2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

London Arbitration 20/07

NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- SPEED WARRANTY -- BUNKER CONSUMPTION -- CHARTERPARTY LANGUAGE -- APPLICATION OF MARGIN FOR "ABOUT" -- EXERCISE OF LIEN OVER CARGO (OFF HIRE) -- Partial Owner, Partial Charterer Award The Panel in this dispute was called on to determine the amount recoverable by Charterers under a time charter for the Vessel's underperformance in the warranted speed and for the over-consumption of bunkers. The award details how the Panel calculated the damages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 21/07

ASBATANKVOY -- BILL OF LADING -- NOR TENDERED OUTSIDE PORT LIMITS -- "QUICK DEPARTURE" PROCEDURE -- PIRACY -- Owner Award Charterers presented two complaints against the Owner in this arbitration. The first was regarding a "quick departure procedure" in which a verbal agreement was made between Charterer's and Owner's agents, for the Vessel to sail the loadport without a copy of the bill of lading onboard. The second was regarding the Vessel's location when she tendered NOR at the Nigerian discharge port. The award details why the Panel rejected any agreements made by agents, and how the threat of piracy off the shore of Nigeria affected the Panel's ruling on what constituted a valid NOR.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Weather Delays at an FPSO – Does Time Count?

As with most laytime and demurrage issues, charter party terms and conditions spell out when time starts and stops– but what happens when a Vessel loads at an FPSO (Floating Production, Storage and Offloading vessel)? Although no charter party boilerplate specifically mentions the FPSO operation, this is not an issue because it is generally incorporated by a catch-all phrase like, “…or any other loading or discharging point whatsoever to which Charterers are entitled to order the vessel hereunder” and thus all the laytime and demurrage provisions would apply. Problems can arise, however, when clauses are modified during the fixture negotiation process. In particular, since shipowners oftentimes modify the Conoco Weather Clause1 by stipulating that weather delays count in full at transshipment areas, lighterage, and for STS operations, the question arises whether this implicitly applies to FPSO operations too. Although Owners’ intention is to mitigate adverse weather delays (including wind and swells) that ships are frequently subjected to in these areas of operation at sea, said amendment may not necessarily include delays at an FPSO.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

PDVSA Petroleon y Gas SA v. Poseidon Schiffahrt GmbH (The “Pharos”) – SMA No. 3972, 6 Aug 07

ASBATANKVOY -- DELAY -- FAILURE TO PROSECUTE -- DISMISSAL -- Partial Owner Award The Charterer began arbitration to recover damages resulting from an Owner breach of contract and demanded for an immediate partial reward. However, the Charterer delayed to prosecute the manner beyond the claim’s submission and after eight years of delayed prosecution, the Owner moved to dismiss the case.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Team Tankers AS v. Apex Energy, LLC. (The “Team Jupiter” and “Loukas I”) – SMA No. 3973, 17 Aug 07

ASBATANKVOY -- SHORTLOADING -- WITHHELD FREIGHT -- TWO BOTTOMS -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award In compensation for damages (specifically shortloading, an address commission on freight issue, legal and administrative costs) incurred by the Owner, the Charterer made an unauthorized freight deduction from the contracted pay amount. In the partial award of SMA No. 3965, the sole arbitrator ruled that the withheld freight and the claim for damages would be addressed in two different rulings. The withheld freight was addressed in the aforesaid partial award and the remaining items are discussed herein.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 15/07

TIME CHARTER -- SPEED WARRANTY -- CONSUMPTION WARRANTY -- SPEED CALCULATION -- SEA CURRENT FACTOR -- WEATHER FACTOR -- FAVORABLE CURRENTS -- Owner Award This arbitration concerns the interpretation of the time chartered Vessel’s speed and consumption warranties, specifically, if the Vessel's actual speed performance be reduced by taking beneficial sea currents into account.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA v. Chevron USA Inc. (The “Luxmar”) – Court of Appeal, 22 May 07

SALES CONTRACT -- CARGO -- BREACH -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- MEANING OF LAYCAN IN SALES CONTRACT -- Seller Award In this contract, the Buyer had to nominate a performing Vessel for the voyage, narrow the laycan to a two day period, and then the Seller would have to load the Vessel in 36 + 6 hrs. The Buyer performed all contracted requirements; however, upon arrival, the Seller’s plant was unable to supply cargo within the contracted load window. The Buyer subsequently claimed that the Seller violated the contract and canceled the transaction.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 18/07

GENCON -- DETENTION -- VESSEL MASTER -- DELAYED LAUNCH FOR CARGO INSPECTOR -- Owner Award Although several issues were disputed in arbitration, only the detention claim item will be recapped. The Owner filed for detention damages when the Vessel was delayed at port because there was no launch available for the port’s inspector after nightfall. The Charterer, however, contended that it was customary at the given loadport for the vessel master to be responsible for such launches.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v. Ugland Bulk Transport AS (The “Livanita”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 6 Jun 2007

NYPE -- HULL DAMAGE -- ICE -- ANCHORAGE -- SAFE PORT WARRANTY -- CHARTER PARTY CONSTRUCTION -- Owner Award En route from disport, the Vessel suffered hull damage from ice and the Owner submitted a claim for damage compensation. The Charterer contended that ice was an obvious expectation at this specific disport during the winter, and therefore, the risk was borne by the Owner upon the port’s acceptance. The Owner defended stating that the charter outlined that all berths, ports and anchorages must be safe regardless of acceptance implications.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Golden Fleece Maritime Inc v. ST Shipping & Transport Inc (The “Elli” and “Frixos”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 2 Aug 07

SHELLTIME 4 -- MARPOL -- CHANGE OF INTERNATIONAL REGULATION -- TIME CHARTER -- CARGO RESTRICTIONS -- COMMERCIAL RISK -- DUE DILIGENCE -- Charterer Award This arbitration began as a result of MARPOL international regulation changes during the operating period of this specific time charter. Due to these changes, the two operating Vessels became legally unable to carry their contracted cargo. This ruling settles which party should bear the commercial risk.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.