Category: Archive
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Batca Global AS v. Prams Water Shipping Co Inc – SMA No. 4264, 13 Nov 2015
GENCON - NO LAYCAN - CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT- FORCE MAJEURE - WHETHER PRE-PAID FREIGHT TO BE REFUNDED- FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ARBITRATORS’ ORDERS- Owner Award
Charterer and Disponent Owner agreed to transport cows from northeastern US to Turkey under a consecutive voyage charter. Before the recognized load date for the first voyage Charterer requested extensions and ultimately cancelled the charter due to a fire at the receiving facility and the Syrian civil war which saw fighting on Turkey’s border with Syria. Charterer sought to recover $600k in pre-paid freight from Owner with Owner rejecting Charterer’s claim and countering for unpaid freight and lost profit on the unperformed voyages.
London Arbitration 18/15
GENCON 94 – CHARTERER PAYS BUNKERS AND DISCHARGE PORT DISBURSEMENTS TO COMMENCE VOYAGE AFTER DISPONENT OWNER REFUSES TO PAY HEAD OWNER – CHARTERER CLAIMED DAMAGES FROM DISPONENT OWNER – Charterer Award
The head owner of the vessel asked the disponent owner to render payment for bunkers and discharge port disbursements before the commencement of the voyage. After the disponent owner did not comply, the charterer made payment in order to avoid further delay. The charterer then claimed damages against the disponent owner after the completion of the voyage.
Freight Connect (S) Pte Ltd v. Paragon Shipping Pte Ltd.- SGCA (Singapore Court of Appeal), 31 July 2015
GENCON - BERTH OR PORT CHARTER PARTY- VALIDITY OF NOTICE OF READINESS- DETENTION- INDEMNITY
When owner’s vessel was due to be late, a replacement vessel was provided by owner and agreed to by charterer. The panel was tasked with determining whether the replacement vessel was just that or whether a new fixture had been agreed to, whether this new fixture was a port charter or a berth charter, and when the vessel was considered to be an arrived ship. Additionally, claims for detention and indemnity were addressed.
