2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
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.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps due to November’s capture by pirates of the Sirius Star, a fully laden VLCC captured some 500 nautical miles off the coast of Kenya, the fact that piracy has dramatically increased in the past year has finally entered the vernacular of the mainstream media spurring interest amongst those outside the maritime community.1 This interest has sparked many suggestions and opinions on how to stop piracy, some action towards that goal, concern over piracy’s human and economic costs and how to best resolve the tricky legal issues that can arise.
MEANING OF "ACCEPT / EXCEPT" -- TIME-BAR -- CALCULATION ERROR -- UNILATERAL MISTAKE -- Seller Award
If a demurrage claim is paid, and later discovered to have contained an error, is there an obligation to pay the additional amount, even if the time bar has long since passed? When negotiating a contract, what is the meaning of the phrase "accept/except"?
GENCON -- VESSEL DAMAGED WHILE BERTHING -- MULTIPLE BERTH CALLS IN PORT -- SAFE BERTH WARRANTY -- Charterer Award
If a specific port is named in a voyage charterparty and there are several possible berths within that port to which a vessel could be directed and there is no express "safety" warranty of either the port or the berth, is the charterparty subject to an implied term that the Charterers must nominate a “safe” berth?
AMERICANIZED WELSH COAL -- CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- LATE NOMINATION OF LAYDAYS -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- Owner Award
On the 5th lifting under a contract of affreightment (COA) covering six voyages, the Charterer nominated the layday spread but was subsequently unable to secure a cargo, and asked Owner to move the laydays back two weeks. Due to a rising freight market, Owner was unwilling to do so, but offered to simply cancel voyage #5 and lift the cargo as the last voyage under the fixture. At issue is whether the laydays were irrevocable even though Owner had not yet nominated a Vessel.
SHELLTIME 4 -- TIME CHARTER -- VESSEL NOT DELIVERED BY CANCELLATION DATE -- DELIVERY PORT NOT NAMED -- RIGHT TO CANCEL -- FUTILITY -- Charterer Award
Although the Vessel was due to be delivered to Nigeria to commence a time charterer contract, she was at drydock in Greece and missed the deadline for the delivery date. Charterer cancelled the charter, which Owner refuted, citing additional work which Charterer had ordered on the Vessel's tanks which made the deadline impossible to meet. Owner also argued that Charterer failed in their obligation to nominate a specific delivery port, which would have given Owners 30 days to make delivery.
ASBATANKVOY -- WITHHELD FREIGHT -- SECURITY -- CONDITION OF TANKS -- Partial Final Owner Award
On arrival at the third loading port, the inspectors found the Vessel's remaining tanks unsuitable to load, calling the epoxy coating too badly deteriorated. The Vessel sailed to the discharge port without loading the balance cargo. The Charterer withheld freight, citing the Vessel's condition and the cost of acquiring alternate carriage for the unloaded cargo.
