is within their reasonable control or that of the parties whom they had delegated their responsibilities.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.