Category: Archive

This category can only be viewed by members. To view this category, sign up by purchasing Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

SHV Gas Supply & Trading SAS v. Naftomar Shipping & Trading Co. Ltd. Inc. (The “Azur Gas”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 15 Nov 05

LAYCAN — ACT OF GOD — CONTRACT — CARGO — SHIPPING — CIF PURCHASE CANCELLED DUE LATE LOAD — VALIDITY OF ETA — Buyer Award

Although arriving promptly on the first day of laycan, bad weather kept the vessel from berthing for two weeks. Subsequently, the Buyer cancelled the contract arguing: that the Seller failed to ship the cargo within the shipping period, that the seller failed in His/Her obligation to ship the cargo expediently, and that the disport ETA’s were unrealistic in the context of Winter weather.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Tidebrook Maritime Corp. v. Vitol SA of Geneva (The “Front Commander”) – English High Court [2005] EWHC 2582 (Comm), 9 Nov 2005

ASBATANKVOY — LAYCAN — LAYTIME — NOR — APPEAL — LOADING PRIOR TO LAYCAN — Charterer Award

Upon acknowledging that the Vessel would arrive before laycan, the Charterer sent several messages to the Vessel requesting that she tender NOR upon arrival with the intent of commencing loading prior to laycan; which she did. The Owner argued that this signified the commencement of laytime due to Charterer-given consent; however, the Charterer contends that they merely requested an early NOR.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / Maritime Articles

Loading Prior To Laycan: BEWARE

Loading prior to the commencement of laydays can have many positive outcomes, not least of which is the expedited turn around of the voyage. However, this being said, there are pitfalls for which both Owners and Charterers should be aware of. Discussed below are two of them.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Combria Tankers, Ltd. v. Franshaw International Trading Co. (The “Martha A”) – SMA No. 3861, 23 Aug 2004

PORT AUTHORITY — BERTH — DEMURRAGE — DETENTION — BERTH CLOSURE — Owner Award

After repeatedly delaying its ETA, the Vessel ultimately arrived, but the port authority had closed the berth for scheduled maintenance. In response to the subsequent Owner demurrage claim, the Charterer counterclaimed that neither the maintenance nor the delays leading to the prolonged ETA were in His/Her control.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Navion Shipping AS v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Torm Gunhild”) – SMA No. 3863, 25 Aug 2004

ASBATANKVOY — LOADPORT — CHARTER PARTY — BERTH — CARGO — DEMURRAGE — ARBITRATION — TANK CLEANLINESS — Charterer Award

Upon arriving at loadport after a new cargo revision in the Charter Party, the Vessel was kicked off of berth because of survey results revealing that the Vessel’s tanks were insufficiently cleaned for the revised cargo. The Owner submitted demurrage for the cleaning costs and delays arguing that the tanks were acceptable for the original cargo.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Chembulk Trading LLC v. Cendian Corp. (The “Chembulk New York”) – SMA No. 3868, 2 Dec 2004

ASBATANKVOY — CHARTER PARTY — DEMURRAGE — TERMINAL LOGS — TIME-BAR — Charterer Award

This case’s Charter Party clearly stipulates that there are no grounds for demurrage unless the claim (along with supporting documentation) is received within ninety days of cargo discharge. So when the Owner submitted a claim on the ninetieth day without the specifically outlined terminal logs, the Charterer deemed the demurrage time-barred by the Charter Party.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 9/05

GENCON 76 — BERTH — CANAL — WEATHER — ACT OF GOD — LOADPORT — DEMURRAGE — DETENTION — Owner Award

After loading was completed, a latent document delivery to the Vessel detained it at berth for an extra 14.5H. The Charterer did not contest His/Her fault in the delay, however, He/She argues that the canal was concurrently closed due to adverse weather for several days and the time spent at berth during this closure should be deducted from the claim.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 14/05

GENCON — BERTH — DEMURRAGE — LAYTIME — ARBITRATION — VESSEL DEFICIENCIES – VALIDITY OF NOR — Owner Award

When the Charterer’s pilot boarded the Vessel to begin berthing six days after NOR declaration, the pilot noted operational deficiencies and refused to berth the Vessel until repaired. The Owner subsequently filed for demurrage beginning at NOR tender while the Charterer argued that NOR cannot be considered a valid beginning of laytime because of Vessel unreadiness at berthing.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 16/05

ASBATANKVOY — SHIP-TO-SHIP — DEMURRAGE — ARBITRATION — LOADPORT — STS TRANSFER – WHETHER NOR WAS TENDERED — VALIDITY OF NOR — Charterer Award

This case began with Charterer allegations that the Vessel did not tender NOR for this STS transfer—or if it did, it was invalid and premature. The Owner, however, counterclaimed that when the Charterer remitted partial payment of the demurrage claim, they thereby admitted validity to the Vessel’s NOR and sacrificed their right to challenge it.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / Maritime Articles

ExxonMobil’s New Boilerplate Release: EXXONMOBIL VOY 2005 – A Demurrage Analyst’s Perspective

Recently introduced, EXXONMOBILVOY 2005 (EMV2005) contains a slight reduction in requirements and a subtle change in semantics as compared to its predecessor, EXXONMOBILVOY 2000 (EMV2000). EMV2000, itself a limited update of EXXONVOY 90, was the product of the merger of Exxon and Mobil and published on 1 June 2000. The below provides a brief summary of the differences EMV2005’s laytime / demurrage clauses have as compared to EMV2000’s laytime / demurrage clauses.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.