2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Medtalk Ltd. v. Adam Maritime Corp. (The “Alaska”) – SMA No. 3290, 15 Aug 1996

ASBATANKVOY -- CONOCO WEATHER CLAUSE- CARGO AVAILABILITY -- WEATHER DELAYS -- WAITING TIME -- Owner Award This dispute revolves around the interplay of Asbatankvoy's clauses 6, 8, and 9, as well as whether of not the Conoco Weather Clause applies during periods of bad weather, which occurred while the Vessel was awaiting berthing due to unavailable cargo. In addition to the award, one dissenting arbitrator recontructs the facts in the case and presents his own conclusion.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

IMT Shipping and Chartering GmbH v. Chansun Shipping Co. Ltd. (The “Zenovia”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 8 Apr 2009

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- NOTICE OF VESSEL REDELIVERY -- MEANING OF THE ACRONYM “WP” -- Charterer Award After submitting an approximate notice of redelivery, Charterer revised the date of redelivery in order to complete an additional voyage. Though the revised date still fell within the contractually stated range of delivery, Owner rejected the change and withdrew the Vessel from Charterer's service. Charterer claimed damages, alleging wrongful withdrawal.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Lansat Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Glencore Grain BV (“The Paragon”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 25 Mar 2009

NYPE -- LATE REDELIVERY -- ILLEGITIMATE LAST VOYAGE -- PENALTY CLAUSES -- GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF DAMAGES -- Charterer Award This ruling concerns a time charter clause which stipulates a remedy for a vessel’s late redelivery including compensation to the Owner if the market has risen and is calculated commencing a period of 30 days prior to the maximum period date until actual redelivery. The question posed to the Judges was, is that considered a penalty clause and thus illegal under English law?
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

TS Lines Ltd v. Delphis NV (The “TS Singapore”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 25 Feb 2009

NYPE -- OFF-HIRE -- CHARTERER'S RIGHT TO CANCEL -- WHETHER “COMMON ROUTE” QUALIFIES AS ON-HIRE WHEN VESSEL UNDER OWNER’S ORDERS -- Charterer Award Under a time charter contract, the Vessel incurred damage necessitating transit to a repair port along the same voyage route as the Charterer’s next intended port call. The Judge decides whether that constitutes off-hire, or if the vessel was operating under the Charterer’s instructions.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.