Category: English Maritime Cases
GENCON - BERTH OR PORT CHARTER PARTY- VALIDITY OF NOTICE OF READINESS- DETENTION- INDEMNITY
When owner’s vessel was due to be late, a replacement vessel was provided by owner and agreed to by charterer. The panel was tasked with determining whether the replacement vessel was just that or whether a new fixture had been agreed to, whether this new fixture was a port charter or a berth charter, and when the vessel was considered to be an arrived ship. Additionally, claims for detention and indemnity were addressed.
CHARTER PARTY – BPVOY3 – LOAD PORT CHANGED EN-ROUTE – VESSEL TO ARRIVE ONE DAY AFTER LAYCAN – CHARTERER CANCELS CHARTER PARTY – VALIDITY OF CANCELLATION – Owner award
This is charterer’s appeal of an arbitration. The vessel was en-route to the nominated load port when the charterer nominated a different port for loading. Owner then advised the charterer that the vessel would arrive one day after the laycan and the charterer subsequently cancelled the charter party.
SHELLVOY 5 – PUMP WARRANTY – PERFORMANCE OR CAPABILITY – PUNITIVE - DEMURRAGE – Owner award
This dispute revolved around whether the pump warranty was breached during the discharge of crude oil. The owner submitted its demurrage claim with the belief that the pump warranty had been met. Charterer however contended that the vessel had not met its requirements and thus excess pump time should be deducted from time counting.
ELECTRONIC RELEASE SYSTEM (ERS) - CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA (COGSA) - CONTAINERIZED GOODS - BILLS OF LADING - LOCAL AGENTS - Shipper Award
An electronic release system was implemented at the MSC terminal in Antwerp, Belgium with intention to streamline processes and remove paper release notes. An electronic PIN would be provided for each container once a bill of lading was presented in order to take delivery of cargo at the terminal. However when two of the shipper’s containers were misappropriated, the parties disputed whether the carrier had met their requirement of submitting a valid “delivery order” upon receipt of the bill of lading.
GENCON 76 - DUNNAGE: OWNER’S OR CHARTERER’S RESPONSIBILITY - NOTICE OF READINESS - COMMENCEMENT OF LAYTIME - DEMURRAGE - DETENTION - Charterer award
A cargo of steel H-beams were to be loaded on top of a previously loaded part cargo of rebar. Charterer and Owner could not agree as to which party should be responsible for costs and time associated with building a false deck, whether the vessel’s NOR was valid, and thus when laytime commenced counting.
REPUDIATED VOYAGE CHARTER - SMITH v M’GUIRE - THE COMPENSATORY PRINCIPLE - Owner award
When the charterer wrongfully repudiated a voyage charter, an arbitration panel awarded owner damages basis the vessel’s actual earnings versus hypothetical earnings up to the conclusion of the mitigating employment despite the mitigating employment ending well after when the repudiated voyage charter would have concluded. In doing so, the arbitrators awarded owner for its losses suffered whilst returning to an area of more profitable employment. The charterer appealed.
DISPONENT OWNER CLAIMING DAMAGES FROM SHIPPER - IDENTIFICATION OF CARRIER UNDER COGEN FORM BILL OF LADING - DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL- IMPLIED CONTRACTS
After loading a bulk cargo shipper ran into difficulties with its sales contract which the FOB buyer / charterer ultimately repudiated. At the request of the shipper the vessel was detained and waited at the load port until she eventually discharged the cargo on instruction from a local court. The disponent owner claimed damages from the shipper stating that under the bill of lading the disponent owner was the carrier. The shipper, i.e. seller under FOB terms, denied the basis of owner’s claims with the implication being that the shipper’s contract was not with the disponent owner and thus no arbitration clause existed between the disponent owner and shipper.
LOAN AGREEMENT – WITHOUT PREJUDICE RULE – CORRESPONDENCE – DOES RULE APPLY – Claimant award
When a Claimant requested correspondences to be admissible in evidence, Defendant objected given they were headed “Without Prejudice and Subject to Contract” and thus privileged.
SALES CONTRACT – CRUDE OIL – EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE – FULL TRADING NAME NOT LISTED IN CORRESPONDENCE - IS CONTRACT BINDING – Claimant Award
When buyer’s buyer rejected 630K bbls of crude oil as it was blended rather than being from a sole well, buyer maintained no binding contract existed between seller and buyer. Seller subsequently pressed for damages under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Sections 50(2) and (3) basis buyer’s unlawful repudiation. In addition to maintaining no binding contract existed, buyer in turn rejected the claim for damages under the auspices of Clause 32.1 of BP 2007 GT&Cs for CFR Sales.
ESTABLISHING MARKET VALUE - TORT OF CONVERSION - DAMAGES - SUPPLY CHAIN - Buyer Award
While the Vessel was en route to the discharge port, the Vessel was withdrawn from the Contract Carriers’ service when they defaulted on hire and the cargo of river sand onboard was sold to mitigate the Owners’ losses. However, the Buyer argued that this constituted a tort of conversion and filed for damages against the Contract Carriers and the Owners basis an alleged market price of the sand.
