Author: Tom Haugen

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Norstar Shipping and Trading Ltd., Disponent Owner, and Ravago LM Pte Ltd., Charterer, Under a Voyage Charter Party, dated, October 7, 2016, of the M/T UACC DOHA – SMA 4350

DEADFREIGHT – VOYAGE CHARTER – FORCE MAJEURE – WHETHER CHARTERER LIABLE FOR DEADFREIGHT AFTER FORCE MAJEURE EVENT Owner claimed deadfreight after Charterer was unable to load a complete quantity of cargo at the loading port due to a fire. Charterer contended that the fire at the loading port constituted a force majeure event, and as such they were not liable for deadfreight incurred as a result.  Norstar Shipping and Trading Ltd. (hereinafter, “Owner”) claimed for deadfreight amounting to $102,640.28 against Ravago LM Pte Ltd. (hereinafter, “Charterer”). The Owner entered into a space voyage charter on the Asbatankvoy form using the...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Odfjell Tankers as Owner and Ravago LM Pte Ltd. as Charterer of the MT BOW TRAJECTORY – SMA 4355

DEMURRAGE – OFF-SPECIFICATION OF CARGO – INERTING SYSTEMS – DELAY TO DISCHARGE CARGO  Upon arrival at the first discharge port the cargo was determined to be off-specification. Due to this the Vessel accrued demurrage which the Owner claimed against the Charterer. The Charterer contended that the Owner was liable for the deterioration of the cargo and thus the subsequent delay and demurrage.  Odfjell Tankers (hereinafter, “Owner”) entered into a charter party under the Asbatankvoy form with Ravago LM Pte Ltd (hereinafter, “Charterer”) for the transport of 10,000 mt Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) on the MT BOW TRAJECTORY (hereinafter, “Vessel”) from...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

MTM Trading LLC, as Disponent Owner of the MTM SANTOS and Tricon Energy Ltd., as Charterer – SMA 4356

DEMURRAGE – ICE CONDITIONS – SAFE BERTH – ICE CONVOY  Owner claimed demurrage from Charterer arising from a delay to proceed to berth due to ice conditions. The delay resulted from the Owner invoking an ice clause in the charter party stating that the Vessel would never be required to follow ice breakers. Charterer contended that the Owner did not exercise this clause reasonably.  This arbitration involved MTM Trading LLC (hereinafter, “Owner”) claiming demurrage amounting to $403,943.87 against Tricon Energy Ltd. (hereinafter, “Charterer”). Owner chartered the vessel MTM SANTOS (hereinafter, “Vessel”) under the Asbatankvoy form to ship 15,000 mt of...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Macsteel International USA Corp., as voyage charterer, and Inter Merchant Marine Co Ltd., as head owner of the M/V INTER PRIDE – SMA 4360

DEFAULT ON HIRE PAYMENT – FORCE MAJEURE – WRONGFUL ARREST AND ATTACHMENT – OBLIGATION TO PROCEED WITH REASONABLE DISPATCH – DOCTRINE OF FINANCIAL UNSEAWORTHINESS Upon the Charterer’s default on hire payments the Owner terminated the time charter party, which resulted in a delay at the discharge port and subsequent attachment and arrest of the Vessel. The Sub-Charterer claimed damages arising from the delay against the Owner, who counterclaimed for wrongful arrest and attachment of the Vessel.  Under a time charter on the NYPE form Inter Merchant Marine Co Ltd (hereinafter, “Inter Merchant”) chartered the M/V INTER PRIDE (hereinafter, “Vessel”) to...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

J. Lauritzen Bulkers A/S, as Disponent Owner/Claimant, – and – Interoceanic Corp., as Charterer/Respondent – SMA 4368

FORCE MAJEURE – HURRICANE – WHETHER FORCE MAJEURE WAS PREMATURE – LAYCAN – REPUDIATORY BREACH  Owner claimed Charterer wrongfully repudiated the charter after Charterer declared force majeure prior to the laycan.  J. Lauritzen Bulkers A/S (hereinafter, “Owner”) claimed against Interoceanic Corp. (hereinafter, “Charterer”) for repudiatory breach in contract following Charterer’s declaration of force majeure. The parties entered into a charter on an amended FOSFO form for carriage of a cargo of ammonium sulphate on the TBC PRESTIGE (hereinafter, “Vessel”) from the load port of Pasadena, Texas to ports in Brazil. The loading facility in Pasadena, PCI Nitrogen, was purchased by...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Aurora Tankers International Ltd. as Owner of M/T MARITIME LIRA, Claimant and Tricon Energy Ltd. as Charterer and Respondent – SMA 4369

DEMURRAGE – OFF-SPECIFICATION OF CARGO – WHETHER CONTAMINATION ATTRIBUTABLE TO SHORE OPERATIONS OR VESSEL – READINESS TO LOAD When the cargo was found to be off-specification after loading the “first foot” Charterer requested the second foot be loaded to allow for the cargo to blend back to specification. Owner contended the contamination arose from the shore tanks rather than the Vessel. Delays incurred as a result of the testing and surveying process, which resulted in Owner’s claim for demurrage. Charterer countered that time was not to count during the delay as it was attributable to fault of Owner.  Aurora Tankers...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Caribe Tankers, Ltd. as Disponent Owner of the CARIBE ROSA and Murex LLC, as Charterer – SMA 4370

DEMURRAGE – NO APPEARANCE – PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND ARBITRATION COSTS  Owner sought payment of outstanding demurrage amount from Charterer and initiated arbitration proceedings. Charterer failed to participate in the proceedings, but it did submit payment of the outstanding demurrage amount following Owner’s submissions. Owner claimed for interest, attorney’s fees, and arbitration costs against Charterer.  Caribe Tankers, Ltd (hereinafter, “Owner”) brought arbitration proceedings against Murex LLC (hereinafter, “Charterer”) over an unpaid demurrage amount totaling $31,119.08. The demurrage charges incurred under two charters, both fixed under Asbatankvoy, and two voyages of the CARIBE ROSA. Owner requested consolidation of the two demurrage...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Alize 1954 and Another v. Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG and Others (The “CMA CGM Libra”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 8 March 2019

GENERAL AVERAGE – WHETHER VESSEL WAS UNSEAWORTHY – OBLIGATION TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE – WHETHER PASSAGE PLAN WAS DEFECTIVE Cargo interests refused to contribute to general average after the Vessel was grounded. It claimed the grounding was the result of the Owner’s failure to exercise due diligence in providing a seaworthy vessel.  When the container vessel CMA CGM LIBRA (hereinafter, “Vessel”) was grounded whilst departing the port of Xiamen, China the cargo interests denied contribution to general average due to the cause of the grounding. The Owner stated that the grounding occurred as a result of an uncharted shoal. It...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Eleni Shipping Ltd v. Transgrain Shipping BV (The “Eleni P”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 10 April 2019

PIRACY – HIRE – APPEAL – WHETHER CAPTURE AND ARREST CLAUSE APPLIED – WHETHER PIRACY CLAUSE APPLIED Owner claimed for lost hire from Charterer totaling about $5.6 million, the majority of which was lost due to the Vessel being captured by pirates. To support their claim, the Owner stated the capture and arrest clause did not apply since the Vessel was not captured by an “authority” as provided in the clause. Further, it was stated the piracy clause did not apply due to the capture occurring outside the geographical location listed in the clause.  The Owner of the Eleni P...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Aprile SpA and Others v. Elin Maritime Ltd (The “Elin”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 18 April 2019

DAMAGES – LOSS OF CARGO – WHETHER SEAWORTHINESS IS AN ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION – EXCLUSION CLAUSE – BILL OF LADING  Cargo interests claimed damages against Owner for loss of deck cargo during the voyage. It was asserted that the Owner was liable due to negligence and its failure to ensure the vessel was seaworthy upon commencing the voyage. Owner contended that the exclusion clause provided in the bill of lading was applicable since it covered damages “howsoever caused”.  The cargo interests (Aprile SpA and Others) claimed damages against Elin Maritime Ltd (hereinafter, “Owner”) for the loss of deck cargo resultant from...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.