2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
SHELLVOY 6 -- DEMURRAGE -- DOCUMENT SIGNATURE -- FAILURE TO ISSUE LETTER OF PROTEST -- Charterer Award
After the Vessel loaded her cargo, the terminal representative refused to sign the Statement of Facts. When Owner submitted their demurrage claim after the voyage, the Charterer refuted it on the grounds that the missing signature invalidates the relevant loadport demurrage on the basis that Owner failed to issue a requisite Letter of Protest (LOP).
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- TANK SEGREGATION -- COGSA -- MITIGATION -- COMMERCIAL DAMAGES -- Partial Charterer Award
Upon loading the Charterer’s two parcels of premium and regular gasoline, some of the premium was found to be below the Buyer’s required octane rating due to an apparent commingling of the two parcels. The Charterer mitigated their losses by deviating to an additional disport and discharging the unacceptable cargo there to be sold as regular. Charterer claims that the contamination took place on board the Vessel and that they were owed the difference between the Buyer’s price for premium and an average sampling of bulk regular pricing as proper mitigation.
ASBATANKVOY -- VESSEL COLLISION AND DECEPTIVE HANDLING -- DEADFREIGHT -- VETTING REJECTION -- COMMERCIAL DAMAGES -- Charterer Award
Without Charterer’s knowledge, the Vessel had suffered class-affecting damages while operating under a prior charter. As a result, the Vessel was rejected at discharge port by the Receiver’s vetting group and the Charterer was forced to make a distress sale at severe losses. Owner commenced arbitration proceedings to collect deadfreight and demurrage; Charterer counterclaimed for commercial losses.
CRYSTAL AMARANTO -- ASBATANKVOY -- COMMERCIAL DAMAGES -- MASTER'S ROLE -- CONTAMINATION -- CAUSTIC SODA -- FREE MARINE LIMITED -- UNCLEAN BILLS OF LADING -- Owner Award
While loading Charterer’s cargo, the Master noticed signs of potential contamination. Surveyors would later support his findings however they could not ascertain the nature or source of the problem. The Master chose to clause the Bills of Lading to reflect the findings which caused a loss of sale to the Charterer. Owner brought arbitration to recover demurrage for lost time testing the cargo and the Charterer counterclaimed for commercial losses.
SHELLTIME 4 -- BUNKERS ON REDELIVERY -- MEANING OF “PRICE ACTUALLY PAID” -- CHARTER CONSTRUCTION -- Owner Award
The Vessel was sub-chartered by the Charterer back to the Head Owner for a time period constituting the remainder of the head charter. Vessel redelivery would thereby take place simultaneously under the sub-charter and head charter, however, the proper bunker prices that each party was liable for at redelivery was up for contention.
LETTER OF INDEMNITY – WRONGFUL DELIVERY – Owner Award
In upholding the Commercial Court’s ruling of 27 May 2011 (background details previously recapped in The TANKVOYager, Vol. 18, No. 1), the Court of Appeal held that the Owners are protected under an LOI issued by the Receivers to the Charterers. Despite the Owner being unaware of the LOI, the Owner was protected by it on the basis that the Owner was acting as the Charterer’s agents when delivering the cargo. The Appellate Court held that "delivery" is a legal concept that does not mean “discharge” and that the Owner need not physically hand over the cargo to the Receiver; rather Owner’s obligation was fulfilled by surrendering possession and power relating to the cargo when delivering to the port authority. With regard to the public policy argument in the Receiver’s attempt to preclude Owner’s protection under the LOI, the court held that the Owner was incapable of a deliberate wrongdoing as the Owner was unaware of a dispute between the sellers and the intermediate buyer; furthermore, this was deemed a commercial dispute (not a public policy issue).
NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- PREMATURE REDELIVERY -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- Owner Award
Under a time charter contract, the Charterer redelivered the Vessel early and the Owner refused to accept the repudiatory breach in an attempt to affirm the charter party rather than the usual course of action in re-fixing and then claiming damages.
SHELLTIME 3 -- TIME CHARTER -- UNPAID HIRE -- WITHDRAWAL OF VESSEL -- SECURITY -- BUNKERS -- Owner Award
In partially overturning the Appellate Court ruling of 6 July 2010 (recapped in The TANKVOYager Vol. 12, No. 4), which in turn had overturned the Commercial Court ruling of 23 July 2009 (recapped in The TANKVOYager Vol. 15, No. 4) the Supreme Court addressed the issue of time lost discharging Charterer’s cargo after Owner’s termination of the contract necessitated by Charterer’s non-payment of hire. The Supreme Court discussed the concepts of bailment and indemnity.
SHELLTIME 4 -- TIME CHARTER -- CHARTER BREACH -- CANCELLATION -- CARGO TANK DEFINITION -- Owner Award
Charterer deducted hire basis a crack in the slop tank necessitating repairs and causing their sub-charterer to cancel a voyage charter. Owner contends that the time charter clause governing tank suitability is restricted to cargo tanks, pumps, and lines, and therefore, does not include the Vessel’s slop tanks.
NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- OFF-SPEC BUNKERS -- BUNKER CONSUMPTION PRIOR TO ANALYSIS -- DAMAGES -- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION -- Partial Owner Award
Off-spec bunkers were provided by Charterer yet prior to the sample analysis being received Vessel consumed some of the off-spec bunkers damaging the engines. Owner subsequently claimed for the cost of repairs, the cost to replace the bunkers, and the cost of cleaning of the tanks the off-spec bunkers were stored in. This arbitration also covered eight issues regarding the speed and consumption warranties.
