Category: Archive

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

ST Shipping & Transport Inc v. Kriti Filoxenia Shipping Co SA (The “Kriti Filoxenia”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 14 May 2015

CHARTER PARTY – BPVOY3 – LOAD PORT CHANGED EN-ROUTE – VESSEL TO ARRIVE ONE DAY AFTER LAYCAN – CHARTERER CANCELS CHARTER PARTY – VALIDITY OF CANCELLATION – Owner award This is charterer’s appeal of an arbitration. The vessel was en-route to the nominated load port when the charterer nominated a different port for loading. Owner then advised the charterer that the vessel would arrive one day after the laycan and the charterer subsequently cancelled the charter party.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Trammochem Asia Pte Ltd. and Trammochem AG v. Desert Orchid Shipping Pte Ltd. (The “LPG/Desert Orchid”) – SMA No. 4253, 10 April 2015

ASBATANKVOY – STS TRANSFER - CONTAMINATED CARGO – HAGUE VISBY & COGSA - BURDEN OF PROOF – DEMURRAGE - FAULT OF THE VESSEL - TIME-BAR – Charterer Award The vessel was loading LPG via a ship-to-ship transfer when it was discovered that the cargo she had loaded was contaminated by moisture. Both the charterer and the owner held each other responsible for the burden of proof. The dispute was over who was liable for the damages due to the contamination and if demurrage, detention and deviation were to be incurred. And if incurred, whether owner’s claims for same were time-barred.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 13/15

SHELLVOY 5 – PUMP WARRANTY – PERFORMANCE OR CAPABILITY – PUNITIVE - DEMURRAGE – Owner award This dispute revolved around whether the pump warranty was breached during the discharge of crude oil. The owner submitted its demurrage claim with the belief that the pump warranty had been met. Charterer however contended that the vessel had not met its requirements and thus excess pump time should be deducted from time counting.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Industry News

Maritime Industry News…In Brief

PANAMA CANAL DRAFT RESTRICTIONS… The Panama Canal Authority has been closely monitoring the water levels of lakes Gatun and Alhajuela in order to determine if draft restrictions are to be needed as a result of an “El Nino” weather event. This weather phenomenon typically results in a reduction in rainfall in the area, causing the water levels of lakes Gatun and Alhajuela to fall below average levels. The Panama Canal has prepared a daily adjusted short and long range forecast in order to predict lake water levels. If it is determined that draft restrictions are necessary the appropriate parties will...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Glencore International AG v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. SA and Another – QBD (Comm Ct.), 10 Jul 2015

ELECTRONIC RELEASE SYSTEM (ERS) - CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA (COGSA) - CONTAINERIZED GOODS - BILLS OF LADING - LOCAL AGENTS - Shipper Award An electronic release system was implemented at the MSC terminal in Antwerp, Belgium with intention to streamline processes and remove paper release notes. An electronic PIN would be provided for each container once a bill of lading was presented in order to take delivery of cargo at the terminal. However when two of the shipper’s containers were misappropriated, the parties disputed whether the carrier had met their requirement of submitting a valid “delivery order” upon receipt of the bill of lading.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 14/15

GENCON 76 - DUNNAGE: OWNER’S OR CHARTERER’S RESPONSIBILITY - NOTICE OF READINESS - COMMENCEMENT OF LAYTIME - DEMURRAGE - DETENTION - Charterer award A cargo of steel H-beams were to be loaded on top of a previously loaded part cargo of rebar. Charterer and Owner could not agree as to which party should be responsible for costs and time associated with building a false deck, whether the vessel’s NOR was valid, and thus when laytime commenced counting.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.