2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

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.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

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.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

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.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

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.

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.