2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
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.
In London Arbitration 8/08 we saw the tribunal rule that time during which a vessel bunkers at a waiting anchorage (i.e. charterers’ berth is not available) is to count as laytime or as time on demurrage. In making their ruling, the panel concluded that no time was lost as the vessel would not have been able to attend to the berth even had she not been bunkering nor was the ship’s readiness deemed impaired as she was doing what the charterer had ordered her to do; wait at the anchorage.
STEMMOR -- ACCEPTANCE OF NOR -- REVERSIBLE LAYTIME -- TIME COUNTING DURING BUNKERING -- Owner Award
The Panel is asked to rule on a variety of topics, including whether or not the failure to reject a NOR means that it is inherently accepted, the nature of "reversible" laytime and how laytime should be calculated for separate parcels, and whether time spent bunkering while waiting for an available berth counts as laytime.
ASBATANKVOY -- RESPONSIBILITY FOR "PIER DUES" -- CONFLICTING CLAUSES -- AMENDMENTS -- Charterer Award
Although this award focuses on the responsibility for paying pier dues, it is relevant to laytime and demurrage in that the charter party contains two clauses which are in conflict. The Panel determines which clause takes precedence, and explains why.
SHELLTIME 4 -- VESSEL FITNESS FOR SERVICE WHEN REGULATIONS RESTRICTING CARGOES CHANGE -- MARPOL -- SEAWORTHINESS -- Charterer Award
Two vessels were contracted for the carriage of fuel oils, but following the fixture, MARPOL regulations were changed, requiring fuel oil to be carried only in double-hulled ships. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, and described what changes could have been made to the two vessels to bring them in compliance with the new MARPOL regulations.
