2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Archive / Maritime Articles

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.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

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.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

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.

Archive / Maritime Articles

“Once on Demurrage, Always on Demurrage” ~Not a Fairy Tale~

The maxim “once on demurrage, always on demurrage”, although seemingly an innocent phrase, is not a fairy tale and is in fact, serious business. In order to understand this maxim one must first clearly define demurrage. In a strict sense, demurrage represents liquidated damages for delays associated with loading and discharging beyond the laytime contractually allowed. Applicable case law, both as court cases and in arbitration, holds that demurrage is extended freight and that the risk of circumstances which prevent the loading or discharge of cargo within the stipulated laytime lies unconditionally with the charterers. As explained in M/T “Raphael”, SMA No. 3739 (6/10/02), “this rule of ‘absolute liability’ for payment of demurrage is subject to three exceptions:
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

ENE Kos v. Petroleo Brasileiro SA (“The Kos”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 23 Jul 2009

SHELLTIME 3 -- TIME CHARTER -- UNPAID HIRE -- WITHDRAWAL OF VESSEL FOR UNPAID HIRE -- DETENTION OF VESSEL -- CONSUMPTION OF BUNKERS -- SECURITY -- Partial Owner Award The Court was called to determine if, following the Charterer's failure to pay hire, Owner's withdrawal of the Vessel during load operations was legal. If so, was the Owner entitled to damages or solely compensation for expenses (bunkers and time consumed discharging the cargo) incurred fulfilling their duties as bailee, plus the cost of securing the bank guarantee as required by the Charterer.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Lansat Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Glencore Grain BV (The “Paragon”) – Court of Appeal, 22 July 2009

NYPE -- LATE REDELIVERY -- ILLEGITIMATE LAST VOYAGE -- MEASURE OF DAMAGES -- PENALTY CLAUSE -- Charterer Award In an appeal over the late redelivery of a time-chartered vessel, the Court was called on to determine if a clause stipulating that in the event of late redelivery the daily hire rate for the 30 days prior to the commencement of the overrun period is to be calculated at the higher prevailing market rate, is a penalty clause and unenforceable in English law.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

KG Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft Für Mineralöle mbh & Co KG v Petroplus Marketing AG (The “Mercini Lady”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 22 May 2009

CONTRACT OF SALE -- IMPLIED TERM REGARDING QUALITY AFTER DELIVERY -- CONDITION OF CARGO -- Buyer Award This ruling hinged on whether there is an implied term warranting condition of cargo after delivery; and, if so, whether the Seller was relieved of such obligation under an express exclusion clause (which, in this instance, did not reference "conditions") or, alternatively a certificate final clause (which, in this instance, did not exclude implied terms).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 1/09

GENCON -- WHARFAGE AND WATCHMEN FEES FOR EXTENDED DISCHARGE TIME -- DEMURRAGE AS JUST COMPENSATION -- DELAYS BEYOND CHARTERER’S CONTROL -- Partial Charterer, Partial Owner Award This award follows up an earlier decision under London Arbitration 23/07 for the same voyage, and addresses two new points: 1) who is responsible for dues paid by Owner resulting from the delayed discharge; and, 2) whether time is interrupted for discharging delays that are beyond Charterer’s control e.g. awaiting shoreside equipment and personnel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

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.

Archive / Maritime Articles

Time Bars Through Time

Common within the maritime industry is the inclusion of a time bar clause within the contract; be it a charter or sales contract. The time-bar clause as it relates to demurrage requires timely receipt of a claim oftentimes within 90 days from completion of load or discharge operations, whichever is applicable, else claim is deemed waived. As time has progressed English arbitration awards and court cases and US arbitration awards have given further insight into the role these contracts play within the industry, the proper interpretation of the commonly used requirements and some hints as to how both charterers and owners should phrase the clauses in order to adequately protect themselves. All of this is discussed below.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.