Category: U.S. Maritime Cases

Odfjell Seachem AS v. Clariant Corp. (The “Bow Favour”, “Bow Andino”, & “Bow Gorgonilla”) – SMA No. 3915, 21 Feb 2006

ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- FREIGHT -- ARBITRATION -- VOYAGE -- INTEREST ON FREIGHT AND DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award After outstanding demurrage and freight bills for three separate voyages, the Owner began arbitration to recover lost profits and interest. Although the Charterer did not participate in the proceedings, the sole arbitrator pointed out several issues with the Vessel's NOR at the loadport which could have been contested.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Japan Sun Oil Company v. Jo Tankers BV (The “JO Brevik”) – SMA No. 3919, 9 Apr 2006

BURDEN OF PROOF -- ARBITRATION -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- CARGO -- PORT -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- Owner Award Upon arriving at the discharge port, the Vessel’s cargo was discovered to be heavily contaminated with sea water. The Charterers subsequently began arbitration to recover expenses; however the Charterer’s claim must prove that cargo quality was intact before voyage and was contaminated after discharge.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Interchem 2000 Logistics BV v. Suffolk Tankers Co. Ltd. (The “Rachel B”) – SMA No. 3920, 12 Apr 2006

BURDEN OF PROOF -- SEAWORTHY -- BARGING COSTS -- STORAGE FEES -- THROUGHPUT CHARGES -- Partial Owner Award The Charterers sought arbitration for additional barging costs, storage fees, and throughput charges because of Owner's failure to provide a seaworthy vessel. Such charges, however, require the Charterers to support their claim with ample evidence.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Arcadia Petroleum Ltd. v. Sun International Ltd. (The “Madelaine”) – No. 05-1259. 3rd Circuit, 18 Aug 2006

ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME BAR -- Charterer Award A clause in this case’s Charter Party stated that all claims become void unless arbitration begins within one year post-voyage. But after reaching a subsequent demurrage agreement with the Charterer within the specified timeframe, the Owners began arbitration several years later stating that this informal agreement constituted a recognizable second contract.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Interchem 2000 Logistics BV v. Suffolk Tankers Co., Ltd. (The “Rachel B”) – SMA No. 3889, 11 Jul 2005

ASBATANKVOY -- VESSEL -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER PARTY -- LOADPORT -- CANCELLATION DUE LATE ARRIVAL – MARKET LOSS -- Owner Award After engine problems delayed the original Vessel from arriving at loadport, the Charterers cancelled the Charter Party with the Owners and chartered another vessel to take its place. At arbitration, the Charterers held the Owners in full responsibility for failing to provide a timely vessel and demanded compensation for resulting market loss.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Greenfleet Chartering BV v. Bunge Global Markets, Inc. (The “Express Patriot”) – SMA No. 3899, 28 Oct 2005

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- PORT -- LAYTIME -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- NOR VALIDITY -- Owner Award After arriving at port and once approved for loading, the Vessel tendered NOR, but waited fourteen days before berthing. However, before load operations could commence, onboard hydraulic problems delayed cargo loading further and gave the Charterers fodder to claim that the NOR tender was premature. The Charterers argued that if the Vessel was not ready to load in all respects, then laytime cannot commence.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Stena Bulk AB v. Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. (The “Goldmar”) – SMA No. 3902, 22 Nov 2005

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- BERTH -- DETENTION -- DEMURRAGE -- INDEMNITY -- CONSOLIDATION OF POTENTIAL CLAIMS INVOLVING MULTIPLE PARTIES -- Partial Charterer Award A collapsed breasting fender at loadport caused an eleven day berthing delay for the Vessel, subsequently allowing the Owner to file for a demurrage claim. The Charterers counterclaimed that the fender collapse was caused by the Vessel and demanded indemnity for demurrage on four other vessels and indemnity for a potential damages claim from the dock owner.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group BV v. Edible Oil Trading Corp. and/or Mineral Gida Dis Ticaret and Lio Oil Industry Inc. and/or Lio Yag Sanayi Ve Tocaret AS (The “Vanni D”) – SMA No. 3903, 25 Nov 2005

VEGOILVOY -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER -- LOADPORT -- CHARTER PARTY -- CARGO -- VOYAGE -- DEADFREIGHT -- PAYMENT AND CALCULATION OF DEADFREIGHT -- Owner Award The Owners brought arbitration against three separate Charterers in order to collect lost profits from an improper cancellation. Six days before arriving at loadport, the Owner received a message asking Him/Her to cancel the Charter Party because the cargo was unavailable. However, because voyage was underway and there was no locatable substitute cargo, the Vessel arrived, tendered NOR, and sailed with deadfreight.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Odfjell Seachem AS v. Cedar Petrochemicals Inc. (The “Bow Saturn”) – SMA No. 3880, 20 Apr 2005

ASBATANKVOY -- BARGE -- LOADPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- TERMINAL -- ARBITRATION -- ACT OF GOD -- DETENTION -- MITIGATE -- LATE CARGO -- BERTHING DELAY -- Owner Award After an initial barge loading failure at the original loadport, the Owner mitigated the Charterer’s demurrage and fixed the new loadport as the Owner’s terminal. The Vessel tendered NOR at the terminal, but was forced to wait three days for the Charterer’s barges to arrive because of rough seas and lock delays. The subsequent demurrage claim for the three day delay was refuted in arbitration by the Charterers on the grounds that the weather and lock detentions were out of their control, and therefore exempt from demurrage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Stolt Tankers Inc. v. InterChem 2000 Logistics BV (The “Stolt Confidence”) – SMA No. 3884, 15 May 2005

ASBATANKVOY -- LAYTIME -- CARGO -- CHARTER PARTY -- STOWAGE -- LAYCAN -- DEADFREIGHT -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- Owner Award During laytime, and after the Charterer’s cargo was partially loaded, the Charterer altered the agreed amount of cargo as specified by the Charter Party, thereby incurring stowage delays and confusion in the loading plan. After these delays extended loadtime past laycan, the Charterer cancelled the voyage and refused responsibility for the resulting deadfreight claiming that the delays resulted from the Vessel’s unreadiness to load.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.