Category: English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 14/06

SHELLVOY 5 -- DISCOLORATION -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- VESSEL -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE WITHOUT SECURITY -- DEMURRAGE LIABILITY -- Owner Award When the Vessel arrived at the discharge port, the Charterer refused to accept apparently contaminated cargo without the Owner’s security. In the initial contract, the Owner would be liable for the cargo if it became contaminated because of any breakdowns, but the Owner argued that the Charterer had no proof of any condition change in the cargo during voyage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Independent Petroleum Group Ltd. v. Seacarriers Count Pte. Ltd. (The “Count”) – Comm. Ct. EWHC 3222, 12 Dec 2006

ASBATANKVOY -- HARBOR -- GROUNDING -- PORT -- SAFE PORT WARRANTY -- CHANNEL BLOCKAGE -- PREVAILING CONDITIONS DO NOT AMOUNT TO A TEMPORARY HAZARD -- Owner Award Upon tendering NOR, the Vessel’s arrival to and departure from port was impeded by two separate occurrences of other vessels grounding in the channel. The issue at arbitration became whether the Charterers were accountable for damages from delays because of their failure in nominating a safe port or if the grounding of the other vessels truly influenced the safety of the designated berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 1/07

ARBITRATION -- BUNKERS -- CONSUMPTION -- CHARTER -- PERFORMANCE WARRANTY CLAUSE -- Owner Award In this time-charter contract, the Vessel had under-consumed its allotted bunkers because of slow steaming. The difference in the allotted and actual consumption would be paid to the Owners; however, due to vague language in the charter, the amount of under-consumption was under dispute in arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 10/06

ASBATANKVOY -- LPG CARGO -- VALIDITY OF LOAD NOR WHEN POSSIBLE CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN VESSEL’S TANKS -- NIGHTTIME TRANSIT RESTRICTION -- DELAY FINDING SOLUTION FOR CONTAMINANTS IN TANKS -- DOCUMENTS ONBOARD -- UNSAFE BERTH -- SHIFT COSTS -- ROB -- Partial Owner Award The arbitration following the Vessel’s voyage encompassed several key demurrage arguments. Disagreements centered on the validity of the Vessel’s NOR (tendered after a pre-inspection revealed contaminants in three tanks), the responsibility of the Charterer in supplying a safe berth "reachable on [the Vessel’s] arrival," shifting delays, and ROB compensation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 12/06

ASBATANKVOY -- VALIDITY OF NOR TENDERED EOSP -- RECEIPT OF NOR -- VESSEL RESTRICTED LOADING -- LOW DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE AND EFFECT ON DISCHARGE RATE -- LINING UP -- REDUCED INTEREST -- Owner Award This dispute arises out of the finer aspects of proper NOR declaration. In this case, the Vessel tendered NOR upon arriving at the disport’s entry buoy, which the Charterers refute as "customary anchorage." If this is not considered “customary anchorage,” then the Vessel’s NOR cannot represent a valid laytime beginning.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 3/06

VOYAGE CHARTER PARTY -- DEADFREIGHT -- DRAFT RESTRICTIONS -- DISCHARGE PORT -- CHARTER PARTY -- QUANTITY IN OWNER’S OPTION -- Charterer Award In order to meet draft restrictions at disport, the Charterers loaded less than the maximum capacity allowable by the Vessel. In response to the subsequent deadfreight due to the Charterers’ port selection, the Owner started arbitration referencing that the Charterers violated the "always accessible" port clause in their charter and demanded that the deadfreight be compensated.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 4/06

SYNACOMEX -- DEADFREIGHT -- CHARTER PARTY -- CARGO -- DOCK -- BUNKER -- PORT -- SHIFT TIME -- SHORTLOAD -- SHIFT TIME -- ONCE ON DEMURRAGE ALWAYS ON DEMURRAGE -- DETENTION -- Partial Charterer Award In this case, the Charterers failed to provide the contracted amount of cargo and agreed to pay the deadfreight rate stipulated in the Charter Party. However, the Charterers argued that the benefits of deadfreight, such as dock savings, bunker savings, and savings on port charges, should offset the net deadfreight cost billed to them.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 5/06

FIXTURE RECAP -- CHARTER PARTY -- TIME CHARTER RECAP "A.D.A. WOG" -- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION WARRANTY -- Owner Award The central conflict of this case is the language and intention of "A.D.A. WOG" (“All Details About Without Guarantee”) in the context of contracts. In this case, the Charterer claimed that the acronym only applies to the recaps containing “about” in their description. The Owner, on the other hand, argues that because - in this instance - it concludes the speed and consumption recap, it applies to all preceding statements.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 6/06

POSSESSORY LIEN -- ARBITRATION -- DISPORT -- BERTH -- TIME CHARTER TRIP -- DEVIATION -- OFF-HIRE DEDUCTION -- CARGO LIEN -- Owner Award En route to disport, the Charterers deducted an off-hire deviation from the Owner without consent. Subsequently, the Owner exercised his right of a possessory lien by refusing to berth at the discharge port until properly reimbursed. At arbitration, the two major issues were if the Owner had acted in the right by refusing discharge and if the initial deduction by the Charterers was properly submitted.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Tidebrook Maritime Corp. v. Vitol SA of Geneva (The “Front Commander”) – Court of Appeal [2006] EWCA Civ 944, 05 July 2006

ASBATANKVOY -- LAYCAN -- LAYTIME -- NOR -- APPEAL -- LOADING PRIOR TO LAYCAN -- Partial Owner Award This is the appellate award for Tidebrook v. Vitol. Upon acknowledging that the Vessel would arrive before laycan, the Charterer sent several messages to the Vessel requesting that she tender NOR upon arrival with the intent of commencing loading prior to laycan; which she did. The Owner argued that this signified the commencement of laytime due to Charterer-given consent; however, the Charterer contends that they merely requested an early NOR.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.