2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
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.
TIMEBAR – BREACH OF CHARTERPARTY – NULLIFYING DOCUMENTS – INCOMPLETE CLAIMS
Arbitration proceedings were brought against the owner’s alleged breach of charterparty by refusing vessel modifications per charterer’s request. However, charterer’s left out a supporting document from their claim. Ultimately, the court decided that the documentation was time-barred, causing the cause to be dismissed.
TIME CHARTER – OFF-HIRE – WHETHER ANCHOR FOULED – VESSEL SEAWORTHINESS – DELAY TO BERTH
After receiving the berthing orders from Charterer, the time-chartered Vessel was unable to raise its anchor and proceed to berth for a limited period of time. Charterers then claimed that during this delay to berth that the Vessel was off hire. Owner claimed against Charterer for the unpaid hire/ damages, whilst Charterers denied liability and submitted a counterclaim against the Owner.
FIXTURE RECAP TERMS – AMENDED CLEAN GENCON 1994 CHARTERPARTY – MAIN AGREED TERMS – ARBITRATOR’S JURISDICTION – ARBITRATION PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES
When disputes arose between the Owner and Charterer, Owners then appointed an arbitrator. Charterers in turn challenged the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, claiming that no agreed arbitration provision was included within the charterparty.
GENERAL AVERAGE – VESSEL GROUNDING ON UNCHARTED SHOAL – VESSEL SEAWORTHINESS – OWNERS OBLIGATION TO EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE – VESSELS DEFECTIVE PASSAGE PLAN – OWNERS APPEAL – Charterer Award
In an appeal over the cargo interests being found not liable to contribute to the general average after the Vessel was grounded, the Court of Appeal was called on to determine if the Vessel’s passage plan rendered the Vessel unseaworthy.
BOOKING CANCELLATION – DEADFREIGHT – WHETHER CHARTERER CAN PASS DEADFREIGHT COSTS TO SUPPLIER
The supplier in question unilaterally canceled the booking agreement with their charterers whilst the vessel was already on approach to the load port. This cancellation was the direct cause of dead freight incurred by the Charterer – which was subsequently passed to the Supplier. The Charterer was later awarded the dead freight, interest, owner’s fees, and arbitration fees.
NYPE - TIME CHARTER - HIRE - ANTI-TECHNICALITY NOTICE (ATN) - BIMCO NON-PAYMENT OF HIRE CLAUSE - REPUDIATORY BREACH
The charterer and the owner of a vessel got into a dispute over the alleged overconsumption of fuel. The appeal of the owner was later dismissed.