Category: English Maritime Cases
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.
OFF-HIRE – RIGHT TO EQUITABLE SET-OFF – WHETHER DEDUCTION WAS MADE FOR OFF-HIRE OR HIRE WAS SUSPENDED Owner made several claims against Charterer for deductions made to balance of hire. Charterer issued counterclaims and sought to use right to equitable set-off. Further, Charterer asserted that hire was suspended rather than deducted as off-hire. Upon completion of a time charter voyage on an amended NYPE form Owner claimed for a balance of $237,719.07, and initiated arbitration proceedings. Following this claim Owner made two applications for arbitration. The first was for the immediate award of $80,925.74 amounting from a hire statement drawn...
DEMURRAGE – DESPATCH – WHETHER NOTICE OF READINESS TRIGGERED WHEN SIGNED BY OWNER’S AGENT – LAYTIME – LOADPORT ANALYSIS REPORTS – SALES CONTRACT Following a delay in discharging cargo, the Seller claimed demurrage from the Buyer. The Buyer contended that laytime commenced at a later date, since the Seller had failed to provide loadport analysis reports as provided in the sales contract and a requirement to the tender of notice of readiness. Further, the notice of readiness provided by the Seller was sent to X, the notify party, who the Seller believed was an agent of the Buyer. The Buyer...
DEMURRAGE – LAYTIME – NOTICE OF READINESS – WHETHER NOR WAS VALID – WEATHER WORKING DAYS – BAD WEATHER – FORCE MAJEURE Charterer excepted laytime from counting for several issues arising at the loading and discharge ports. The issues being whether the first notice of readiness was valid, whether a storm warning constituted bad weather, whether the force majeure provision was applicable, and whether bad weather prevented discharge. This arbitration followed the determination from London Arbitration 11/19, which found that the Charterer would not be allowed to serve counterclaims and defense submissions against Owner. Owner claimed demurrage amounting to $174,025.77...
