Category: English Maritime Cases
TIME CHARTER - CHARTER PROVIDING FOR LAYCAN TO BE BACK-TO-BACK WITH SHIPBUILDING CONTRACT - WHETHER CHARTERER FULFILLED OBLIGATIONS TO OWNER WHEN CANCELLING CHARTER - Charterer Award
Charterer cancelled the time charter under the interpretation that its right to cancel was “back-to-back” with owner’s shipbuilding contract. Owner disagreed that “back-to back” referred to its right to cancel in the shipbuilding contract leaving owner to claim a repudiatory breach of contract. Charterer in turn sought a declaration that it was entitled to cancel while owner counterclaimed for damages.
GENCON 94 – CHARTERER PAYS BUNKERS AND DISCHARGE PORT DISBURSEMENTS TO COMMENCE VOYAGE AFTER DISPONENT OWNER REFUSES TO PAY HEAD OWNER – CHARTERER CLAIMED DAMAGES FROM DISPONENT OWNER – Charterer Award
The head owner of the vessel asked the disponent owner to render payment for bunkers and discharge port disbursements before the commencement of the voyage. After the disponent owner did not comply, the charterer made payment in order to avoid further delay. The charterer then claimed damages against the disponent owner after the completion of the voyage.
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.
