Category: Archive

Archive / English Maritime Cases

SK Shipping (S) Pte. Ltd. v. Petroexport Ltd. (The “Pro Victor”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 24 Nov 2009

ASBATANKVOY -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- ANTICIPATORY BREACH -- Owner Award On the first day of laydays, without expressly saying so, Charterer is alleged to have cancelled the fixture after the Buyer pulled out of the deal. At issue was whether Owner acted properly in terminating the charter party and claiming damages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Dalwood Marine Co v. Nordana Line AS (The “Elbrus”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 21 Dec 2009

NYPE 1993 -- TIME CHARTER -- EARLY REDELIVERY -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- CALCULATION OF DAMAGES -- Charterer Award After Charterer prematurely cancelled a time charter, Owner secured a lucrative replacement contract. In determining Owner's damages, Charterer argued that the profits from the replacement contract should be weighed as a whole against the lost revenue from the early redelivery.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Sylvia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd. (The “Sylvia”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 18 Mar 2010

NYPE -- FAILED PORT STATE INSPECTION -- MISSED LAYDAY WINDOW -- FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGES -- REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES -- Charterer Award Because the Vessel failed a Port State Inspection due to structural deficiencies and was detained until Owner could affect repairs, Charterer missed a layday window with a sub-charterer. Charterer sought to recover lost profits in arbitration and won. Owner appealed and the Judge considered whether the Charterer’s damages were unforeseeable, too remote, or erroneously derived.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Novologistics SARL v. Five Ocean Corporation (The “Merida”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 27 Nov 2009

BERTH OR PORT CHARTER -- WAITING TIME -- CHARTERPARTY CONSTRUCTION -- ONE SAFE BERTH -- Charterer Award With no incorporation of a proforma charter party form, at issue was whether the fixture constituted a berth charter or port charter. The key terms considered include "one good and safe Charterer’s berth" in conjunction with other clauses addressing a safe port warranty and shifting time. In overturning the arbitration award, the Court examined the fixture terms and explained contract construction.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

AET Inc. Ltd. v. Arcadia Petroleum Ltd. (The “Eagle Valencia”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 8 Oct 2009

SHELLVOY 5 -- NOTICE OF READINESS -- FAILURE TO OBTAIN FREE PRATIQUE WITHIN 6 HOURS -- Owner Award With the charter party fixed on an amended Shellvoy 5 form inclusive of "Shell Additional Clauses – February 1999", this dispute hinged on whether the Vessel’s NOR was valid in light of the fact that Free Pratique was not granted within six hours as specified within Shell Additional Clause 22.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v. Swissmarine Service SA (The “Lowlands Orchid”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.) 13 Nov 2009

CHARTERPARTY LANGUAGE "SHINC" -- SUPER HOLIDAYS -- ADDITIONAL CLAUSE SUPERCEDING PRO-FORMA – DESPATCH – DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award This laytime dispute hinged on the interpretation of a fixture recap term, SHINC (Sundays and Holidays included), in conjunction with the terms of the underlying charter party form. The underlying charter party Clause 63 stipulated "Sundays and Holidays included", followed by the phrase, “…excluding Super Holidays”. At issue is how the contract should be interpreted specifically relating to the terminal shutdown during the Christmas holiday period.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Maritime Articles

Securing Assets for Maritime Claims in N.Y.: Pre- and Post-Judgment

For centuries, physical assets such as ships, cargoes, bunkers, and bank accounts have been seized to satisfy maritime commerce debts, before a judgment is rendered, whenever those assets were found within the court’s jurisdiction. Since maritime transactions are oftentimes international and transitory in nature, securing assets from a defendant can be achieved by the plaintiff appealing within the court’s jurisdiction and showing that the asset, whether it be a ship or cargo, is within the jurisdiction and that the defendant is not. In those cases, the attachment is granted. In turn, the defendant must appeal to the court to have the attachment vacated. If the plaintiff prevails, the value of the seized asset is secured.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Julia Shipping Pte. Ltd. v. CMC Cometals NJ (The “Julia”) – SMA No. 4039, 9 Jul 2009

COMETALS PRO FORMA CP -- SAFE BERTH WARRANTY -- VESSEL SUITABILITY -- BERTH RESTRICTIONS – IMPROPER CANCELLATION -- Owner Award At issue is whether the Charterer improperly canceled the charter party. The fixture stipulated the discharge as "one safe berth" and when the Receiver at the intended berth rejected the Vessel as being unsuitable (taking into consideration the size of the terminal’s grabs relative to the size of the Vessel’s hatch openings), the Charterer canceled the fixture claiming that the Owner failed in providing a suitable vessel thereby frustrating the commercial purpose of the charter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 1/09

GENCON -- WHARFAGE AND WATCHMEN FEES FOR EXTENDED DISCHARGE TIME -- DEMURRAGE AS JUST COMPENSATION -- DELAYS BEYOND CHARTERER’S CONTROL -- Partial Charterer, Partial Owner Award This award follows up an earlier decision under London Arbitration 23/07 for the same voyage, and addresses two new points: 1) who is responsible for dues paid by Owner resulting from the delayed discharge; and, 2) whether time is interrupted for discharging delays that are beyond Charterer’s control e.g. awaiting shoreside equipment and personnel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

KG Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft Für Mineralöle mbh & Co KG v Petroplus Marketing AG (The “Mercini Lady”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 22 May 2009

CONTRACT OF SALE -- IMPLIED TERM REGARDING QUALITY AFTER DELIVERY -- CONDITION OF CARGO -- Buyer Award This ruling hinged on whether there is an implied term warranting condition of cargo after delivery; and, if so, whether the Seller was relieved of such obligation under an express exclusion clause (which, in this instance, did not reference "conditions") or, alternatively a certificate final clause (which, in this instance, did not exclude implied terms).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.