Category: U.S. Maritime Cases
DEMURRAGE – LAYTIME CALCULATION – AMENDED GENCON 1994 CHARTER – NO CORRESPONDENCE
BBC Chartering Carriers and Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais entered into an amended GENCON charter to deliver galvanized steel coils from Praia Mole to Houston. After the voyage the charterer paid the freight invoice in full but disputed the total of the invoice for the demurrage costs. The charterer then gave no reasoning or defense for the disputed demurrage.
DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – AMENDED ASBATANKVOY CHARTERPARTY – STORAGE OR DEMURRAGE
Stolt Tankers was chartered by Tricon Energy Limited to ship mono ethylene glycol (MEG) from Baton Rouge and Houston to Antwerp. At Antwerp, the cargo was transshipped to two barges, but the shipments were rejected before discharge. The charterer could not find suitable shoretank storage before another buyer was secured. Stolt submitted invoices to Tricon for “storage” after their 90 day demurrage time bar. NOTE: This recap includes the majority decision and dissenting opinion.
DISPONENT OWNER – US SANCTIONS – TRADE SANCTIONS – ASBATANKVOY – DEMURRAGE – EXECUTIVE ORDERS – SECURITY AWARD – VENEZUELA
The claim was for outstanding demurrage and port expenses from the Owner to Charterer. The Charterer did not contest the amount owed but maintained that sanctions imposed by the US Government on Venezuela prevented it from paying unless and until the Owner obtained a special license from the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The current arbitration was a Partial Final Award and focused on the Owner’s request for an Interim Award requiring Charterer to post security for Owner’s claims.
ASBATANKVOY – TERMINATION OF CHARTER – DAMAGES – NON-PAYMENT – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO
Owner claimed Charterer failed to present a cargo to be loaded onto the vessel. Owner and Charterer agreed to cancel the charter; however, Owner claimed damages because of the cancellation. Charterer agreed to pay damages but did not remit payment.
PURCHASE CONTRACTS – FORCE MAJEURE – TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE CLAUSE – LOSS OF PROFITS – CALCULATION OF DAMAGES
When Respondent failed to ship purchased cargoes in a timely manner, Claimant charged the Respondent failed to perform its obligations under two separate purchase contracts and sought damages, interest, legal, and arbitration fees. Respondent claimed force majeure for changes in Saudi Arabian export laws and delays due to the holy month of Ramadan and Eid holiday.
FORCE MAJEURE – DEMURRAGE – DISPONENT OWNER – LOSS OF EARNINGS
After 46 days at load port awaiting cargo, the Claimant terminated the contract claiming breach of charterparty. The Respondent claimed force majeure due to supplier issues. Claimant sought damages plus fees, costs and interest.
MEDITERRANEAN IRON ORE VOYAGE CHARTER – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO – DAMAGES – CALCULATION OF DAMAGES – DEMURRAGE – FORCE MAJEURE – GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE
Seacape Shipping and Trading (Claimant) alleged Metalex 2000 (Respondent) breached the voyage charter for failing to provide cargo and subsequently claimed for damages and demurrage. The Respondent claimed government interference and force majeure but participated only minimally in the arbitration.
SALES CONTRACT – DEMURRAGE – PUBLIC DOCK CLAUSE – COMMENCEMENT OF LAYTIME
Two vessels encountered delays whilst awaiting berth, resulting in delivered Seller claiming demurrage. Relying upon a public dock clause in the marine provisions, Buyer insisted time waiting for berths did not count and that rather time only starts after the vessels’ gangways were secured. Owner claimed contract confirmations, which included a laytime commencing clause, superseded Marine Provisions, and that laytime began after the tender of NOR
ASBATANKVOY – KOLMAR TERMS – VIOLATION OF US SANCTIONS – SANCTIONS CLAUSE – STS TRANSFER – ALTERNATIVE ORDERS – PARTIAL FINAL AWARD – SUBJECT MOTION – DISCERNABLE RISK – VENEZUELA
The consolidated arbitration between the Owner and Respondents centered on whether the owner validly invoked the Charter’s Sanctions Clause when demanding alternative orders (Subject Motion). The owner claimed a discernable risk that the ship-to-ship transfer of cargo could have violated US Sanctions against Venezuela. This partial final award is issued solely in response to the Subject Motion and does not address any other disputes between the Owner and Respondents.
SPOT CHARTER – PRORATED WAITING TIME – SUSPENDED LAYTIME – DROPPED TENDER
Vessel tendered NOR whilst charterer’s berth was available and after awaiting a short period of time, went to another berth. Thereafter, charterer’s berth was occupied and vessel periodically waited for charterer’s berth and worked berths for other charterers’ accounts. Owner claimed as demurrage those periods of time whilst vessel was awaiting charterer’s berth whilst it was charterer’s position that the root cause of the overall delay in berthing was vessel’s decision to not work charterer’s berth when given the opportunity.
