Category: Archive

London Arbitration 4/10

NYPE -- OFF-HIRE -- SEAWORTHINESS -- WAITING TIME -- Owner Award After waiting eight days at the loadport to berth, cracks were found in the Vessel's hull necessitating repairs. Charterer argues that the deficiency invalidates the waiting time and that the Vessel was off-hire or, alternatively, presents a claim for damages due to demurrage lost under a sub-charter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 7/10

NYPE -- CLEANLINESS OF HOLDS -- VESSEL FIT FOR SERVICE -- OFF-HIRE -- Owner Award The Vessel was approved for the first voyage under a time charter and carried out the first voyage without incident. Prior to the second voyage, the holds were rejected due to stains from a cargo carried just prior to the commencement of the time charter. After five days of cleaning, the holds were approved. In dispute is Charterer's claim for off-hire and expenses during the cleaning.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Cosco Bulk Carrier Co. Ltd. v. Team-Up Owning Co. Ltd. (The “Saldanha”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 11 June 2010

NYPE -- PIRACY -- CHARTERPARTY LANGUAGE -- WHETHER VESSEL CAN BE CONSIDERED OFF-HIRE -- Owner Award Charterer appealed to have all time that the Vessel was held by pirates count as off-hire. The High Court examined whether the Vessel was prevented from working due to any of the three causes listed in the charter party: a) detention by average accidents to ship or cargo; b) default and/or deficiency of men; c) any other cause.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Emeraldian Ltd. Partnership v. Wellmix Shipping Ltd. and Anr (The “Vine”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.),17 June 2010

BREACH OF SAFE PORT WARRANTY -- BEYOND CHARTERER'S CONTROL -- WHETHER DELAY COUNTED AS LAYTIME -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award After nominating the loadberth an accident occurred forcing its closure for repairs. Owner claimed demurrage for the time spent by the Vessel awaiting the repair of the berth, but Charterer refuted the claim basis the notion that the accident was beyond Charterer’s control. In addition, the Court was asked to determine whether the berth was safe at the time it was nominated due to the complex mooring maneuvers required in order for vessels to safely berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Demurrage is Not an Indemnity

Oftentimes, demurrage claims issued by commercial trading partners under contracts of sale are disputed and a copy of the ship owner’s demurrage claim is requested, allegedly to support the merit of the claimant’s invoice. However, unless the stipulation to provide the Owner’s claim is expressly required within the contract terms, it is unnecessary to be disclosed as demurrage is not considered an indemnity (compensation for a loss suffered). Contrary to popular belief that a party cannot benefit by demurrage, English law holds that there is an absolute obligation to pay demurrage incurred under the terms of a sales contract. There is nothing to prevent a profit from being made on a legitimate demurrage claim [Houlder Brothers Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Public Works [1908] AC 276].
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Empresa Maritime Americana Ltd. v. View Point Global Petroleum, LLC (The “Lady Chiara”) – SMA No. 4048, 30 Oct 2009

ASBATANKVOY -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award Owner seeks recovery of demurrage encompassing over 17 days that the Vessel spent awaiting cargo at the loadport which, despite Charterer’s repeated promises, the cargo was never forthcoming causing Owner to terminate the fixture. The Panel rules on a remedy for Owner's lost time.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Agrifos Fertilizer, Inc. v. Transammonia, Inc. (The “Bow Heron”) – SMA No. 4049, 12 Nov 2009

ASBATANKVOY -- FORCE MAJEURE -- HURRICANE -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- DUE DILIGENCE -- Seller Award The CFR Buyer declared force majeure after its Pasadena, TX facility was struck by Hurricane Ike and cancelled one of two CFR contracts with the Seller. The dispute concerns whether the event constituted force majeure within the context of the sales contract, whether the sales contract allowed Buyer to cancel the contract and whether Buyer's steps to restore operations at its facility constituted the due diligence required.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Vertical UK LLP v. Dundee Ltd. (The “Nora”) – SMA No. 4051, 16 Nov 2009

ASBATANKVOY -- WHETHER DEMURRAGE IS PAYABLE AFTER LOADING -- REVERSIBLE LAYTIME -- LATE ARRIVAL AT DISPORT -- DAMAGES -- Partial Charterer Award With the Vessel arriving at the disport approximately 72 days later than projected for a customary 14-day voyage, the Charterer incurred $103K demurrage on two barges that were on standby to receive the cargo. After the Vessel arrived, Owner subsequently refused to discharge the cargo until Charterer remitted loadport demurrage. The issues decided by the Panel include liability of consequential barge demurrage and whether the Owner is entitled to collect demurrage prior to discharging when the fixture stipulates "reversible laytime".
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Schuyler Line Navigation Co. v. Trade Ferro Metal Inc. (FEMET) (The “Pacific Bangshen I”) – SMA No. 4062, 15 Jan 2010

GENCON -- FORCE MAJEURE – DEMURRAGE -- HURRICANE -- BUNKERING -- "ARRIVED SHIP" NOR -- WIPON -- NOR ACCEPTED WITHIN OFFICE HOURS -- Owner Award The Vessel arrived EOSP to discharge 179 miles up the Mississippi River shortly after the passage of Hurricane Gustav through the area which resulted in the closure of the river and Charterer’s terminal. Shortly thereafter, an upriver section of the river re-opened to traffic, but a draft restriction at the mouth of the river and berth congestion prevented the Vessel from proceeding to the discharge berth. Owner started laytime once the discharge berth re-opened following the hurricane. Conversely, Charterer rejected all waiting time basis the Agent’s SOF remark that the River was closed to navigation during presumably much or all of the waiting time; and, Charterer held that the Vessel was not an arrived ship when NOR was tendered because she later stopped her upriver transit to take on bunkers. Whilst bunkering, Charterer’s berth was unavailable.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Promar Ltd. (The “Promar”) – SMA No. 4063, 15 Jan 2010

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- COGSA -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- Owner Award After discovering that one of its cargo was contaminated by another following a simultaneous discharge, Charterer alleged the contamination occurred during discharge due to leakage or a faulty valve lineup onbard the Vessel. In this award, the Panel reconstructs the course of events, sampling procedures and piping systems onboard and ashore to determine if Charterer has met their burden of proof that contamination was the fault of the Vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.