2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Schuyler Line Navigation Co. v. Trade Ferro Metal Inc. (FEMET) (The “Pacific Bangshen I”) – SMA No. 4062, 15 Jan 2010

GENCON -- FORCE MAJEURE – DEMURRAGE -- HURRICANE -- BUNKERING -- "ARRIVED SHIP" NOR -- WIPON -- NOR ACCEPTED WITHIN OFFICE HOURS -- Owner Award The Vessel arrived EOSP to discharge 179 miles up the Mississippi River shortly after the passage of Hurricane Gustav through the area which resulted in the closure of the river and Charterer’s terminal. Shortly thereafter, an upriver section of the river re-opened to traffic, but a draft restriction at the mouth of the river and berth congestion prevented the Vessel from proceeding to the discharge berth. Owner started laytime once the discharge berth re-opened following the hurricane. Conversely, Charterer rejected all waiting time basis the Agent’s SOF remark that the River was closed to navigation during presumably much or all of the waiting time; and, Charterer held that the Vessel was not an arrived ship when NOR was tendered because she later stopped her upriver transit to take on bunkers. Whilst bunkering, Charterer’s berth was unavailable.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Promar Ltd. (The “Promar”) – SMA No. 4063, 15 Jan 2010

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- COGSA -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- Owner Award After discovering that one of its cargo was contaminated by another following a simultaneous discharge, Charterer alleged the contamination occurred during discharge due to leakage or a faulty valve lineup onbard the Vessel. In this award, the Panel reconstructs the course of events, sampling procedures and piping systems onboard and ashore to determine if Charterer has met their burden of proof that contamination was the fault of the Vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

SK Shipping (S) Pte. Ltd. v. Petroexport Ltd. (The “Pro Victor”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 24 Nov 2009

ASBATANKVOY -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- ANTICIPATORY BREACH -- Owner Award On the first day of laydays, without expressly saying so, Charterer is alleged to have cancelled the fixture after the Buyer pulled out of the deal. At issue was whether Owner acted properly in terminating the charter party and claiming damages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Dalwood Marine Co v. Nordana Line AS (The “Elbrus”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 21 Dec 2009

NYPE 1993 -- TIME CHARTER -- EARLY REDELIVERY -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- CALCULATION OF DAMAGES -- Charterer Award After Charterer prematurely cancelled a time charter, Owner secured a lucrative replacement contract. In determining Owner's damages, Charterer argued that the profits from the replacement contract should be weighed as a whole against the lost revenue from the early redelivery.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Sylvia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd. (The “Sylvia”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 18 Mar 2010

NYPE -- FAILED PORT STATE INSPECTION -- MISSED LAYDAY WINDOW -- FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGES -- REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES -- Charterer Award Because the Vessel failed a Port State Inspection due to structural deficiencies and was detained until Owner could affect repairs, Charterer missed a layday window with a sub-charterer. Charterer sought to recover lost profits in arbitration and won. Owner appealed and the Judge considered whether the Charterer’s damages were unforeseeable, too remote, or erroneously derived.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Novologistics SARL v. Five Ocean Corporation (The “Merida”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 27 Nov 2009

BERTH OR PORT CHARTER -- WAITING TIME -- CHARTERPARTY CONSTRUCTION -- ONE SAFE BERTH -- Charterer Award With no incorporation of a proforma charter party form, at issue was whether the fixture constituted a berth charter or port charter. The key terms considered include "one good and safe Charterer’s berth" in conjunction with other clauses addressing a safe port warranty and shifting time. In overturning the arbitration award, the Court examined the fixture terms and explained contract construction.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

AET Inc. Ltd. v. Arcadia Petroleum Ltd. (The “Eagle Valencia”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 8 Oct 2009

SHELLVOY 5 -- NOTICE OF READINESS -- FAILURE TO OBTAIN FREE PRATIQUE WITHIN 6 HOURS -- Owner Award With the charter party fixed on an amended Shellvoy 5 form inclusive of "Shell Additional Clauses – February 1999", this dispute hinged on whether the Vessel’s NOR was valid in light of the fact that Free Pratique was not granted within six hours as specified within Shell Additional Clause 22.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v. Swissmarine Service SA (The “Lowlands Orchid”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.) 13 Nov 2009

CHARTERPARTY LANGUAGE "SHINC" -- SUPER HOLIDAYS -- ADDITIONAL CLAUSE SUPERCEDING PRO-FORMA – DESPATCH – DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award This laytime dispute hinged on the interpretation of a fixture recap term, SHINC (Sundays and Holidays included), in conjunction with the terms of the underlying charter party form. The underlying charter party Clause 63 stipulated "Sundays and Holidays included", followed by the phrase, “…excluding Super Holidays”. At issue is how the contract should be interpreted specifically relating to the terminal shutdown during the Christmas holiday period.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Securing Assets for Maritime Claims in N.Y.: Pre- and Post-Judgment

For centuries, physical assets such as ships, cargoes, bunkers, and bank accounts have been seized to satisfy maritime commerce debts, before a judgment is rendered, whenever those assets were found within the court’s jurisdiction. Since maritime transactions are oftentimes international and transitory in nature, securing assets from a defendant can be achieved by the plaintiff appealing within the court’s jurisdiction and showing that the asset, whether it be a ship or cargo, is within the jurisdiction and that the defendant is not. In those cases, the attachment is granted. In turn, the defendant must appeal to the court to have the attachment vacated. If the plaintiff prevails, the value of the seized asset is secured.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Julia Shipping Pte. Ltd. v. CMC Cometals NJ (The “Julia”) – SMA No. 4039, 9 Jul 2009

COMETALS PRO FORMA CP -- SAFE BERTH WARRANTY -- VESSEL SUITABILITY -- BERTH RESTRICTIONS – IMPROPER CANCELLATION -- Owner Award At issue is whether the Charterer improperly canceled the charter party. The fixture stipulated the discharge as "one safe berth" and when the Receiver at the intended berth rejected the Vessel as being unsuitable (taking into consideration the size of the terminal’s grabs relative to the size of the Vessel’s hatch openings), the Charterer canceled the fixture claiming that the Owner failed in providing a suitable vessel thereby frustrating the commercial purpose of the charter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.