Category: Archive

NORGRAIN 89 – HOLDS REJECTED – NOR RE-TENDERED AFTER LAYCAN – LAYCAN EXTENSION AGREED TO SUBJECT TO OWNER ACCEPTING CARRYING CHARGES – OWNER DID NOT RESPOND TO CHARTERER’S EXTENSION REQUIREMENT - OWNER CLAIMED DEMURRAGE – CHARTERER CLAIMED FOR CARRYING CHARGES With a prior NOR being deemed invalid due to holds being rejected, the vessel tendering NOR after the laycan but within a laycan extension. The Charterer stated the laycan extension was amenable subject to carrying charges being for owner’s account. Owner was silent when confronted with this requirement. Upon completion of the voyage, the owner claimed demurrage. The charterer rejected this claim, and counterclaimed for carrying charges.

NYPE TIME CHARTER - UNDERPERFORMANCE - SHORT LOAD - BALANCE OF ACCOUNT - LMAA SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE - WHETHER CHARTERER OR OWNER RESPONSIBLE FOR COST OF SURVEYOR AND CRANE HIRE - SUEZ CANAL NRT - WITHOUT PREJUDICE AGREEMENT LATER REVOKED The redelivery of a vessel from an 18 month time charter resulted in charterer withholding hire due to vessel short loading, claiming underperformance in regards to speed, and claiming damages related to a misrepresented Suez Canal NRT. Owner countered all of these and likewise claimed for the cost of surveyors present whilst de-bunkering and the cost of a shore crane.

TIME CHARTERS NOVATED UPON NEW VESSEL OWNERSHIP - WHETHER NEW TIME CHARTERS ARE TO UPHOLD THE SAME SPEED AND PERFORMANCE WARRANTIES AS ORIGINAL CHARTERS - TRUE CONSTRUCTION OF CHARTERPARTIES Time charters contained speed and consumption warranties. Upon new ownership these charters included a phrase which owner contended replaced the original warranties with a warranty that the vessels would perform as they were the minute the new charters were concluded. Charterer disagreed and the panel was tasked to determine which warranties were contained in the new charters.

TIME CHARTER/ SUB-CHARTER – CARGO SHORTAGE AND CARGO DAMAGE – CLAIM SETTLED BETWEEN REGISTERED OWNER AND RECEIVER – DISPONENT OWNER DISPUTES COST ALLOCATION – WHETHER COSTS TO BE APPORTIONED WITH CHARTERER A vessel was time chartered by a registered owner to a disponent owner, and then subsequently spot chartered to a sub-charterer to transport sugar. After the voyage, it was discovered that there was a cargo shortage and damaged and lost cargo. After the registered owner concluded a settlement with the receivers for damages, the registered owner attempted to collect the same amount from the disponent owner with an apportionment of the costs subsequently coming into question.

TIME CHARTER - DEFINITION OF REDELIVERY - WHETHER REDELIVERY MUST STRICTLY ADHERE TO CHARTERPARTY TERMS - WHETHER VESSEL IN FACT REDELIVERED TO OWNER Under a time-charter, Charterer and Owner disputed the redelivery of a vessel. An arbitration panel determined the legal test in respect of redelivery and applied the facts surrounding the case. Albeit not redelivered as stipulated within the charter, the panel majority concluded the ship had been properly redelivered but Owner applied for permission to appeal the ruling to the High Court.