Category: Archive

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Invista S.A.R.L. v. Stolt Tankers BV (The “Stolt Perseverance”) – SMA No. 4244, 25 Feb 2015

ASBATANKVOY -- DAMAGES -- COGSA -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- PRE-SHIPMENT CONDITION -- OWNER’S DUE DILIGENCE TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award Upon arrival at the discharge port, the Vessel’s onboard cargo was found to be off-spec. The Charterer concluded that the Vessel had caused the contamination and submitted a damages claim. Owner rejected the claim stating that their Vessel had met the cleaning requirements set forth by the Charterer’s surveyors at the load port and submitted a counterclaim for demurrage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 1/15

CLERICAL ERROR -- DOCUMENTS WRONGLY IDENTIFIED IN NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT -- LIMITED JURISDICTION -- TIME BAR -- Respondent Award This dispute arose as a result of a clerical error made by the consignee’s lawyers. When appointing an arbitrator, they used incorrect references to the same bill of lading contracts on various correspondences / documents. This variation inadvertently made the correspondences / documents apply to a non-existing contract, and subsequently, the Respondent argued that the corresponding claims should be time barred.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Trafigura Beheer BV v Navigazione Montanarini SpA (The “Valle di Cordoba”) – English Court of Appeal, 18 Feb 2015

BPVOY3 -- PIRACY -- FORCED TRANSFER OF CARGO -- LIABILITY FOR IN-TRANSIT LOSS OF CARGO -- Owner Award While en route to the discharge port the Vessel was overtaken by pirates who transferred about 15% of the cargo to an unknown vessel. Charterer argued that Owner had accepted a strict “In-Transit Loss” clause in the charter party and are therefore liable in this matter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Navig8 Inc v. South Vigour Shipping Inc and Others – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 16 Jan 2015

CHARTERPARTY -- WHETHER THE AGENT/MANAGER ACTED ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTERED OWNERS -- WHETHER REGISTERED OWNERS WERE PARTY TO THE CHARTERPARTIES -- MEANING OF THE PHRASE “DISPONENT OWNER” -- Registered Owners Award The Charterer submitted a damages claim against the Registered Owners of four vessels after they were withdrawn from the Charterers service. The Registered Owners claimed that they were not bound to the charterparties because they were not party to them, but rather by a third party without the authority to act on their behalf.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd (The “Ocean Victory”) – Court of Appeal, 22 Jan 2015

BARECON 90 FORM -- SAFE PORT -- SEVERE WEATHER -- WHETHER HULL INSURERS ENTITLED TO FILE SUBROGATED CLAIM AGAINST DEMISE CHARTERER -- Charterer Award This dispute between the Claimant and Intermediate Charterer began over damages stemming from the loss of the Vessel when she went aground at the discharge port due to severe weather. However, the claim did not succeed as the demise charter contained an express stipulation to exclude the rights of subrogation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Market Trends

Market Trends Through Mar 2015

These charts represent freight rate trends (USD/M.T.) over a three-year period for 1,000 M.T. lots of easy liquid chemicals between Houston, Rotterdam, Mediterranean, Brazil, Latin America, Asia Pacific and Kandla. Data provided by New England Tanker Chartering, Inc. (NETCO).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 14/14

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION JURISDICTION -- VALIDITY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT -- DEMURRAGE AND PORT COSTS -- Owner Award The Charterer denied liability for demurrage under several defenses. They argued that they never agreed to be liable for demurrage nor that there was a valid arbitration agreement. And if the Tribunal held that the charter party did provide for those considerations, then each party’s signature would be required for it to be a valid agreement.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 19/14

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- NON-PAYMENT OF HIRE AND REPUDIATORY BREACH -- QUANTUM OF OWNER’S CLAIMS -- Owner Award This dispute arose under a time charter for two vessels for a period of 36 to 37 months with two additional optional periods (for each vessel) of 11 to 13 months. Vessels were delivered in February and April. Then in January the following year Charterer breached their obligation to pay hire causing Owner to withdraw the Vessels from Charterer’s service. In determining Charterer’s repudiatory breach, the Tribunal decided the appropriate measure of damages for lost hire and stevedore damages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Industry News

Maritime Industry News…In Brief

ELECTRONIC BILLS OF LADING . . .BIMCO’s new charter party clause for electronic bills of lading provides a contractual solution for the creation, transfer and surrender of electronic bills. The clause states: “(A) AT THE CHARTERERS’ OPTION, BILLS OF LADING, WAYBILLS AND DELIVERY ORDERS REFERRED TO IN THIS CHARTER PARTY SHALL BE ISSUED, SIGNED AND TRANSMITTED IN ELECTRONIC FORM WITH THE SAME EFFECT AS THEIR PAPER EQUIVALENT. (B) FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB-CLAUSE (A) THE OWNERS SHALL SUBSCRIBE TO AND USE ELECTRONIC (PAPERLESS) TRADING SYSTEMS AS DIRECTED BY THE CHARTERERS, PROVIDED SUCH SYSTEMS ARE APPROVED BY THE INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 15/14

AMWELSH -- CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION -- LIABILITY FOR PORT CHARGES -- Final Owner Award This dispute arose under a voyage charter in determining the party responsible for paying the port charges at the discharge port. At issue is the interpretation of an amended clause alleged to be in contravention to the intention of the deal.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.