2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 2/24

TIME CHARTER – NYPE FORM – BUNKERS UPON REDELIVERY – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION CLAIM – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY – ALLEGED ADDITIONAL / UNAUTHORIZED PORT CALL In a time charter dispute based on an amended NYPE 1946 form, Owners claimed a balance of hire for $79,103.27, while Charterers denied responsibility and counterclaimed for $100,000, alleging the vessel had traveled an extra 250 miles and did not meet speed and consumption warranties.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 1/24

NORGRAIN FORM - CHANGE OF PORTS – CHANGE IN FREIGHT DUE TO CHANGE OF PORTS - DESPATCH TERMS – DO LOCAL PUBLIC HOLIDAYS COUNT FOR LAYTIME PURPOSES A vessel chartered under an amended Norgrain agreement was to transport dense grains from Paranagua, Brazil, to China. The discharge points were initially Zhoushan and Taixing but were later changed to Tianjin. Disputes arose over outstanding freight charges and despatch claims.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

U.S. Maritime Cases

Teekay Tankers Chartering Pte. Ltd. v SeaRiver Maritime LLC. (The “ZENITH SPIRIT”) – SMA No. 4467, 22 September 2023

EMVOY SPECIAL CLAUSE 15 – EXXONMOBILE VOY2012 – CARGO STORAGE – DAMAGES – AUTHORITY OF BROKER TO REPRESENT BOTH PARTIES – MEETING OF THE MINDS

The dispute between SeaRiver Maritime (Charterer) and Teekay Tankers Chartering (Owner) revolved around the terms of a charter party agreement for the vessel ZENITH SPIRIT. The key point of contention was the interpretation of Special Clause 15 from the contract written on an ExxonMobile VOY2012, with Owner claiming a guaranteed minimum of 90 days of storage, while Charterer contended that storage was at Charterer’s option.

U.S. Maritime Cases

Dorval SC Tankers Inc. v SeaRiver Maritime, LLC, (The “GOLDEN AUSTRALIS”) – SMA No. 4465, 7 September 2023

EMVOY 2012 – WITHHELD SAMPLES – SAMPLE CONTAMINATION – JOINT SAMPLE TESTING – ARBITRABILITY – CAUSE OF CONTAMINATION

An Owner and Charterer entered into a Contract of Affreightment (COA) for the transportation of bulk chemical products from Singapore to Australia. Sampling at the discharge revealed water droplets and cloudiness in the cargo. The Charterer withheld samples from the discharge from joint testing that was requested by the Owner to determine the cause of contamination.

U.S. Maritime Cases

Naviera Transoceanica and Products Tankers Management Company v PetroChina International (America) Inc. – SMA No. 4464, 29 August 2023

VOYAGE SPEED – WEATHER – DEMURRAGE CLAIM – OWNERS GUARANTEE – SLOW STEAMING – ASBATANKVOY

A voyage charter was made for the transport of clean petroleum product (CPP) from Cherry Point, Washington, to a Chilean port of the Charterer’s choice. Owners initiated arbitration seeking a partial final award of outstanding demurrage, plus interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Charterer disputed the claim, asserting that the vessel failed to meet the charterparty speed and failed to adhere to voyage orders, resulting in a missed discharge window.

U.S. Maritime Cases

Oslo Caribbean Carrier v Knowles Construction & Development Co. Ltd. (The “SEA CARRIER”), SMA No. 4463, 3 August 2023

PARTIAL PAYMENT – DAMAGES FOR DENTENTION – DEMURRAGE – FAILURE TO APPOINT ARBITRATOR – ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEBT – FAILURE TO MAKE PAYMENT

This arbitration involved a charterparty for the transport of bulk aggregate sand from Kingston, Jamaica, to Nassau, Bahamas. Oslo Caribbean Carrier AS, the owner of the M/V SEA CARRIER, claimed outstanding demurrage payment and interest from Knowles Construction & Development Co. Ltd., the charterer.

English Maritime Cases / Singapore Maritime Cases

Singapore Arbitration 3/23

DEMURRAGE – FAILURE TO NOMINATE VESSEL – BREACH OF CONTRACT – MITIGATION OF LOSS – PRINCIPLE OF MINIMUM PERFORMANCE

This case involves a dispute arising from a trip charter for the shipment of coal from Indonesia to Thailand. The charterparty specified two voyages. The Owner failed to nominate vessels for these shipments, leading to a breach of the charterparty.

English Maritime Cases / Singapore Maritime Cases

Singapore Arbitration 2/23

DEMURRAGE – GENCON 1994 FORM – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO – BREACH OF CONTRACT – NON-PARTICIPATING RESPONDENT – UNCITRAL MODEL LAW – COMPENSATORY DAMAGES – NO APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR

The case involved a fixture recap that agreed cargo was to be loaded in Vietnam and delivered to a port in China. The charterers failed to provide the cargo despite repeated requests from the owners. The charterers refused to participate in arbitration and provided no defense.

English Maritime Cases

Rhine Shipping DMCC v Vitol S.A. (The “Dijilah”) – EWHC (Comm Ct), 26 May 2023

DEMURRAGE – BPVOY4 – CLAUSE 13 INDEMNITY – VESSEL FREE OF LEGAL ISSUES – CARGO ON VESSEL ARRESTED – DELAY TO LOAD AT SECOND LOADPORT – INCREASE IN PURCHASING COSTS DUE TO DELAY – INDEMNITY AND WARRANTY CLAUSES – ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY BY OWNERS – CAN CHARTERERS’ “GAINS” FROM INTERNAL HEDGING ARRANGEMENTS BE USED TO OFFSET OWNERS’ BREACH OF CHARTER CLAIM – REMOTENESS OF LOSS RULES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

Disponent Owners chartered the tanker “Dijilah” from West Africa to China, then faced legal issues over sanction compliance by the commercial operator/owner. Property seizure by financiers caused delays, leading Charterers to pay an extra USD 3.7 million for cargo, but they gained USD 2.9 million internally. Disputes ensued as Owners claimed demurrage charges, countered by Charterers citing losses from the delay.

English Maritime Cases / Singapore Maritime Cases

Hyphen Trading Ltd v BLPL Singapore Pte Ltd – Singapore High Court, 25 Oct 2023

ADMIRALTY – SALE OF CARGO – DISPUTE OVER CARGO OWNERSHIP – VALIDITY OF BILLS OF LADING – WHETHER CARGO COULD BE SOLD WITH OWNERSHIP DISPUTE

HTL, a UK commodity trading company, claimed ownership of nickel briquettes and held bills of lading for their shipment from Malaysia to India. A dispute arose with BLPL, the alleged contractual carrier, over ownership of the cargo. HTL sought to sell the cargo in Singapore and petitioned the Court to do so in advance of the ownership ruling.