Category: Archive

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Anan Shipping Co., Ltd. v. ED & F Man Sugar Ltd. (The “An An”) – SMA No. 3792, 12 Jun 2003

FIOT BULK SUGAR -- PORT -- DISPORT -- CRANE -- BERTH -- DETENTION -- DELAY -- GOOD FAITH -- BERTH -- Owner Award Because the Charterer’s Buyer instructed that Baltimore was the only feasible discharge port, the Charterer ordered the Vessel there despite recent port hazards. Once unloaded at disport, a damaged crane forced the Vessel to wait at berth for forty-six days. The Owners followed through with a detention claim arguing that the Charterers were aware of the anticipated delays and did not make a good faith effort to find another berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Asian Paints Ltd., Adani Exports Ltd., Akin Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Shanghai Jiu Mao Freign Trade Corp., Sinochem Pudong Trading Co. Ltd. v Carleon Shipping, Inc. M/V Santa Margherita, SMA No. 3796, 23 Jul 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- BILL OF LADING -- ARBITRATION -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- DISCHARGE -- PRIMA FACIE -- SEAWORTHINESS -- TRADE ALLOWANCES -- Receiver Award The seven Bill of Lading holders initiated arbitration for damages from cargo contamination and shortages upon discharge. The Owners claimed that the shortages were due to evaporation and trade allowances, while the Receivers argued that the Vessel unseaworthiness was prima facie.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Transportes Maritimos Centroamericanos SA and Paper Sea AS (The “Forest Link”) – SMA No. 3800, 17 Sep 2003

NYPE -- ARBITRATION -- TIME CHARTER -- OFF-HIRE -- REPAIRS -- Charterer Award This case is a Charterer re-petition to the panel to terminate the time charter contract with the Owner because of ongoing repairs that render the Vessel off-hire and because of new information indicating Owner financial difficulty.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Maritime Articles

International Ship And Port Facility Security (ISPS)

Effective 1 July 2004, the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code looks to provide a modicum of security in this era of global terrorism. Adopted, along with other maritime security measures, by a conference held at IMO in December 2002, the ISPS Code is now mandatory under amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). Containing two parts, one mandatory and one recommended, the ISPS Code contains security related requirements for Governments, port authorities and shipping companies and then sets out a series of guidelines regarding how to meet these requirements, respectively.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana (FLOPEC) v. BP North America (The “Tiber”) – SMA No. 3778, 2 Apr 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL -- SUB-CHARTER -- Owner Award Owner began arbitration to recover an unpaid freight differential on a back-to-back charter agreement. The Charterer needed an Ecuadorian flag Vessel in order to discharge in the contracted Ecuadorian port and could only get around this by sub-chartering the Vessel to itself through this contract’s Owner. However, Charterer argues that Flopec was under no risk in the transaction and had no right to claim a freight differential.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Boss, Ltd. v. Trifinery Petroleum Services (The “Genmar Boss”) – SMA No. 3781, 16 Apr 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYCAN -- VOYAGE -- ETD -- PORT -- ACT OF GOD -- CHARTER PARTY -- Owner Award The focal points of this arbitration are the outstanding demurrage bill and the costs to the Owner to collect demurrage. The Charterers blame the missed laycan on a previous voyage that had a delayed ETD from lack of port space and adverse weather. The Owners, however, argue that the Charterer did not cancel the contract, and therefore, the laycan remains in full effect.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

George E. Warren Corp. v. Bona Shipholding Ltd. (The “Bona Fulmar”) – SMA No. 3787, 15 May 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- COGSA -- VOYAGE -- CARGO -- COLLISION -- GENERAL AVERAGE CONTRIBUTION -- Charterer Award During voyage, the Vessel collided with another tanker, causing cargo loss and damages. The Charterer claimed compensation for said losses while Owner counterclaims for unpaid general average contributions under COGSA.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Cape Tankers, Inc. v. Sea Oil Shipping, Ltd. – SMA No. 3767, 20 Jan 2003

EXXONVOY 90 -- CONSOLIDATION -- INVOICE -- VOYAGE ARBITRATION -- Owner Award This case is a consolidation of four different outstanding Charterer invoices. After each voyage completion, the Owner would submit the required information in a timely manner, but the Charterer would not respond.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Tradewind Tankers CA v. Bristar Overseas (The “Bright Gulf”) – SMA No. 3757, 8 Oct 2002

SHELLTIME 4 -- VOYAGE -- ARBITRATION -- TIME CHARTER -- DECK HEATER -- Partial Charterer Award In this time-charter contract, the Charterer commissioned the Owner’s Vessel because of its deck heater capability, which was necessary for the contracted cargo. However, the Vessel needed to undergo deck heater repairs and subsequently forced the Charterer to use a different vessel. Afterwards, the Charterer began arbitration to recover damages from the Vessel’s untendered voyage and contract breaches.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Scandinavian Liquid Carriers, Ltd. v. Lelco Petroleum USA, Inc. (The “Spirit”) – SMA No. 3761, 8 Nov 2002

ASBATANKVOY -- VOYAGE -- LOADPORT -- LAYCAN -- LAYTIME -- DEMURRAGE -- PORT AGENT -- Owner Award After an initial vessel substitution, the new Vessel began voyage and tendered NOR at loadport during the designated laycan. Nevertheless, low pumping speeds extended laytime past laycan and gave reason for an Owner demurrage claim. The Charterers, however, refused to pay, arguing that flawed port agent information and Vessel confusion led to a misunderstanding of the Vessel’s acceptable loading speeds.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.