Category: English Maritime Cases
TIME CHARTERS NOVATED UPON NEW VESSEL OWNERSHIP - WHETHER NEW TIME CHARTERS ARE TO UPHOLD THE SAME SPEED AND PERFORMANCE WARRANTIES AS ORIGINAL CHARTERS - TRUE CONSTRUCTION OF CHARTERPARTIES
Time charters contained speed and consumption warranties. Upon new ownership these charters included a phrase which owner contended replaced the original warranties with a warranty that the vessels would perform as they were the minute the new charters were concluded. Charterer disagreed and the panel was tasked to determine which warranties were contained in the new charters.
TIME CHARTER/ SUB-CHARTER – CARGO SHORTAGE AND CARGO DAMAGE – CLAIM SETTLED BETWEEN REGISTERED OWNER AND RECEIVER – DISPONENT OWNER DISPUTES COST ALLOCATION – WHETHER COSTS TO BE APPORTIONED WITH CHARTERER
A vessel was time chartered by a registered owner to a disponent owner, and then subsequently spot chartered to a sub-charterer to transport sugar. After the voyage, it was discovered that there was a cargo shortage and damaged and lost cargo. After the registered owner concluded a settlement with the receivers for damages, the registered owner attempted to collect the same amount from the disponent owner with an apportionment of the costs subsequently coming into question.
TIME CHARTER - DEFINITION OF REDELIVERY - WHETHER REDELIVERY MUST STRICTLY ADHERE TO CHARTERPARTY TERMS - WHETHER VESSEL IN FACT REDELIVERED TO OWNER
Under a time-charter, Charterer and Owner disputed the redelivery of a vessel. An arbitration panel determined the legal test in respect of redelivery and applied the facts surrounding the case. Albeit not redelivered as stipulated within the charter, the panel majority concluded the ship had been properly redelivered but Owner applied for permission to appeal the ruling to the High Court.
EXTENSIVE DELAY PURSUING CLAIM IN ARBITRATION – WHETHER DELAY INORDINATE AND INEXCUSABLE – WHETHER SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS ONGOING DURING DELAY - WHETHER NEGOTIATIONS CONSTITUTED A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
Respondent requested an arbitration claim be withdrawn citing an inordinate and inexcusable delay in moving forward with proceedings. The claimant countered that the delay was due to both parties agreeing to stay proceedings whilst working towards a settlement.
SHELLTIME 4 – VESSEL DETAINED FOR INVALID AUTHORIZATION FORM – OFF HIRE – OWNER DISAGREES CITING CONTRACT TERMS – Owner Award
Whilst in a Venezuelan port the vessel was detained after an invalid authorization form was discovered by the Port Authorities. The charterer claimed the vessel was off-hire during the detention. The owner disagreed and commenced arbitration.
TIME CHARTER – OWNER CLAIMING BALANCE OF HIRE – CHARTERER WITHHOLDING HIRE BASIS OFF-HIRE AND EQUITABLE SET-OFF – DATE OF ACCRUAL OF OWNER’S CLAIMS – WHETHER OWNER’S CLAIMS TIME-BARRED UNDER LIMITATION ACT Near the end of a time charter hire payments were withheld by Charterer to offset various claims against Owner. Just shy of 6 years after redelivery, arbitration was commenced against Charterer who contended the claim should be time-barred basis the date of accrual for each missed hire payment. The issues in dispute arose under a time charter of the NYPE form. Clause 5, in relevant part below, provided:...
ARBITRATION – COUNTERCLAIM SUBMITTED AS DEFENSE DURING ARBITRATION – QUESTION AS TO WHETHER COUNTERCLAIM TIME BARRED – Charterer Award
Four contracts were negotiated between two parties regarding the charter of floating cranes. Later, the owner brought an arbitration case in an attempt to recover detention. With its defense at the arbitration, the charterer counterclaimed for demurrage. The arbitration panel found that the charterer’s counterclaim was time-barred. The charterer appealed.
COA – CARGO CONFISCATED BY GOVERNMENT - WHETHER DEMURRAGE IS OWED BY CHARTERER – WHETHER CHARTERER ENTITLED TO LAYTIME – Owner Award
A COA was negotiated for eight shipments of nickel ore. During the second delivery, operations were stopped and the ship, inclusive of cargo loaded, was confiscated due to suspicions that the cargo was illegally mined. After release of the Vessel a couple months later and then the completion of the operation, a few months after the release, the owner claimed that the charterer was liable for demurrage and was not to receive allowed laytime given charterer had failed to load a cargo. The charter rejected this contention and the owner brought the case to arbitration.
TIME CHARTER – WHETHER CHARTERER CAN ORDER VESSEL TO CONDUCT ADDITIONAL VOYAGE AFTER FIRST VOYAGE – Charterer Award
A time charter was negotiated regarding a voyage that allowed for multiple load and discharge ports. During discharge at the final port, the charterer ordered the vessel to begin an additional voyage. The owner rejected the assertion that the charterer was within their rights under the charterparty to conduct additional operations. An arbitration panel ruled in favor of the charterer with the owner subsequently appealing to the High Court.
MASTER’S VS AGENT’S SOF - BURDEN OF PROOF - RAIN PERIODS - CRANE BREAKDOWNS - OFFICIAL HOLIDAYS NOT TO COUNT - Owner Award
The agent’s statement of facts (SOF) included periods of rain which were not included in the Master’s SOF. The burden of proof lay on the charterer to prove any laytime exception. Also at controversy is how to properly prorate time when the vessel was under utilizing her available hatches and cranes as well as which holidays to consider as non-working days.
