Category: English Maritime Cases
TIME CHARTER – OFF-HIRE – WHETHER ANCHOR FOULED – VESSEL SEAWORTHINESS – DELAY TO BERTH
After receiving the berthing orders from Charterer, the time-chartered Vessel was unable to raise its anchor and proceed to berth for a limited period of time. Charterers then claimed that during this delay to berth that the Vessel was off hire. Owner claimed against Charterer for the unpaid hire/ damages, whilst Charterers denied liability and submitted a counterclaim against the Owner.
FIXTURE RECAP TERMS – AMENDED CLEAN GENCON 1994 CHARTERPARTY – MAIN AGREED TERMS – ARBITRATOR’S JURISDICTION – ARBITRATION PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES
When disputes arose between the Owner and Charterer, Owners then appointed an arbitrator. Charterers in turn challenged the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, claiming that no agreed arbitration provision was included within the charterparty.
GENERAL AVERAGE – VESSEL GROUNDING ON UNCHARTED SHOAL – VESSEL SEAWORTHINESS – OWNERS OBLIGATION TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE – VESSELS DEFECTIVE PASSAGE PLAN – OWNERS APPEAL – Charterer Award
In an appeal over the cargo interests being found not liable to contribute to the general average after the Vessel was grounded, the Court of Appeal was called on to determine if the Vessel’s passage plan rendered the Vessel unseaworthy.
NYPE - TIME CHARTER - HIRE - ANTI-TECHNICALITY NOTICE (ATN) - BIMCO NON-PAYMENT OF HIRE CLAUSE - REPUDIATORY BREACH
The charterer and the owner of a vessel got into a dispute over the alleged overconsumption of fuel. The appeal of the owner was later dismissed.
DEMURRAGE – LAYTIME – NOTICE OF READINESS – LACK OF ANCHORS – RIVER NAVIGATION – WHETHER NOTICE OF READINESS IS VALID – ESCORTING TUGS – DELAY TO BERTH
After previously losing one of it’s anchors in a storm, the pilot refused to navigate the vessel up river unless the Owner also hired an escort tug. This option was refused by Owners, ultimately delaying the vessel to the discharge berth.
Charterer time barred Owner’s claim for demurrage when it failed to include documents required within the time bar clause. Owner contested Charterer’s position as the documents in question had been received by Charterer prior to receipt of the demurrage claim.
Upon arrival at the disport, cargo damage was discovered which delayed discharge. Charterers argued they are not liable for the delays or damage to the cargo on the account of owners failing to properly care for the cargo or choose the “usual and reasonable route”. The key issues addressed for a decision were: choice of route, vessel speed/reasonable despatch, ventilation, re-infestation, quarantine, and delays in discharging.
Sub-Charterer cancelled the Sub-Charter on the grounds that although the NOR was tendered prior to the end of the cancellation date, the NOR was not tendered within the permitted hours denoted in the Sub-Charter. The charterer subsequently cancelled the Head Charter basis the same grounds.
Owner claimed damages against the charterers for detention for the extensive delay leaving berth due to a damaged bridge and lock. Owners’ supported their argument by claiming charterers were in breach of the “always accessible” warranty found in the charterparty. The question for decision was if the warranty was to include both the arrival and departure to berth.
The “Ocean Prefect” ran aground upon entering the port of Umm Al Quwain. Owner claimed that the Charterer breached the safe port warranty and commenced arbitration proceedings. The question that arose is whether the MAIB report is admissible in the arbitration as evidence.
