2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Hess Corp. v. Leo Tanker Corp. (The “Atlantic Leo”) – SMA No. 4181, 31 Jul 2012

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Caribe Tankers, Ltd. v. Petroleo Brasileiro, SA (The “Negotiator”) – SMA No. 4165, 17 Feb 2012

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).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Phoenix Bulk Carriers, Ltd. v. America Metals Trading, LLP. (The “Captain P. Egglezos”) – SMA No. 4164, 9 Feb 2012

GENCON -- DEMURRAGE RATE -- FORCE MAJEURE -- REVERSIBLE LAYTIME -- CHARTER CONSTRUCTION -- Owner Award At issue is whether the charter party allowed for reversible laytime due to the deletion of the ‘Non-Reversible’ Laytime Clause in a prior charter incorporated basis "logical alterations". Also, Charterer claimed that Force Majeure was in effect at disport due to prior Hurricanes Gustav and Ike which allegedly caused delays in procuring barges.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd. v. Tube City IMS LLC (The “Cenk Kaptanoglu”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 17 Feb 2012

GENCON -- ECONOMIC DURESS -- REPUDIATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT -- VESSEL SUBSTITUTION -- Charterer Award Although Owner’s action of substituting the contracted vessel without notifying the Charterer created a repudiatory breach, the Charterer did not cancel the charter. Owner proposed a new vessel and promised to reimburse the Charterer for damages, however they later used economic leverage to gain a better deal during renegotiation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. v. Trafigura Beheer BV (The “Gaz Energy”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 25 May 2012

SHELLTIME 3 -- TIME CHARTER -- SPEED WARRANTY -- PERFORMANCE CLAUSE -- UNDERPERFORMANCE -- BUNKER CONSUMPTION -- ALL WEATHER WARRANTY -- Charterer Award The sub-charterer contends that the time-chartered vessel did not meet the contracted requirements for speed and fuel performance basis the construction of the relevant clauses. Such construction is based on the inclusion of an all weather warranty, which the owners claim is not proper in the context of this time-charter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Pacific Basin IHX Ltd. v. Bulkhandling Handymax AS (The “Triton Lark”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 25 Jan 2012

NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- RISK OF PIRACY -- CONWARTIME 1993 --GULF OF ADEN -- ALLEGED DEVIATION AROUND CAPE OF GOOD HOPE -- Charterer Award Due to the inherent risk of piracy along the contracted route, the Owner instructed the Vessel to change course incurring additional costs for Charterer’s account. The arbitrators held that the Owner acted appropriately. On appeal the Court ruled that the arbitration panel had deconstructed the CONWARTIME 1993 clause improperly and, as such, remanded the case back to the arbitrators for reconsideration on findings of fact.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Glencore Energy (UK) Ltd. v. Sonol Israel Ltd. (The “Team Anmaj”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 26 Oct 2011

EXXONVOY 84 -- CONTRACT OF SALE -- DEMURRAGE -- INDEMNITY -- CAUSE OF ACTION -- TIME BAR -- Buyer Award The relationship between demurrage clauses in the sale contract, underlying charter party, and the relevant commercial background determines what constitutes the accrual of the cause of action for Seller’s claim against the Buyer. The issue that the contract was finalized after the completion of discharge is broached.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Korea Line Corp. v. CMC Cometals (The “Namrun”) – SMA No. 4156, 23 Dec 2011

MEDITERRANEAN CHARTER PARTY -- ETA SUBMITTED WITH INCORRECT CALL SIGN -- BERTHING DELAY -- INVALID NOR -- BERTH OR PORT CHARTER -- WIBON -- Owner Award Albeit quickly corrected, Master initially submitted an ETA with an incorrect Vessel call sign which per Charterer, caused the Vessel to be held out at anchorage whilst correcting the paperwork with the Chinese Authorities. As such, per Charterer the NOR is invalid. Further, per Charterer the charter party was of a berth nature, with NOR subsequently only effective in regards to the commencement of laytime upon the Vessel's arrival in berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Midas Shipping Co. Inc. v. PDVSA Petroleo SA (The “Liberia”) – SMA No. 4153, 16 Dec 2011

PDVSA TIME 2006 -- TIME-CHARTER -- EXTRA WAR RISK INSURANCE -- INSURANCE PREMIUM -- INTEREST CALCULATION -- Owner Award Charterer failed to pay the Extra War Risk Insurance Premiums and interest that was allowed within the charter party. The Panel revised the Owner’s interest rate and calculation methodology.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Olendorff Carriers GmbH & Co. v. Sidor, CA (The “New Navigation”) – SMA No. 4151, 22 Jul 2010

GENCON -- CERTIFICATE OF AFFREIGHTMENT (COA) -- GROUNDING IN RIVER -- SAFE PORT / BERTH WARRANTY -- DEMURRAGE -- BUNKERS -- Charterer Award En route to the discharge berth named in the Contract of Affreightment (COA) and warranted as being a "safe berth", Vessel grounded either due to poor seamanship or as a result of a buoy being out of place. As a result of the grounding, Vessel missed its berthing opportunity and after repairs was forced to await berth availability. Disponent Owner, arguing berth was unsafe, claimed for damages resulting from the grounding and demurrage during the aforementioned wait.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.