Category: U.S. Maritime Cases
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- BERTH -- TERMINAL -- PIPELINE -- MANIFOLD -- Charterer Award
This arbitration centered upon the slow load rate at the Vessel’s second berth. The Charterers claim that this rate was faulted by shipside flow restrictions basis the high pressures in the terminal pipeline. The Owners, however, argue that the flow restriction could have been avoided if, instead of using only one hose, the terminal utilized the Vessel’s full range of manifold connections.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- LOADPORT -- STRIKE -- SLOWDOWN -- Owner Award
The Owners filed a demurrage claim for the extensive delays at loadport. The Charterers argued that a recent workers strike out of their control caused the loading slowdown, and therefore, all demurrage should either be rescinded or reduced to 50% demurrage.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER PARTIES -- WEATHER -- STORM -- BERTH -- PUMP WARRANTY -- WHARFAGE -- Partial Charterer Award
This arbitration encompasses several different disputes which arise from multiple charter parties. The points of contention include the application of the 50% weather delay exception at berth, the Owner’s failure to meet the pump warranty, an occupied berth upon arrival, and the responsibility of wharfage fees during discharge.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- VOYAGE -- DEMURRAGE -- PUMP -- DISPORT -- LAYTIME -- NOR -- LOADBERTH -- Partial Owner Award
The Owners were forced to start arbitration against the Charterers after they refused to pay the voyage’s demurrage claim. The Charterers denied liability basis the Trinidad Daylight Docking Rules, excess pumping time at disport because of Vessel’s low pressure, the 6H laytime credit after NOR tender, and laytime credit at loadberth for USCG inspection.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- ARBITRATION -- INTEREST -- Owner Award
Once a demurrage sum was agreed upon, the Charterers confirmed that payment would follow. However, after nine months of no response to their invoices, the Owners began arbitration to recover the demurrage amount plus interest and legal fees.
ASBATANKVOY -- LOAD OPERATIONS -- DEMURRAGE -- CHARTER PARTY -- BERTH -- SHIFTING TIME -- TANK PURGING -- CARGO -- Charterer Award
Over the course of load operations, the Vessel allegedly accrued demurrage basis certain charter party clauses, including berth call shifting time, tank purging, and cargo cooling.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- BERTH -- DISPORT -- DRAFT -- CHANNEL -- Charterer Award
The Owners began arbitration to recover compensation for delays arising from the Vessel’s inability to safely berth at disport. They argue that the Charterers knowingly loaded the Vessel beyond the channel’s draft restrictions and are therefore responsible. Conversely, the Charterers claim that the root cause of delay was the Vessel’s failure to obtain the necessary TVE from the Coast Guard.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- ACT OF GOD -- LOADPORT -- STORM -- DEMURRAGE -- CARGO -- SHORTLOADING -- Charterer Award
The Charterers began arbitration to recover losses stemming from two separate issues of alleged Owner error. Basis storm delays at loadport, the Charterers claimed that they should count at 50% the demurrage rate regardless of the Vessel already being on demurrage. The other issue centered upon the interpretation of "about" in the cargo stipulations and the subsequent Vessel shortloading which the Owners attribute to crew error.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- DISPORT -- VOYAGE -- LAYTIME -- ARBITRATION -- Seller Award
Although the Buyers understand their contractual obligation to pay demurrage for delays at disport, they claim that this voyage’s delays were caused by government action and likewise a laytime exception. Additionally, the Buyers argue that they are not bound by the Panel’s decision because they never agreed to arbitration.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- DISPORT -- PORT -- BERTH -- ARBITRATION -- LAYTIME -- NOR
In response to the Owners’ claim for demurrage at disport, the Charterers contended that the delays resulted from Owners’ lack of required US port documentation and the subsequently occupied berth when the documents were finally received. Conversely, the Owners cited other arbitrations where the laytime began at NOR despite having lost its turn at berth due to Owner negligence.
