Category: English Maritime Cases
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.
BPVOY3 – FREIGHT RATE CALCULATION DISAGREEMENT – WHETHER RATE IS TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON COMPLETE VOYAGE – Owner Award
A charterparty was negotiated for a voyage from a predetermined load port to one or two discharge ports with an addendum regarding the freight rate calculation. A disagreement ensued over the wording of addendum to how freight should be calculated; namely, whether the rate should be determined by taking into account the voyage in its entirety.
TIME CHARTER - CHARTERER’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE OR REFUND BUNKERS UPON REDELIVERY - WHETHER OWNER OBLIGATED TO MITIGATE LOSS - Owner Award
A vessel was time chartered with the provision that Charterer would supply bunkers before redelivery. When Charterer was unable to pay for bunkers upon redelivery and further failed to reimburse Owner for when Owner arranged and paid for the bunkers, Owner commenced arbitration. In turn, Charterer claimed Owner failed to mitigate losses when Owner allegedly wasted 2 days arranging the bunkers.
FOB SALE - VALIDITY OF SUBSTITUTE VESSEL’S NOMINATION - PRE-ADVICE AND NOMINATION PROVISIONS - WHETHER BUYER IN REPUDIATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT - Seller Award
Buyer nominated a substitute vessel one day before the original vessel was to arrive and load her cargo. Seller rejected both vessel nominations and cancelled the contract basis Buyer’s repudiatory breach of the provisions laid out in the contract. A GAFTA tribunal ruled one way, a board in another, whilst in this instance the the High Court supported the GAFTA tribunal.
CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT - CHARTERER’S FAILURE TO NOMINATE CARGOES - OWNER A DISPONENT OWNER - ASSESSMENT OF OWNER’S LOSS - Owner Award
A three year contract of affreightment was fixed to ship bulk commodities between 2009-2011. The global financial crisis caused Charterer to breach the COA by not nominating cargoes. Arbitrators would find that Owner had suffered no loss due to their utilization of third party companies to receive inward freight from the COA as well as pay outward freight to head owner. This decision was appealed by Owner with the intention being to prove Owner’s entitlement to $3 million in lost freight due to charterer’s breach.
On 28 June 2017 the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeal and reinstated the Comm. Court’s ruling. I.e. After repudiating the charter party, charterer is not entitled to a credit for the difference in diminished value between when the vessel was sold in 2007 versus had it been sold in 2009 when it was to have been redelivered. NYPE – TIME CHARTER – ANTICIPATORY BREACH – EARLY REDELIVERY – WHETHER A MARKET AVAILABLE IN WHICH TO MITIGATE LOSS – CAUSATION – Charterer Award While under a time charter the vessel was redelivered two years early. An arbitrator found in favor of...
