2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
CHARTERPARTY – ADDITIONAL FREIGHT – DEMURRAGE – LAYTIME – PREMATURE – NOTICE OF READINESS – DELAYS IN CARGO OPERATIONS – SLOW DISCHARGE – “ONCE ON DEMURRAGE, ALWAYS ON DEMURRAGE”
The discharge port for a ship carrying logs was changed after a mutual agreement between the shipowner and charterers. Charges were filed against the charterer for lost time which charterer partially contested basis an alleged premature NOR. The court that oversaw this case awarded the shipowner financial compensation based off of a reduced time that the court saw as fair.
OWNER/CHARTERER – POTENTIAL FORCE MAJEURE – CARGO NOT SUPPLIED – OWNER TERMINATED CHARTER – OWNER CLAIMED BREACH AND REPUDIATION – OWNER AWARD
After awaiting Charterer’s cargo for ~2+ months and not receiving a satisfactory answer as to when it would be provided, Owner terminated the Charter, claiming that the Charterer was in breach and repudiation of the agreement. The Owner then brought a case to arbitration, once the Charterer did not respond to the claims that were submitted to them regarding the incident.
NYPE FORM – INTER-CLUB NYPE AGREEMENT (ICA) – CARGO CLAIM – TIME BAR
The tribunal was left to decide if proper notification of an impending cargo claim had been made to meet the requirements of the time bar clause.
OWNER/CHARTERER – DEMURRAGE – U.S. SANCTIONS AGAINST VENEZUELA – PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR OFAC LICENSE – OWNER AWARD
Owner submitted four undisputed invoices to the charterer, regarding a voyage from the U.S. to Venezuela. The Charterer refused to attempt payment of the invoices, contending that an OFAC License may be needed in order to allow the transfer of funds due to sanctions against Venezuela. Arbitrators were asked to determine if an OFAC License was needed, and if so, which party was responsible for acquiring the Licence.
TIME BAR – WHETHER OWNERS PROVIDED CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENTS – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS – SIGNED DOCUMENTS – EQUIVALENT DOCUMENTS
Charterer argued Owner’s demurrage claim was time-barred for lack of containing the contractually required documents.
NYPE – DEDUCTION FROM HIRE – SHORE CRANE CHARGES – SPEED – CONSUMPTION
After Charterers had deducted hire based on shore crane charges as well as claimed underperformance and overconsumption from a chartered vessel, the Tribunal was left to determine if these charges were reasonable or if the shipowner’s evidence would disprove these actions.
CHARTER PARTY – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION CLAIM – WHETHER CHARTERER ENTITLED TO MAKE DEDUCTION FROM HIRE – WHETHER VESSEL UNDER PERFORMED
After Charterer filed a claim against shipowner for speed and over consumption as well as deduction of hire based on a report made by an independent weather bureau, the Tribunal was left to determine if the claim was unreasonable or if the shipowner had failed to make correct claims about the performance of their vessel.
NYPE – VESSEL FAILED INSPECTION – OFF HIRE
After Charterers file a claim against shipowners for overpaid hire and damages due to broken cranes during an in-port inspection, the Panel was left to determine if the claim was unreasonable or if the shipowners had failed to follow accords made in the charter party.
TIME CHARTER – AMENDED NYPE CHARTERPARTY – FINAL HIRE – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION – VESSEL UNDERPERFORMANCE – WHETHER CONSIDERED GOOD WEATHER CONDITIONS – BUNKERS ON REDELIVERY
After Owners claimed against Charterers for the alleged underperformance of the Vessel and failure to redeliver the Vessel to Owners with the correct amount of bunkers. The Tribunal was then left to determine whether the Charterer provided adequate proof to deny any amount due to Owner.
CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – FORCE MAJEURE – CLAIMED DAMAGES – CHARTERERS OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE CARGO – “BUT FOR” TEST – COMPENSATORY PRINCIPLE – OWNER’S APPEAL – CHARTERER’S CROSS-APPEAL
After Charterers were found not liable for the damages incurred due to their failure to provide cargo for multiple shipments, Owners then appealed to the Court of Appeal on the damages incurred from the missed shipments whilst Charterers cross-appealed on their liability to provide the cargoes basis the agreed force majeure clause.
