Category: Archive

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 4/11

NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION WARRANTY -- BEAUFORT SCALE -- BAD WEATHER -- EQUITABLE SET-OFF -- OFF-HIRE -- Charterer Award At the commencement of the time charter the Vessel had problems with the main engine sea water cooling system which Charterer suspected subsequently caused the Vessel to underperform. Owner denied that the Vessel breached the performance warranty and claims for the withheld hire; whereas, Charterer maintains that the Vessel was off-hire or, alternatively, seeks damages for Owner’s breach of the speed warranty as an equitable set-off.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Transpetrol Maritime Services Ltd. v. SJB Marine Energy (The “Rowan”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 18 Feb 2011

CHARTERPARTY BREACH -- OIL COMPANIES APPROVALS CLAUSE -- CLASS CONDITION IMPOSITION -- Charterer Award At the time of the fixture, Owner alleged that the Vessel was approved by five oil majors. Thus, when Charterer’s buyer rejected the Vessel due to a sea-chest valve needing repairs as imposed by the Class survey, a sale was lost with Charterer incurring substantial damages. In deciding whether the Owner breached the Oil Companies Approval Clause, the Court clarified the meaning of the acronym "TBOOK" and the word "approved".
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

TTMI Sarl v. Statoil ASA (The “Sibohelle”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 9 May 2011

SHELLVOY 5 -- ERRONEOUS PARTY NAMED IN CHARTER -- WHETHER CONTRACT BINDING BY PERFORMANCE -- ARBITRATION JURISDICTION -- Owner Award The fixture recap erroneously listed TTMI’s parent company, Sempra Energy, as the time chartered Owner rather than TTMI. Thus, when TTMI claimed demurrage, Charterer denied that a contract with TTMI existed and alternatively, if a contract was deemed to have been created by performance, that the terms would not be as set forth in the fixture recap.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Carboex SA v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 12 May 2011

AMWELSH -- BERTHING DELAYS CAUSED BY STRIKE -- WHETHER IN BERTH OR NOT -- WIBON PHRASE RELATIVE TO A STRIKE CLAUSE -- Charterer Award Under the same Contract of Affreightment (COA), two vessels arrived at port in the midst of a haulage strike and two vessels arrived after the haulage strike ended. All four of these vessels experienced berthing delays as a result of port congestion attributable to the strike. At issue is whether the WIBON clause supersedes the strike clause regarding berthing delays.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Canfornav Ltd. v. AMCI Minerals Corp. (The “Garganey”) – SMA No. 4095, 29 Oct 2010

AMWELSH -- DEMURRAGE RESULTING FROM INSUFFICIENT WATER LEVELS -- ALWAYS AFLOAT, ALWAYS ACCESSIBLE -- SHORT LOADING -- Full Owner Award Owner claimed time ran during a period when the Vessel was required to temporarily vacate the berth during loading due to insufficient water levels as the fixture warranted Vessel to load "always afloat". Charterer counterclaimed for short loading when the Vessel departed with less than the warranted “max 21,400 MT in chrts option…”
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Precious Opals Ltd. v. Helena Chartering Inc. (The “Opal Naree”) – SMA No. 4096, 29 Oct 2010

NYPE 93 -- DEFICIENT SPEED -- BUNKER VALUATION -- EARLY REDELIVERY -- PREMIUM HIRE -- OFF-HIRE -- BANK CHARGES -- Partial Owner Award This arbitration resolved a number of different disputes under a time charter. These included the calculation of the deduction for a speed deficiency, Charterer proactively deducting from hire the speed deficiency rather than claiming from Owner as stipulated by the Charter Party, early redelivery and the valuation of bunkers on redelivery, an alleged shortage of IFO during the time charter period, whether Charterer was to pay a premium whilst the Vessel cleaned the holds after the cargo requiring a premium had been discharged, off-hire calculations whilst the Vessel had a crane breakdown yet wherein no loss of time was encountered, excessive address commission being deducted from "hire" paid when redelivering early and finally, insufficient payment by Charterer as a result of “nominal” Bank Charges.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

USS Chartering LLC v. Vitol, Inc. (The “ITB Baltimore”) – SMA No. 4099, 10 Nov 2010

ASBATANKVOY -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION OF CHARTER PARTY -- PROCEED WITH UTMOST DISPATCH -- ETAs -- CONTRIBUTORY BREACH AND EQUITABLE REMEDY -- Partial Owner Award With a two port load option, San Francisco or Los Angeles, and a strict laycan to lift cargo prior to year-end (to avoid shoreside inventory taxes), Vessel initially commenced sailing in an indirect direction. Eventually, en-route to the U.S. West Coast Charterer nominated SF as the load port only to have the Vessel’s ETA begin slipping. Fearing a late arrival and the loss of the FOB purchased cargo, Charterer directed the Vessel to LA. Given that the intended load port had been changed it becomes apparent that the laycan will be missed whereas, weather permitting, she would have made the laycan had the load port remained SF. Charterer canceled the Charter and Owner subsequently claimed for damages basis an alleged wrongful cancellation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Westport Petroleum, Inc. v. Falcon Carrier Shipping Ltd. (The “Falcon Carrier”) – SMA No. 4085, 9 Aug 2010

ASBATANKVOY -- JURISDICTION -- DEVIATION EXPENSE -- FAILURE TO ACCEPT FULL CARGO -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME BAR -- Charterer Award Charterer paid lump sum freight on the mother vessel basis a full cargo of 66K MT. When mother vessel could only load 63K MT, daughter vessel incurred deviation expenses when she had to return to Singapore to discharge the balance of the cargo. At arbitration, Owner questioned jurisdiction claiming Charterer failed to properly inform them of the arbitration, Charterer claimed costs of the deviation and Owner claimed demurrage which charterer claimed was time barred.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Team Tankers AS v. Tricon Shipping Ltd. (The “Siteam Merkur”) – SMA No. 4086, 16 Aug 2010

ASBATANKVOY -- UNSEAWORTHINESS -- FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL -- MITIGATION COSTS -- EXTRA INSPECTION COSTS -- Charterer Award An extension of SMA 4016, the central issue to be decided is whether the cargo was adequately described in the charter and whether Charterer is obliged to notify Owner as to the cargo's sensitivity to iron thereby requiring tank coatings to be intact. This Award affirms that the Q88 should reference the Vessel’s current condition as opposed to the "as built" condition and that there is a breach of the Charter Party should the Vessel’s tanks not conform with the Q88.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Precious Ornaments Ltd. v. Helena Chartering Inc. (The “Manisamut Naree) – SMA No. 4088, 15 Sep 2010

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- RISK OF PIRACY -- DEVIATION AND SECURITY GUARD EXPENSE -- Owner Award Due to the prevalence of piracy, Vessel deviated to take on security experts. The Panel deemed the deviation to be a reasonable act, consistent with due diligence and good seamanship. Furthermore, the Panel considered the deviation to be in the interest of both parties and as such, the Vessel was on-hire throughout the deviation with the cost of the security personnel shared equally by Owner and Charterer.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.