Category: English Maritime Cases

SPEED AND CONSUMPTION CLAIM – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANIES’ METHODOLOGIES – VERACITY OF DECK LOG DATA – DEADFREIGHT – SURVEY COSTS AND BANK CHARGES – HONG KONG SEAT

A single-deck geared bulk carrier was chartered to transport nickel ore from the Philippines to China. Owners alleged wrongful deductions by the charterers for underperformance, deadfreight, survey costs, and bank charges and sought US$54,675.21. The arbitration centered on speed and consumption clauses and weather routing methodologies.

BUNKERS ON REDELIVERY – MEANING OF “PRICE AT BOTH ENDS” – EXCEEDING 5 PERCENT ALLOWANCE – OFF-HIRE DUE TO CREW CHANGE – WRONGFUL DEDUCTION REPAID LATE – INTEREST

Owners of a vessel chartered on an amended NYPE 1946 form sought compensation for market rate differences on bunkers at redelivery. The arbitration also dealt with crew changes, off-hire, and time spent on sub-chartering.

DEMURRAGE – BPVOY4 – CLAUSE 13 INDEMNITY – VESSEL FREE OF LEGAL ISSUES – CARGO ON VESSEL ARRESTED – DELAY TO LOAD AT SECOND LOADPORT – INCREASE IN PURCHASING COSTS DUE TO DELAY – INDEMNITY AND WARRANTY CLAUSES – ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY BY OWNERS – CAN CHARTERERS’ “GAINS” FROM INTERNAL HEDGING ARRANGEMENTS BE USED TO OFFSET OWNERS’ BREACH OF CHARTER CLAIM – REMOTENESS OF LOSS RULES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

Disponent Owners chartered the tanker “Dijilah” from West Africa to China, then faced legal issues over sanction compliance by the commercial operator/owner. Property seizure by financiers caused delays, leading Charterers to pay an extra USD 3.7 million for cargo, but they gained USD 2.9 million internally. Disputes ensued as Owners claimed demurrage charges, countered by Charterers citing losses from the delay.

BREACH OF CHARTERPARTY – DISCHARGING CARGO WITH A LIEN – VIOLATION OF CHARTERER’S ORDERS FOR DISCHARGING CARGO
In London Arbitration 4/23, a dispute arose between charterers and owners regarding cargo discharge instructions leading to this counterclaim. The charterers asserted that they instructed the owners not to unload cargo, for they were exercising a lien on the cargo to recover $3,705,033 owed by sub-charterers. Owners proceeded to unload the cargo, which charterers claimed invalidated the lien. Charterers claimed a breach of the charter and sought damages equal to the lien amount.

TIME BAR – DEMURRAGE – MISDELIVERY OF CARGO – HAGUE-VISBY RULES – CONGENBILL FORM – BILLS OF LADING – FINANCING OF CARGO
FIMBank appealed a decision regarding the misdelivery of cargo, revolving around the application of the Hague-Visby Rules and the time bar provision. The Court of Appeal analyzed the evolution of the Hague-Visby rule’s wording and its implications. The court also examined the potential of an implied term within the bills of lading.

BREACH OF CONTRACT – NOT RE-BERTHING VESSEL TO LOAD CARGO – INDEMNITY FOR LOSSES INCURRED EARLIER – CHAIN OF CONTRACTS – REMOTENESS – ERROR OF LAW – ARBITRATION ACT 1996, SECTION 69
In May 2012, Mitsui agreed to sell 60,000 metric tons of Brazilian soybeans to DGO. The cargo was to be delivered to the Santos port by July 31, 2012, with payment through a letter of credit. While loading, the vessel broke its moorings, caused damage to the port equipment, and was detained with the remaining cargo onboard. DGO claimed contract termination, which Mitsui initially contested but later accepted in January 2013. A complex chain of sales and purchases was involved, leading to arbitration. The FOSFA Board of Appeal found DGO breached the contract by not re-berthing a vessel, awarding damages of US$7,007,430 to Mitsui. However, Mitsui’s claims for indemnity and losses suffered in the sales chain were rejected due to perceived remoteness. Mitsui appealed, alleging errors in the law regarding remoteness and citing Clause 29 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

APPEAL – UNDERWATER CLEANING “ALWAYS AT CHARTERERS’ TIME AND EXPENSE” – ON-HIRE RATES FOR CLEANING AFTER EXPIRY OF CHARTERPARTY – HULL FOULING – NYPE FORM – SECTION 69 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996
Langlois (Owners) chartered the vessel, MV Globe Danae, to Smart Gain (Charterers) for a trip from India to Brazil carrying metallurgical coke. The dispute arose from clause (86) in the charterparty regarding hull fouling. Langlois claimed compensation for time spent on cleaning, based on clause 86, while Smart Gain argued cleaning obligations ceased upon redelivery. This was an appeal of a partial arbitration award from October 2022.