Category: Archive
Milestone Shipping SA v. Estech Trading, LLC (The “Santa Barbara”) – SMA No. 4218, 9 Oct 2013
GENCON -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- BEST EFFORTS -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award
After the Vessel’s arrival at the loadport, the Charterer’s representative notified the Disponent Owner that they were unable to provide a cargo for the Vessel and had to cancel the charter party. The Disponent Owner brought arbitration proceedings against the Charterer to recover costs associated with their breach.
ED&F Man Sugar Ltd. v Unicargo Transportgesellschaft mBh (The “Ladytramp”) – English Court of Appeal, 19 Nov 2013
SUGAR CHARTER PARTY 1999 -- FIRE DAMAGE AT TERMINAL -- MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN DEFINED -- OBLIGATION TO NOMINATE ALTERNATE BERTH -- FORCE MAJEURE -- GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE -- Owner Award
The Vessel was delayed in berthing due to a fire that had destroyed the conveyor belt system at the Charterer’s regularly-scheduled terminal. Charterer submitted their case to the Court of Appeal for consideration that this situation should constitute a mechanical breakdown and likewise exempted from the Owner’s laytime calculation.
Venetico Marine SA v. International General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (The “Irene EM”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 27 Nov 2013
GROUNDING -- PERIL OF SEAS OR NEGLIGENCE OF CREW -- MARINE INSURANCE -- MEASURE OF DAMAGES -- Owner Award
The Vessel grounded while she was at anchorage awaiting berth and the insurance underwriters refused to compensate the Owner. The underwriters argued that the Owner had not proven how the grounding occurred. In ruling for the Owner, the Panel held that whether the grounding was due to peril of the seas or negligence of the crew, either was sufficient for insurance compensation.
Atlas Shipping AS v. Olendorff GmbH & Co. KG (The “Fomalhaut”) – SMA No. 4211, 8 Jul 2013
NYPE -- CHAIN OF TIME CHARTERS -- CONTAMINATED BUNKERS -- WHETHER CHARTERER PREJUDICED BY FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN EARLIER CONSOLIDATED DISPUTE -- Owner Award
After bunkering, the Vessel sailed to the next port prior to receiving the bunker test results showing that the bunkers were off-spec (after the bunkers were already partially consumed). At the consolidated proceedings, the Owner was deemed liable for the resultant machinery damage but was awarded costs for debunkering, tank cleaning, rebunkering, and associated costs. At issue in this dispute is whether the last Charterer in the chain, who freely chose not to participate in the consolidated proceedings, is liable to indemnify the Time Chartered Owner.
Zurich American Insurance Co. and Vinmar International Ltd., Inc. v. Team Tankers AS and Eitzen Chemical (The “Siteam Explorer”) – SMA No. 4216, 26 Aug 2013
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT (COGSA) -- Owner Award
Charterer alleged that their cargo of Acrylonitrile (ACN) was allegedly contaminated onboard the Vessel resulting in a yellowing to a color rating of APHA 13 (exceeding the maximum resale spec of APHA 10).
Falcon Carrier Shipping, Ltd. v. ST Shipping and Transport, Pte. Ltd. and Glencore, Ltd. (The “Falcon Carrier”) – SMA No. 4217, 20 Sept 2013
SHELLTIME 4 -- TIME CHARTER -- OIL MAJOR APPROVALS -- WRONGFUL EARLY REDELIVERY -- MEASURE OF DAMAGES -- Owner Award
At dispute is whether the Charterer’s clause requiring three Oil Major approvals throughout the duration of the time charter is ambiguous when blanket approvals are no longer given; and, whether Charterer’s early redelivery was wrongful.
London Arbitration 12/13
TIME CHARTER -- REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT BY CHARTERER -- MEASURE OF DAMAGES WHEN NO SIMILAR MARKET EXISTS -- Owner Award
After non-payment of hire for 10 consecutive months, Owner withdrew the Vessel and sought restitution from the Guarantor of Charterer’s liabilities for the unpaid hire up to the point the time charter contract was deemed repudiated, damages for the unexpired period remaining, and restitution for bunker costs.
Kingsway Shipping Co. Ltd. v. STX Gulf Shipping DMCCO – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 28 May 2013
TIME CHARTER -- GROUNDING DUE EXCESS DRAFT RESULTING FROM SUB-CHARTERER’S LOAD INSTRUCTIONS -- Charterer Award
Under a chain of time charters, the Vessel grounded and damaged her hull as a result of following the sub-Charterer’s load instructions to a draft of 13.3m. The Head Owner’s claim for indemnity failed because the sub-Charterer’s indemnity guarantee was given to the Master as the representative of the intermediate Charterer (not as a representative of the Head Owner) and the indemnity was not provided on a back-to-back basis throughout the chain.
Beijing Jianlong Heavy Industry Group v. Golden Ocean Group Ltd. and Others – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 1 May 2013
TIME CHARTER -- ENFORCEABILITY OF ENGLISH ARBITRATION IN CONTRACT CONTAINING AN ILLEGAL GUARANTEE -- NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CHINESE "SAFE" (STATE ADMINISTRATION FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE) REGISTRATION -- Owner Award
The background to this case involved five claims pursued by various ship owners against Beijing Jianlong Heavy Industry Group (hereinafter "Charterer") against the Charterer’s guarantor to resolve essentially the same issue i.e. Charterer’s repudiation of its obligations under several time charter contracts. Due to the similarities, the dispute was consolidated at London arbitration.
