Category: U.S. Maritime Cases
ASBATANKVOY -- BERTH -- LOADPORT -- ROB -- LSWR -- DEMURRAGE -- TANK -- Split Award
Because the Vessel berthed at loadport with over 2000 bbls of residual LSWR (previous cargo), the Charterer refused Vessel loading and ordered extensive tank cleaning. The Owners submitted demurrage for the cleaning delay because they argue that the tanks met the contracted cleaning stipulations, while the Charterers counterclaim for the cleaning costs maintaining that the excessive residue rendered the Vessel unready to load.
ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- SAMPLE -- LOADPORT -- TERMINAL -- Owner Award
When the Vessel arrived at disport, the discharged cargo was found to be contaminated upon sampling. The Charterer subsequently claimed damages in light of the loadport samples being uncontaminated. However, the Owners refuted the loadport samples’ accuracy and argued that they were taken forty-nine days prior to loading and only from one of the two terminal tanks.
SHELLTIME 3 -- ARBITRATION -- BUNKER -- TIME CHARTER -- TIME-BAR -- RECAP -- Partial Owner Award
The primary dispute at arbitration was the proper assessment of bunker consumption and speed allowances in a time charter contract. Because the Vessel exceeded these recap minimums, the Owner demanded reimbursement. However, the Charterer argued that the claim was time-barred, but in response submitted a counterclaim for pumping deficiencies.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DEADFREIGHT -- BROKER -- CHARTER PARTY -- VOYAGE -- CARGO -- Owner Award
When the Charterer cancelled the contract and refused to supply cargo on both the original and mitigated voyages, the Owner began arbitration in order to recover the resulting deadfreight damages. The Charterer blames the broker in constructing a contract outside of the Charterer’s instructions which absolves the Charterer from a binding agreement to supply cargo.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- INVOICE -- PRIMA FACIE -- Owner Award
The Owners began arbitration to recover an outstanding demurrage claim after hearing no Charterer-reply to their invoices. The Owners based their claim as prima facie.
SHELLTIME 3 -- DISPORT -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- HOSE -- PURGING -- MANIFOLD -- Charterer Award / Owner Award
At disport, the Vessel’s cargo was degraded because of contaminant residue in the Vessel’s portable hose. Although the Owner’s hose is the apparent source of the impurities, the Owner denies responsibility on the grounds that the contamination occurred after the cargo had left the Vessel’s manifold.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- PUMP WARRANTY -- CANAL -- Charterer Award
This arbitration dispute hinges on an Owner’s claim for pumping demurrage and detention from canal blockage by another vessel. In their defense, the Charterers claim that the Owner violated the contracted pump warranty and have no grounds for demurrage while also stating that the Owner should have been aware of possible delays in the Chelsea Street Bridge Safety Zone.
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- ROB -- TANK -- ARBITRATION -- WITHHELD FREIGHT -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- Charterer Award
After discharging, there was over 5000 bbls of unpumpable cargo remaining in Vessel tanks. The Owners began arbitration for withheld freight costs on the grounds that the Charterers told the Vessel to keep cargo as cool as possible, which inadvertently rendered it unpumpable. The Owners further claim that the burden to prove that the ROB was liquid and pumpable falls on the Charterers.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEADFREIGHT -- DEMURRAGE -- ARBITRATION -- SHORTLOAD -- Owner Award
Upon completing load operations, the Owners discovered that the Charterers shortloaded the Vessel by about 462 mt. The Owners subsequently began arbitration to recover the deadfreight damages and additional demurrage.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYCAN -- PUMP WARRANTY -- DISPORT -- PUMP LOGS -- MANIFOLD -- Owner Award
This arbitration began as a result of the Charterer’s refusal to pay demurrage for an extended laycan at discharge. The Charterer claims that the Vessel violated the pump warranty, and therefore, excess time at disport is for the Owner’s account. The Owners counterclaim that the pumping logs are consistent with the warranty and that the dock’s inferior manifold connections were the cause of delay.
