Category: Archive

Owneast Shipping Ltd. v. Qatar Navigation QSC (The “Qatar Star”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 7 July 2010

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- UNPAID HIRE -- WHETHER WITHDRAWAL OF VESSEL WRONGFUL -- INTENTION -- Charterer Award Charterer’s failure to pay timely hire per the terms of the contract led Owner to withdraw the Vessel from Charterer’s service. The tribunal majority held that the late payments were a matter of poor management rather than acting in bad faith and, as such, warranted an anti-technicality notice rather than withdrawal of the ship.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

KG Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft Für Mineral Mineralöle mbH & Co KG v Petroplus Marketing AG (The “Mercini Lady”) – English Court of Appeal, 19 Oct 2010

CONTRACT OF SALE -- IMPLIED TERM REGARDING QUALITY AFTER DELIVERY -- CONDITION OF CARGO -- Seller Award Reversing the Commercial Court’s ruling, this appeal succeeded in stating that express contract terms could supersede statutory and common law’s implication that the condition of goods sold in an FOB contract must be a satisfactory quality at delivery and for a reasonable time thereafter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 17/10

TIME CHARTER -- HOLDS REJECTED -- "NET LOSS OF TIME" CLAUSE OR “PERIOD OFF-HIRE” CLAUSE -- EXPEDITE RE-INSPECTION -- Charterer Award Upon having its holds rejected the Vessel cleaned them within three hours and presented for re-inspection that evening. The surveyor had already departed and only returned mid-morning of the next day with approval following in the late afternoon. Charterer argued that the applicable clause was a "period off-hire" clause and that all time up until re-inspection and approval to be deemed off-hire. The Panel agreed for the most part except felt that after re-boarding there was an excessive delay in approval and as such, the off-hire period ended shortly after the surveyor re-boarded which is when the Panel felt the surveyor should have approved the Vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 19/10

VEGOILVOY -- PREMATURE NOTICE OF READINESS -- RIVER PORT -- ARRIVED SHIP -- Charterer Award Upon arrival at the Pilot Station the Vessel tendered Notice of Readiness (NOR) to Charterer’s berth 60 miles upriver and then shifted to an inner anchorage. The Panel determined the NOR tendered at the Pilot Station was premature and subsequently invalid and as no other NOR had been tendered, deemed laytime to only commence upon the Vessel being all fast in berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 20/10

ASBATANKVOY -- GENERAL EXCEPTIONS CLAUSE -- RESTRAINT OF PRINCES -- DETENTION -- IMPLIED INDEMNITY -- Partial Owner and Charterer Award The Vessel was detained for over 30 days by the Indonesian Navy for an apparently erroneous reason and upon release directed to deviate to Singapore for an additional 24 days whilst commercial considerations, themselves resulting from the aforementioned delay, were handled. The Panel ruled the arrest constituted Restraint of Princes with Charterer subsequently not being responsible for the lost time. However, the Panel ruled that the detention in Singapore was to count as demurrage with the deviation costs likewise for Charterer's account.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 22/10

NYPE -- SEAWORTHINESS -- CAUSATION -- OFF-HIRE -- Owner Award Due to defects in the hatch covers, 0.1% of a cargo of grain was water damaged en-route to the discharge port leading to a 24-day delay when the authorities refused to allow any of the grain to be discharged even though the wet grain could have been segregated. The Panel ruled that although the Vessel was unseaworthy, the root cause of the delay lay not with the Shipowner but rather with the conduct and actions of the authorities with the authorities’ actions and resultant delay being deemed unforeseeable.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Chevron Marine Ltd. and Chevron Products Co. v. Stena Bulk AB (The “Stena Conquest”) – SMA No. 4075, 17 May 2010

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- DEMURRAGE CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO DELAYS -- Owner Award The first, second, and third foot samples of ULSD cargo were off-spec with respect to flashpoint (a key commercial criterion for this cargo) resulting in offloading and further Vessel cleaning. Although there was a dedicated line from the shore tank to the terminal manifold, an additive was injected at the terminal manifold (from bulk containers and drums) which could have affected the ULSD flashpoint. Thus, Charterer failed in proving by a preponderance of credible evidence that the Vessel’s tanks were the cause of the cargo damage. Furthermore, the burden is on the Charterer to prove that the Vessel did not exercise due diligence in tank preparation which he failed to do.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

AOT Ltd. v Caribbean Petroleum Corp. (The “Cape Bruny”) – SMA No. 4073, 6 May 2010

SALES CONTRACT -- FORCE MAJEURE -- EXPLOSION -- CUSTODY TRANSFER -- DEMURRAGE -- Partial Final Seller Award During discharge, an apparent shoretank leak at Buyer's facility caused an explosion which destroyed storage tanks inclusive of cargo being discharged and cargo discharged during previous deliveries not yet paid for by Buyer. The Buyer declared force majeure and contends that it is excused from paying for all cargo destroyed in the shoretanks, cargo remaining onboard the Cape Bruny yet to be discharged and the resultant demurrage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 11/10

GENCON -- LAYTIME DURING PERIODS OF HEAVY SWELL -- WEATHER WORKING DAYS -- RESULTING SHIFTING EXPENSES -- SAFE BERTH -- Charterer Award Basis a charter party stipulating cargo to be discharged at an average rate "per weather working day" the Panel determined laytime was not to count during a period of port closure due to Ressac swells. The Owner was responsible for the cost of unberthing and reberthing during the port closure as Charterer had not breached their safe berth warranty as the port closure was at the direction of the harbormaster and the Vessel was able to unberth and reberth safely.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.