Category: English Maritime Cases

Waterfront Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Trafigura AG (The “Sabrewing”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 31 Oct 07

BPVOY3 -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME-BAR -- REQUIRED DOCUMENTS -- PUMP LOG NOT PROVIDED BY OWNER -- Charterer Award The Owner filed a claim for demurrage before the 90-day time-bar, however they did not supply the supporting pump log before the time-bar date. The Owners argue that they only needed to provide the necessary documents supporting their claimed amount and that their claim was not dependent upon the pump logs. Furthermore, they have evidence that the Charterer had received the pump logs from an alternative source before the time-bar.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 9/07

SHELLTIME 3 -- TIME CHARTER -- SPEED WARRANTY -- CONSUMPTION WARRANTY -- PERFORMANCE -- TIME-BAR -- Partial Charterer Award This arbitration award resolves three separate disputes which center upon the speed and consumption warranties provided within the time-charter contract. Without receiving substantiating performance reviews, the Charterer withheld varying freight amounts from voyages basis estimated values. The Owner, however, argued that they should be reimbursed for disputed claims raised by them before time-bar, for voyage over-performance, and because of unrepresentative assessment of vessel performance during short voyages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 10/07

WHETHER REPAIR WORK CARRIED OUT AT ANCHORAGE CONSTITUTES OFF HIRE -- LIGHTERAGE COSTS INCURRED WHEN MASTER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH LOAD DRAFT INSTRUCTIONS -- DELAY INCURRED BY FAILURE TO PAY DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT -- Owner Award The Charterer began arbitration proceedings to recover losses from four issues that arose under a time charter contract; three are recapped. At arbitration, the Charterer argues that the repair work undertaken at anchorage constitutes an off-hire, that the lighterage charges resulting from an incorrect sailing draft should be due Owner, and that the detention time at disport was avoidable and faulted by the Owner.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 12/07

GENCON -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- BILL OF LADING -- LOADPORT -- STATEMENT OF FACTS -- LETTER OF INDEMNITY -- Owner Award After loading a clearly contaminated cargo, the Charterer and Owner disputed over whether the contamination should be mentioned in the Bill of Lading, which resulted in vessel delays at loadport. The Charterer believed that the contamination could be logged in the statement of facts and withheld the Letter of Indemnity until a clean B/L was issued. The Owner therefore blamed the delay on the Charterer.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

AIC Ltd. v. Marine Pilot Ltd. (The “Archimidis”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 17 May 07

ASBATANKVOY -- SHORTLOADED -- DRAFT -- BAD WEATHER -- SILTING -- DEADFREIGHT -- SAFE PORT WARRANTY -- Partial Owner Award At loadport, the Vessel could only safely load to a less-than-contracted draft level due to bad weather conditions and excess silting. The Owner demanded that the Charterer pay deadfreight for the voyage due to negligence in declaring a safe vessel berth. The Charterer, however, believed that it was the Owner’s responsibility to validate the port’s safety and that the contractual term "safe port" was not a warranty but a mutual agreement that the port was safe.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Lia Oil SA v. ERG Petroil SpA (The “Liano”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 13 Mar 2007

FRAME CONTRACT -- VOYAGE -- TIME-BAR --CARGO CONTAMINATION -- LIMITATIONS ACT 1980 -- Seller Award This arbitration began as a result of two disputed "frame contract" voyages between the same Buyer and Seller. The first dispute centered around a potential time-bar exception under the Limitations Act 1980 to the Buyer’s presented claim. The second dispute concerned contaminated cargo onboard the Vessel, the resulting demurrage at disport and the liability of such contamination and delays.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Stelios B Maritime Ltd. v. Ibeto Cement Co. (The “Stelios B”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 24 Mar 2006

GENCON -- IMPORT -- CARGO -- POSSESSORY LIEN -- DETENTION AT DISPORT -- ARBITRATION ACT 1996 -- PROPER CHARTER PARTY CANCELLATION -- Owner Award Because the Receivers recently had their import license revoked, the Vessel was unable to discharge cargo at the nominated disport. The Owners responded by exercising their possessory lien on the cargo and ordered the Vessel to remain outside of port while concurrently accruing demurrage. The Owners began arbitration with the threat of charter party cancellation if the cargo was not received commercially acceptable time.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Golden Strait Corp. v. Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The “Golden Victory”) – QBD(Comm. Ct.), 15 Feb 2005

TIME CHARTER -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- WAR OUTBREAK -- COMPENSATION FOR MARKET LOSS -- Charterer Award The Owners began arbitration when the Time-Charterers returned the Vessel in 2001, several years before the conclusion of their time charter period without reimbursement for the remainder of the charter. The Owners argued that the Time-Charterers were liable for the outstanding payment and demanded compensation. Conversely, the Time-Charterers cited a wartime exception clause which made them indebted only up to the Second Gulf War in 2003.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 7/07

FROZEN BALLAST -- PROOF OF PUBLIC HOLIDAY -- SUBSTANTIVE PROOF -- Charterer Award Two separate demurrage issues arose over the course of the voyage. At loadport, the Vessel appeared to be fully loaded when, in fact, there was frozen ballast water remaining on board. The Charterers argued that the time spent waiting for the ice to thaw and loading recommencement should not count as used laytime. A second arbitration issue concerned the Charterers’ belief that December 27 was a national holiday (and a laytime exception) at disport.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 13/06

ASBATANKVOY -- CLINGAGE -- SHORTAGE -- BILL OF LANDING -- SHORT OUTTURN OF GASOIL -- RIGHT TO DEDUCT FREIGHT -- INDEPENDENT SURVEYOR -- Owner Award This dispute arose from the Vessel having 1.06% less cargo at the discharge port than what was specified in the Bill of Lading. Referencing the "Cargo clingage" clause in the contract, the Charterers argued that any short cargo in excess of 0.5% shall be deducted from freight, which they proactively did. However, the Owners counterclaimed that this clause deals only with cargo clingage and that the Vessel survey report did not mention any such clingage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.