Author: Haugen Consulting

Eitzen Bulk AS v. TTMI SARL (The “Bonnie Smithwick”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 14 Feb 2012

SHELLTIME 4 -- BUNKERS ON REDELIVERY -- MEANING OF “PRICE ACTUALLY PAID” -- CHARTER CONSTRUCTION -- Owner Award The Vessel was sub-chartered by the Charterer back to the Head Owner for a time period constituting the remainder of the head charter. Vessel redelivery would thereby take place simultaneously under the sub-charter and head charter, however, the proper bunker prices that each party was liable for at redelivery was up for contention.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Far East Chartering Ltd. and Anr (The “Jag Ravi”) – English Court of Appeal, 9 Mar 2012

LETTER OF INDEMNITY – WRONGFUL DELIVERY – Owner Award In upholding the Commercial Court’s ruling of 27 May 2011 (background details previously recapped in The TANKVOYager, Vol. 18, No. 1), the Court of Appeal held that the Owners are protected under an LOI issued by the Receivers to the Charterers. Despite the Owner being unaware of the LOI, the Owner was protected by it on the basis that the Owner was acting as the Charterer’s agents when delivering the cargo. The Appellate Court held that "delivery" is a legal concept that does not mean “discharge” and that the Owner need not physically hand over the cargo to the Receiver; rather Owner’s obligation was fulfilled by surrendering possession and power relating to the cargo when delivering to the port authority. With regard to the public policy argument in the Receiver’s attempt to preclude Owner’s protection under the LOI, the court held that the Owner was incapable of a deliberate wrongdoing as the Owner was unaware of a dispute between the sellers and the intermediate buyer; furthermore, this was deemed a commercial dispute (not a public policy issue).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Isabella Shipowner SA v. Shagang Shipping Co. Ltd. (The “Aquafaith”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 26 Apr 2012

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- PREMATURE REDELIVERY -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- Owner Award Under a time charter contract, the Charterer redelivered the Vessel early and the Owner refused to accept the repudiatory breach in an attempt to affirm the charter party rather than the usual course of action in re-fixing and then claiming damages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

ENE 1 Kos Ltd. v. Petroleo Brasileiro SA (The “Kos”) – English Supreme Court, 2 May 2012

SHELLTIME 3 -- TIME CHARTER -- UNPAID HIRE -- WITHDRAWAL OF VESSEL -- SECURITY -- BUNKERS -- Owner Award In partially overturning the Appellate Court ruling of 6 July 2010 (recapped in The TANKVOYager Vol. 12, No. 4), which in turn had overturned the Commercial Court ruling of 23 July 2009 (recapped in The TANKVOYager Vol. 15, No. 4) the Supreme Court addressed the issue of time lost discharging Charterer’s cargo after Owner’s termination of the contract necessitated by Charterer’s non-payment of hire. The Supreme Court discussed the concepts of bailment and indemnity.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

VTC v. PVS – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 26 Apr 2012

SHELLTIME 4 -- TIME CHARTER -- CHARTER BREACH -- CANCELLATION -- CARGO TANK DEFINITION -- Owner Award Charterer deducted hire basis a crack in the slop tank necessitating repairs and causing their sub-charterer to cancel a voyage charter. Owner contends that the time charter clause governing tank suitability is restricted to cargo tanks, pumps, and lines, and therefore, does not include the Vessel’s slop tanks.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Clipper Bulk Shipping BV v. Korea Line Corp. and Grieg Star Shipping AS and Atlas Shipiing AS (The “Fomalhaut”) – SMA No. 4145, 24 Oct 2011

NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- OFF-SPEC BUNKERS -- BUNKER CONSUMPTION PRIOR TO ANALYSIS -- DAMAGES -- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION -- Partial Owner Award Off-spec bunkers were provided by Charterer yet prior to the sample analysis being received Vessel consumed some of the off-spec bunkers damaging the engines. Owner subsequently claimed for the cost of repairs, the cost to replace the bunkers, and the cost of cleaning of the tanks the off-spec bunkers were stored in. This arbitration also covered eight issues regarding the speed and consumption warranties.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Sherwin Alumina, L.P. v. Western Bulk Carriers KS – SMA No. 4148, 30 Nov 2011

CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT (COA) -- ISPS CODE -- LIABILITY FOR PORT EXPENSES -- DOCKAGE AND SECURITY FEES -- Owner Award Midway through an eight-year fixed freight rate Contract of Affreightment (COA), Charterer's new port manager directed Charterer to pass on port fees to Owner given the COA states Owner is responsible for "all port expenses". Fees were previously not being passed on presumably due to Charterer's lack of experience in this area.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Sinotrans (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Crossbridge Shipping Singapore Ltd. (The “Ming Hai”) – SMA No. 4149, 7 Dec 2011

NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- BUNKER PRICES -- BUNKER SHORTFALL ON REDELIVERY -- Owner Award When Charterer failed to redeliver Vessel with the charter party mandated quantity of IFO and MDO, Owner claimed for the difference.
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. 4150, 9 Dec 2011

ASBATANKVOY -- VESSEL BREAKDOWN -- ENGINE PROBLEM -- SEAWORTHINESS -- Owner Award At the time of the fixture, Vessel was in drydock for repairs. After undocking further repairs were found to be required subsequently causing the Vessel to miss her laydays. Charterer cancelled the fixture incurring costs in finding a suitable replacement which Charterer is claiming from Owner in this arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Olendorff Carriers GmbH & Co. v. Sidor, CA (The “New Navigation”) – SMA No. 4151, 22 Jul 2010

GENCON -- CERTIFICATE OF AFFREIGHTMENT (COA) -- GROUNDING IN RIVER -- SAFE PORT / BERTH WARRANTY -- DEMURRAGE -- BUNKERS -- Charterer Award En route to the discharge berth named in the Contract of Affreightment (COA) and warranted as being a "safe berth", Vessel grounded either due to poor seamanship or as a result of a buoy being out of place. As a result of the grounding, Vessel missed its berthing opportunity and after repairs was forced to await berth availability. Disponent Owner, arguing berth was unsafe, claimed for damages resulting from the grounding and demurrage during the aforementioned wait.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.