Category: Archive

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Jenlor International LLC v. Agribusiness United DMCC (The “Iris Halo”) – SMA No. 4268, 12 Apr 2014

DISCHARGE ALLOCATION - SHORT LOADED CARGO - DRAFT SURVEYS - OWNER ACTING WITHOUT CONSENT OF CHARTERER - DETENTION - DEMURRAGE The cargo was loaded aboard the vessel according to Charterer’s orders and in line with the initial discharge allocation. However, the shore reading and multiple draft surveys indicated a loading figure 265 MT less than the aggregate B/L figures. After sailing the load port Charterer amended the discharge port rotation as well as the discharge allocation of the cargo onboard. And after completion of operations at the first discharge port Charterer’s receiver complained that the quantity received was short ~200MT and threatened legal action if the remainder was not provided. The vessel eventually obliged and sailed for her second discharge port wherein the same situation arose. The panel majority found the Owner’s actions to be acceptable with the third arbitrator dissenting.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v. Globalia Business Travel SAU (The “New Flamenco”) – Court of Appeal [2015] EWCA Civ 1299, 21 Dec 2015

On 28 June 2017 the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeal and reinstated the Comm. Court’s ruling.  I.e. After repudiating the charter party, charterer is not entitled to a credit for the difference in diminished value between when the vessel was sold in 2007 versus had it been sold in 2009  when it was to have been redelivered. NYPE – TIME CHARTER  –  ANTICIPATORY BREACH – EARLY REDELIVERY – WHETHER A MARKET AVAILABLE IN WHICH TO MITIGATE LOSS – CAUSATION – Charterer Award While under a time charter the vessel was redelivered two years early. An arbitrator found in favor of...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Lord & Taylor LLC v. Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. – 13 Civ. 3478, 10 Jun 2015

HURRICANE SANDY – WHETHER HURRICANE AN ACT OF GOD – WHETHER HURRICANE DAMAGE FORESEEABLE – Defendant Award A disagreement arose between two companies when cargo was damaged by Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge. The claimant hoped to recover damages for the lost cargo. The defendant refused, citing that the storm was an Act of God and that the damage was not foreseeable.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Maritime Articles

Industry-Accepted NOR Procedure Tested by Oiltanking Texas City

Tendering a valid NOR for Oiltanking Texas City just got a little harder to do thanks to a recent change of policy for the 555,000 cbm storage facility. On Wednesday, 13-Jan-2016 an Oiltanking representative released a new “Oiltanking Texas City’s ‘NOR’ Acceptance Procedure” that is in direct opposition to the current NOR tender policy for the Houston / Texas City area.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 17/15

NYPE – TIME CHARTER – IFO HS RE-DELIVERY VALUE This arbitration award dealt with six issues yet only one is pertinent to TANKVOYager.  Specifically, after the completion of the voyage, the Vessel was redelivered to the Owner with 272 MT IFO HS that the Charterer had purchased.  The Charterer argued that they should be reimbursed for the bunkers at the charter party rate whereas the Owner claimed the bunkers should be priced at the market rate at the redelivery location. [dropcap]P[/dropcap]rior to redelivery the master had requested 450 MT of IFO HS, and although questioning whether this was too much, Charterer...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Navig8 Chemicals Asia Pte, Ltd. and Navig8 Chemicals Pool, Inc. v Crest Energy Partners LP (The “Songa Peace”) – SMA No. 4262, 11 Sep 2015

ASBATANKVOY - UNPAID DEMURRAGE - VESSEL IDLE FOR 20 DAYS - FORCE MAJEURE - REPUDIATED CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT (COA) - Owner Award The Charterer failed to pay demurrage on the first voyage of a two-voyage COA. On the second voyage, the Vessel sat for 20 days before the Charterer repudiated the contract by claiming force majeure because of “recent tropical storm activity” and the resulting high water content in the intended cargo.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 16/15

GENCON 1976 - REDUCED DISCHARGE RATE - FORCE MAJEURE - DEMURRAGE - Owner Award During unloading, the Vessel was directed to vacate the dock and wait until the berth once again became available. After a month of waiting, she was called back in and completed her discharge. Charterer rejected the resultant demurrage claim under the auspices that the unloading rate was reduced due to the ingress of water, the berth’s inefficiency in unloading was a force majeure event, and the removal of the Vessel from the berth by the port authority was a force majeure event.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Polaris Shipping Co Ltd v. Sinoriches Enterprises Co Ltd (The “Ocean Virgo”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 27 November 2015

NYPE TIME CHARTER – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION WARRANTY – HOW LONG MUST A PERIOD OF GOOD WEATHER BE – ERROR OF LAW – Charterer Award Under a time charter, an arbitration panel defined a “good weather day” as being 24 consecutive hours from noon to noon. As there were no noon to noon periods of good weather, the panel dismissed charterer’s claim for poor performance. The charterer appealed basis the panel having made errors of law.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 19/15

TIME CHARTER - CHARTER PROVIDING FOR LAYCAN TO BE BACK-TO-BACK WITH SHIPBUILDING CONTRACT - WHETHER CHARTERER FULFILLED OBLIGATIONS TO OWNER WHEN CANCELLING CHARTER - Charterer Award Charterer cancelled the time charter under the interpretation that its right to cancel was “back-to-back” with owner’s shipbuilding contract. Owner disagreed that “back-to back” referred to its right to cancel in the shipbuilding contract leaving owner to claim a repudiatory breach of contract. Charterer in turn sought a declaration that it was entitled to cancel while owner counterclaimed for damages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.