2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Farenco Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Daebo Shipping Co. Ltd. (The “Bremen Max”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 11 Nov 2008

NYPE -- DISCHARGE OF CARGO WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILLS OF LADING -- MISDELIVERY OF CARGO -- RESPONSIBIILITY FOR PROVISION OF SECURITY TO PREVENT ARREST -- PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF LETTER OF INDEMNITY -- Preliminary Owner Award In a chain of back-to-back charters with sub-Charterers (with identical terms and LOI clause), the Judge decides who is responsible for putting up security to prevent the Vessel’s arrest by the bill of lading holder for alleged non-delivery of the cargo.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Total Ocean Marine Services Inc. v. Seacor Commodity Trading, LLC (The “San Remo II”) – SMA No. 4037, 15 Jun 2009

NORGRAIN -- DEMURRAGE -- NOR TENDERED PRIOR TO LAYDAYS -- HURRICANE -- ACT OF GOD -- FORCE MAJEURE -- Partial Owner Award A hurricane swept through the loadport while the Vessel was awaiting berthing. The Panel was asked to determine the scope of Charterer's liability to the Owner regarding the lengthy waiting period caused by the aftermath.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Odfjell Tankers AS v. Royal Petroleum Corp. (The “Bow Power”) – SMA No. 4029, 17 Apr 2009

ASBATANKVOY -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- LOSS OF PROFITS -- FRESHWATER EXPENSE -- Owner Award The Charterer failed to provide any cargo whatsoever, and the Panel determined how to assess Owner’s damages for lost profits. Additionally, the Panel ruled on how to compensate Owners for the Vessel’s long wait at anchorage subsequently requiring her to shift to berth for freshwater.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Dorado Tankers Inc. v. Hess Corp. (The “Eland”) – SMA No. 4027, 4 Mar 2009

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO SEGREGATION -- WITHIN VESSEL'S NATURAL SEGREGATION ("WVNS") -- VOYAGE ORDERS -- DEADFREIGHT -- STOWAGE -- LOI -- REFUSED TO LOAD -- Owner Award The Panel was asked to determine the Charterer's liabilily where the charter party expressly defines the Vessel’s stowage capacity and the cargo requirement as "Min 38,000 MT, Max 4 grade(s) WVNS" (within Vessel’s natural segregation). Is the Charterer liable for deadfreight if the Owner refuses to load a portion of 2 of the nominated 3 parcels because it would be necessary to load through a single-valve segregation? Is the Charterer liable for deadfreight because they refused to sign Owner’s Letter of Indemnity (relieving Owner of risk of cross-contamination) which would have permitted Owner to load the full nomination? The Panel explains their decision in this award.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Maritime Articles

UP CLOSE: ConocoPhillips 2009 Marine Provisions

ConocoPhillips recently issued Marine Provisions for incorporation in commercial sales contracts which became effective January 1, 2009, superseding the September 1, 2008 Marine Provisions and January 1, 2005 Marine Provisions. Whether the seller is the Terminal Party (the party taking delivery from, or making delivery to, a Vessel); or the Vessel Party (the party, in agreement responsible for, taking delivery on, or making delivery from, a Vessel), ConocoPhillips’ new marine provisions are intended to be equitable and are clear when defining the respective parties’ responsibilities and liabilities. This being said, there are a number of intricacies within the provisions. From the perspective of a demurrage analyst, we find the following to be some of the items of note.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

The Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v. FR8 Singapore Pte Ltd (The “Eternity”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 21 Oct 2008

BPVOY -- TIME BAR -- SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- INERT GAS SYSTEM -- ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION VS USE OF DUE DILIGENCE -- NEGLIGENCE -- Partial Charterer, Owner Award If the Vessel’s crew failed to secure the common Inert Gas line resulting in the contamination of Charterer’s two cargoes, is the Owner excused under Hague Visby Article IV rule 2(a) i.e. "an act, neglect or default of the master and/or servants of the carrier in the management of the vessel"? Regarding demurrage time bar requirements, if the governing clause stipulates that the Vessel’s pump log is to be counter-signed by the Terminal and said signature is not obtained, is this cause for barring the entire claim or just that one aspect of the claim? If the operative demurrage time bar clause requires the Vessel’s documents to be counter-signed by a “Terminal” representative and the cargo transfer takes place at anchorage in a ship-to-ship (STS) transfer, does the lack of the Terminal’s signature give cause to bar that aspect of the claim?
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Caytrans BBC, LLC v. Agrogen SA de CV (The “Faaborg”) – SMA No. 4025, 27 Feb 2009

GENCON -- NO RESPONSE TO DEMURRAGE CLAIM -- AWAIT CARGO DOCUMENTS -- SHIFT OFF BERTH -- BROKERAGE COMMISSION -- Owner Award Even though the Charterer doesn't repond to the arbitrator's request to participate in the arbitration, the arbitrator looks critically at Owner's demurrage claim and makes revisions to reduce the demurrage amount. A key question in this award is what time counts as used laytime when the Vessel shifts off the berth to await documents at the anchorage prior to departure.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Trammochem v. dow Benelux N.V. and Atofina-Petrofina SA and AP Moeller and Igloo Shipping AS (The “LPG/C Igloo Norse”) – SMA No. 4021, 18 Dec 2007

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- PRIMA FACIE -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award On arrival at the discharge port, the cargo was found to be contaminated and the Receivers refused delivery. Charterer presented a prima facie claim showing that there was no apparent contamination in the cargo as it was delivered to the Vessel. The Panel sorted through a wealth of information to ascertain the source of cargo contamination, and explains the process of discovery.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Jo Tankers BV v. Empresa Maritima Americana, Ltd. (The “JO Hegg”) – SMA No. 4019, 19 Dec 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- CONFIDENTIALITY -- IMPROPER CANCELLATION -- Owner Award While the Vessel was in port awaiting cargo for another charterer, Owner was approached with the opportunity to load another cargo in the interim. The second fixture was quickly made, and Owner re-negotiated their laydays with the first charterer. The second charterer then promptly cancelled the fixture. Owner submitted a claim for lost profits, which the second charterer refuted due to the brevity of the fixture.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

TBS Latin America Liner, Ltd. v. CI Corporacion Carbones De La Sabansa SA (The “Ainu Princess”) – SMA No. 4017, 28 Nov 2008

GENCON -- NO RESPONSE TO DEMURRAGE CLAIM OR ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS -- RULES OF ARBITRATION -- Owner Award The Panel makes several attempts to contact the Charterer for participation in the proceedings, but received no response whatsoever. The Panel examines the demurrage claim at the heart of the award.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.