Category: Archive

Archive / English Maritime Cases

TS Lines Ltd v. Delphis NV (The “TS Singapore”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 25 Feb 2009

NYPE -- OFF-HIRE -- CHARTERER'S RIGHT TO CANCEL -- WHETHER “COMMON ROUTE” QUALIFIES AS ON-HIRE WHEN VESSEL UNDER OWNER’S ORDERS -- Charterer Award Under a time charter contract, the Vessel incurred damage necessitating transit to a repair port along the same voyage route as the Charterer’s next intended port call. The Judge decides whether that constitutes off-hire, or if the vessel was operating under the Charterer’s instructions.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Lansat Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Glencore Grain BV (“The Paragon”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 25 Mar 2009

NYPE -- LATE REDELIVERY -- ILLEGITIMATE LAST VOYAGE -- PENALTY CLAUSES -- GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF DAMAGES -- Charterer Award This ruling concerns a time charter clause which stipulates a remedy for a vessel’s late redelivery including compensation to the Owner if the market has risen and is calculated commencing a period of 30 days prior to the maximum period date until actual redelivery. The question posed to the Judges was, is that considered a penalty clause and thus illegal under English law?
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

IMT Shipping and Chartering GmbH v. Chansun Shipping Co. Ltd. (The “Zenovia”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 8 Apr 2009

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- NOTICE OF VESSEL REDELIVERY -- MEANING OF THE ACRONYM “WP” -- Charterer Award After submitting an approximate notice of redelivery, Charterer revised the date of redelivery in order to complete an additional voyage. Though the revised date still fell within the contractually stated range of delivery, Owner rejected the change and withdrew the Vessel from Charterer's service. Charterer claimed damages, alleging wrongful withdrawal.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Medtalk Ltd. v. Adam Maritime Corp. (The “Alaska”) – SMA No. 3290, 15 Aug 1996

ASBATANKVOY -- CONOCO WEATHER CLAUSE- CARGO AVAILABILITY -- WEATHER DELAYS -- WAITING TIME -- Owner Award This dispute revolves around the interplay of Asbatankvoy's clauses 6, 8, and 9, as well as whether of not the Conoco Weather Clause applies during periods of bad weather, which occurred while the Vessel was awaiting berthing due to unavailable cargo. In addition to the award, one dissenting arbitrator recontructs the facts in the case and presents his own conclusion.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Maritime Articles

Time Bars Through Time

Common within the maritime industry is the inclusion of a time bar clause within the contract; be it a charter or sales contract. The time-bar clause as it relates to demurrage requires timely receipt of a claim oftentimes within 90 days from completion of load or discharge operations, whichever is applicable, else claim is deemed waived. As time has progressed English arbitration awards and court cases and US arbitration awards have given further insight into the role these contracts play within the industry, the proper interpretation of the commonly used requirements and some hints as to how both charterers and owners should phrase the clauses in order to adequately protect themselves. All of this is discussed below.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

TBS Latin America Liner, Ltd. v. CI Corporacion Carbones De La Sabansa SA (The “Ainu Princess”) – SMA No. 4017, 28 Nov 2008

GENCON -- NO RESPONSE TO DEMURRAGE CLAIM OR ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS -- RULES OF ARBITRATION -- Owner Award The Panel makes several attempts to contact the Charterer for participation in the proceedings, but received no response whatsoever. The Panel examines the demurrage claim at the heart of the award.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Jo Tankers BV v. Empresa Maritima Americana, Ltd. (The “JO Hegg”) – SMA No. 4019, 19 Dec 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- CONFIDENTIALITY -- IMPROPER CANCELLATION -- Owner Award While the Vessel was in port awaiting cargo for another charterer, Owner was approached with the opportunity to load another cargo in the interim. The second fixture was quickly made, and Owner re-negotiated their laydays with the first charterer. The second charterer then promptly cancelled the fixture. Owner submitted a claim for lost profits, which the second charterer refuted due to the brevity of the fixture.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Trammochem v. dow Benelux N.V. and Atofina-Petrofina SA and AP Moeller and Igloo Shipping AS (The “LPG/C Igloo Norse”) – SMA No. 4021, 18 Dec 2007

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- PRIMA FACIE -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award On arrival at the discharge port, the cargo was found to be contaminated and the Receivers refused delivery. Charterer presented a prima facie claim showing that there was no apparent contamination in the cargo as it was delivered to the Vessel. The Panel sorted through a wealth of information to ascertain the source of cargo contamination, and explains the process of discovery.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Caytrans BBC, LLC v. Agrogen SA de CV (The “Faaborg”) – SMA No. 4025, 27 Feb 2009

GENCON -- NO RESPONSE TO DEMURRAGE CLAIM -- AWAIT CARGO DOCUMENTS -- SHIFT OFF BERTH -- BROKERAGE COMMISSION -- Owner Award Even though the Charterer doesn't repond to the arbitrator's request to participate in the arbitration, the arbitrator looks critically at Owner's demurrage claim and makes revisions to reduce the demurrage amount. A key question in this award is what time counts as used laytime when the Vessel shifts off the berth to await documents at the anchorage prior to departure.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

The Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v. FR8 Singapore Pte Ltd (The “Eternity”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 21 Oct 2008

BPVOY -- TIME BAR -- SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- INERT GAS SYSTEM -- ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION VS USE OF DUE DILIGENCE -- NEGLIGENCE -- Partial Charterer, Owner Award If the Vessel’s crew failed to secure the common Inert Gas line resulting in the contamination of Charterer’s two cargoes, is the Owner excused under Hague Visby Article IV rule 2(a) i.e. "an act, neglect or default of the master and/or servants of the carrier in the management of the vessel"? Regarding demurrage time bar requirements, if the governing clause stipulates that the Vessel’s pump log is to be counter-signed by the Terminal and said signature is not obtained, is this cause for barring the entire claim or just that one aspect of the claim? If the operative demurrage time bar clause requires the Vessel’s documents to be counter-signed by a “Terminal” representative and the cargo transfer takes place at anchorage in a ship-to-ship (STS) transfer, does the lack of the Terminal’s signature give cause to bar that aspect of the claim?
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.