Category: U.S. Maritime Cases

Westport Petroleum, Inc. v. Andorra Services, Inc. (The “Aldana”) – SMA No. 3995, 27 Feb 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- TIME-BAR -- CHARTERPARTY CONSTRUCTION -- HEATING AND PURGING -- Owner Award Owners submitted a claim for additional heating and purging costs beyond the scope of the requirements in the charter party, but Charterers rejected the claim as time-barred. The Panel was called on to settle the dispute and explained how specific modifications to the charter party terms affected their ruling.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Ugland Dry Bulk AS v Westport Petroleum Inc. (The “Four Island”) – SMA No. 3997, 11 Apr 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- INTERPRETATION OF RELOAD CLAUSE -- FREIGHT ASSESSMENT -- NUMBER OF CARGO GRADES CARRIED -- Charterer Award During the discharge at Freeport, Charterers informed Owners that they planned on loading additional cargo after discharge operations completed. Owners commenced arbitration to recover this freight payment from Charterers. Charterers disagreed, claiming that they were within their rights to reload cargo at any discharge port within the scope of the charter party. This award describes how the Panel interpreted the special provisions clauses and applied them to the dispute.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Apex Bulk Carriers, LLC v. DS Norden AS (The “Denise”) – SMA No. 3976, 6 Sep 2007

NYPE -- SUBCHARTER -- SUBPOENAS -- REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS -- CONSOLIDATION OF DISPUTES -- Partial Owner Award The Vessel suffered severe damage allegedly caused by stevedore negligence, and Owners commenced arbitration to recover damages. Charterers contended that they had no first-hand knowledge of the incident, as the Vessel was under sub-charter at the time. Charterers subsequently requested arbitration against their sub-charterer and requested that the Panel consolidate all parties into one proceeding.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Maribus Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Bottiglieri Di Navigazione SpA (The “Lacerta”) – SMA No. 3983, 12 Oct 2007

TIME CHARTER -- LATE REDELIVERY -- REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION -- COMMON QUESTION OF LAW -- Partial Charterer Award While under a time charter, the Vessel was sub-chartered for a single voyage. During the single voyage, the time charter expired and the Vessel was delivered late. Owners attempted to consolidate their arbitration claim for damages against both the time charterer and the sub-charterer, citing SMA rules which allow for same when the dispute against all parties involves the same common question of law. The ruling explains why the Panel rejected Owners request for consolidation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd. v. Sunbulk Shipping NV (The “C. Duke”) – SMA No. 3990, 31 Dec 07

GENCON -- VESSEL ARRESTED WHILE AWAITING BERTH -- FORCE MAJEURE -- HURRICANE -- STORM -- WEATHER -- GROUNDING -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award Although the loading operations were uneventful, the discharge on the Mississippi River was delayed due to a recent hurricane (Katrina) as well as the threat of another hurricane (Rita). Charterers declared force majeure, and, in the event that the Panel did not agree, also argued that the demurrage claim should be reduced during an eight day period that the Vessel was under arrest. The award explains why the Panel upheld the Owners claim in full, despite the arrest and a grounding incident.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

PDVSA Petroleon y Gas SA v. Poseidon Schiffahrt GmbH (The “Pharos”) – SMA No. 3972, 6 Aug 07

ASBATANKVOY -- DELAY -- FAILURE TO PROSECUTE -- DISMISSAL -- Partial Owner Award The Charterer began arbitration to recover damages resulting from an Owner breach of contract and demanded for an immediate partial reward. However, the Charterer delayed to prosecute the manner beyond the claim’s submission and after eight years of delayed prosecution, the Owner moved to dismiss the case.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Team Tankers AS v. Apex Energy, LLC. (The “Team Jupiter” and “Loukas I”) – SMA No. 3973, 17 Aug 07

ASBATANKVOY -- SHORTLOADING -- WITHHELD FREIGHT -- TWO BOTTOMS -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award In compensation for damages (specifically shortloading, an address commission on freight issue, legal and administrative costs) incurred by the Owner, the Charterer made an unauthorized freight deduction from the contracted pay amount. In the partial award of SMA No. 3965, the sole arbitrator ruled that the withheld freight and the claim for damages would be addressed in two different rulings. The withheld freight was addressed in the aforesaid partial award and the remaining items are discussed herein.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Niki Maritime Enterprises SA v. Global Companies LLC. (The “Niki”) – SMA No. 3963, 1 Jun 07

ASBATANKVOY -- PUMP WARRANTY -- INTEREST ON UNDISPUTED DEMURRAGE -- ASDEM PUMPING PERFORMANCE EQUATION -- Charterer Award Because the Vessel did not meet the pump warranty at disport, the Charterer rejected any excess pumping time billed to them by the Owner. The Owner argued that the terminal was incapable of receiving the cargo at the contracted rate and therefore made a reduced claim for pumping time basis the ASDEM Pumping Performance equation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Team Tankers AS v. Apex Energy (The “Team Jupiter” and “Loukas I”) – SMA No. 3965, 5 Jun 07

ASBATANKVOY -- SHORTLOADING -- WITHHELD FREIGHT -- TWO BOTTOMS -- DAMAGES -- Partial Owner Award In light of Owner violations to the voyage charter by splitting the cargo onto two vessels,, the Charterer made an unauthorized deduction from Owner’s freight payment to compensate for damages incurred during voyage. At arbitration, the Owner believed that the withheld freight payment and the Charterer’s damages should be treated as separate issues.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Ibe Shipping Corp. v. Exmar NV – SMA No. 3966, 18 Jun 07

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- COA -- FAIRLY EVENLY SPREAD -- SPOT MARKET RATE -- CARGO NOMINATION REJECTED -- FAIRLY EVENLY SPREAD -- Charterer Award The Owner refused to nominate a vessel to lift the final COA cargo tonnage on the grounds that a third voyage in one month violated the contracted "fairly evenly spread" nomination requirement. The Charter subsequently had to load the remaining cargo at the substantially higher spot market rate and began arbitration to recover the resulting losses.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.