2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Interchem 2000 Logistics BV v. Suffolk Tankers Co., Ltd. (The “Rachel B”) – SMA No. 4150, 9 Dec 2011

ASBATANKVOY -- VESSEL BREAKDOWN -- ENGINE PROBLEM -- SEAWORTHINESS -- Owner Award At the time of the fixture, Vessel was in drydock for repairs. After undocking further repairs were found to be required subsequently causing the Vessel to miss her laydays. Charterer cancelled the fixture incurring costs in finding a suitable replacement which Charterer is claiming from Owner in this arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Sinotrans (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Crossbridge Shipping Singapore Ltd. (The “Ming Hai”) – SMA No. 4149, 7 Dec 2011

NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- BUNKER PRICES -- BUNKER SHORTFALL ON REDELIVERY -- Owner Award When Charterer failed to redeliver Vessel with the charter party mandated quantity of IFO and MDO, Owner claimed for the difference.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Sherwin Alumina, L.P. v. Western Bulk Carriers KS – SMA No. 4148, 30 Nov 2011

CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT (COA) -- ISPS CODE -- LIABILITY FOR PORT EXPENSES -- DOCKAGE AND SECURITY FEES -- Owner Award Midway through an eight-year fixed freight rate Contract of Affreightment (COA), Charterer's new port manager directed Charterer to pass on port fees to Owner given the COA states Owner is responsible for "all port expenses". Fees were previously not being passed on presumably due to Charterer's lack of experience in this area.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Clipper Bulk Shipping BV v. Korea Line Corp. and Grieg Star Shipping AS and Atlas Shipiing AS (The “Fomalhaut”) – SMA No. 4145, 24 Oct 2011

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

Transpetrol Maritime Services Ltd. v. SJB Marine Energy (The “Rowan”) – English Court of Appeal, 27 Jan 2012

CONSTRUCTION OF WARRANTY -- OIL COMPANIES APPROVALS CLAUSE -- "TBOOK" DEFINED -- Owner Award At the time of the fixture, Owner alleged that the Vessel was approved by five oil majors as required by the charter. Thus, when Charterer’s buyer rejected the Vessel due to a sea-chest valve needing repairs as imposed by the Class survey, a sale was lost with Charterer incurring substantial damages. The Commercial Court ruled Owner had breached the Oil Companies Approval Clause. The Court of Appeal overturned the Commercial Court’s ruling and clarified the meaning of the acronym "TBOOK" and the word “approved” in regards to the charter's majors approval requirement.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

ED & F Man Sugar Ltd. v. Belmont Shipping Ltd. (The “Amplify”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 18 Nov 2011

SUGAR CHARTER PARTY 1999 -- INVALID NOTICE OF READINESS -- DEMURRAGE -- ALLEGED SERIOUS IRREGULARITY BY ARBITRATORS -- Owner Award In ruling for Charterer in an arbitration on documents alone, the Panel noted that as Charterer had not introduced the case of "The Happy Day", the inclusion of which may have further reduced Charterer's demurrage obligation, the Panel need not consider it. Charterer subsequently appealed to the High Court on the basis that the arbitrators, knowing Charterer had made a concession, had a duty to alert Charterer and failing to do so it constituted a serious irregularity.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Thai Mapar Trading Co. Ltd. v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia Pte. Ltd. – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 4 Oct 2011

GAFTA FORM 120 -- FOB SALE -- INSUFFICIENT ETA NOTICE -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- Buyer Award When the FOB Buyer failed to nominate the vessel at least 7 working days prior to vessel's ETA, Seller rejected the nomination. Despite non-conformity with the contract’s ETA requirement, this was not a sufficient basis for Seller to repudiate the contract.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd

BALTIME 1939 -- VESSEL BREAKDOWN -- WRONGFUL TERMINATION -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award When Charterer emailed Owner that Owner had committed breaches of two time charter parties amounting to repudiations and that the two charter parties were terminated, Owner responded by stating Charterer's email was itself a repudiatory breach and that the charter parties were thusly terminated. Owner claimed damages in the form of lost profits due to early redelivery, unpaid hire and fees, detention at the disport and the cost incurred when containers were left on board one of the vessels at redelivery.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 12/11

BALTIME 1939 -- NON-PAYMENT OF HIRE AND BUNKERS -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- QUANTUM MERUIT FOR COMPLETION OF VOYAGE -- Owner Award When Charterer failed to pay three installments of hire, other expenses and arrange and pay for bunkers under a time charter contract, Owner first informed Charterer that they were suspending performance of the charter until outstanding hire was paid and then three days later, informed Charterer that they accepted Charterer's repudiatory breach. At the time of the repudiatory breach the Vessel was at sea en-route to the disport and in fact Vessel continued on to the disport and discharged Charterer's cargo.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 10/11

WORLDSCALE -- PORT EXPENSES -- AMOCO CLAIMS CLAUSE -- TIME BAR -- Charterer Award When Charterer directed the Vessel to a port which did not have an established Worldscale (WS) rate, Charterer advised Owner that port expenses would be for Charterer's account. When Owner's claim for port expenses arrived 155 days after discharge, Charterer rejected the claim stating it was barred under the Amoco Claims Clause.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.