2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Ocean Pride Maritime Ltd. Partnership v. Quingdao Ocean Shipping Co. (The “Northgate”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 27 Nov 07

NOR -- TENDERED FROM OUTER ANCHORAGE -- NOR ACCEPTED UNCONDITIONALLY BY THIRD PARTY TERMINAL -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award The Vessel tendered her NOR to the Charterer’s agents and the Terminal from the outer anchorage within the given laycan. However, a congested berth forced her to wait at the outer anchorage for ten days, which was subsequently claimed as demurrage by the Owners. The Charterer rejected this demurrage claim and stated that because the Vessel was at the outer anchorage upon tender, the NOR was invalid. Conversely, the Owner pointed out that the Terminal unconditionally accepted their NOR.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v. Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia (The “Achilleas”) – Court of Appeal, 6 Sep 07

TIME CHARTER -- LATE REDELIVERY -- LOST PROFITS UNDER SUBSEQUENT FIXTURE -- LIABILITY -- Owner Award This arbitration appeal deals with the damages that a time-charterer is liable to pay to a shipowner for any late redelivery of the chartered Vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Waterfront Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Trafigura AG (The “Sabrewing”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 31 Oct 07

BPVOY3 -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME-BAR -- REQUIRED DOCUMENTS -- PUMP LOG NOT PROVIDED BY OWNER -- Charterer Award The Owner filed a claim for demurrage before the 90-day time-bar, however they did not supply the supporting pump log before the time-bar date. The Owners argue that they only needed to provide the necessary documents supporting their claimed amount and that their claim was not dependent upon the pump logs. Furthermore, they have evidence that the Charterer had received the pump logs from an alternative source before the time-bar.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Niki Maritime Enterprises SA v. Global Companies LLC. (The “Niki”) – SMA No. 3963, 1 Jun 07

ASBATANKVOY -- PUMP WARRANTY -- INTEREST ON UNDISPUTED DEMURRAGE -- ASDEM PUMPING PERFORMANCE EQUATION -- Charterer Award Because the Vessel did not meet the pump warranty at disport, the Charterer rejected any excess pumping time billed to them by the Owner. The Owner argued that the terminal was incapable of receiving the cargo at the contracted rate and therefore made a reduced claim for pumping time basis the ASDEM Pumping Performance equation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Team Tankers AS v. Apex Energy (The “Team Jupiter” and “Loukas I”) – SMA No. 3965, 5 Jun 07

ASBATANKVOY -- SHORTLOADING -- WITHHELD FREIGHT -- TWO BOTTOMS -- DAMAGES -- Partial Owner Award In light of Owner violations to the voyage charter by splitting the cargo onto two vessels,, the Charterer made an unauthorized deduction from Owner’s freight payment to compensate for damages incurred during voyage. At arbitration, the Owner believed that the withheld freight payment and the Charterer’s damages should be treated as separate issues.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Ibe Shipping Corp. v. Exmar NV – SMA No. 3966, 18 Jun 07

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- COA -- FAIRLY EVENLY SPREAD -- SPOT MARKET RATE -- CARGO NOMINATION REJECTED -- FAIRLY EVENLY SPREAD -- Charterer Award The Owner refused to nominate a vessel to lift the final COA cargo tonnage on the grounds that a third voyage in one month violated the contracted "fairly evenly spread" nomination requirement. The Charter subsequently had to load the remaining cargo at the substantially higher spot market rate and began arbitration to recover the resulting losses.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 9/07

SHELLTIME 3 -- TIME CHARTER -- SPEED WARRANTY -- CONSUMPTION WARRANTY -- PERFORMANCE -- TIME-BAR -- Partial Charterer Award This arbitration award resolves three separate disputes which center upon the speed and consumption warranties provided within the time-charter contract. Without receiving substantiating performance reviews, the Charterer withheld varying freight amounts from voyages basis estimated values. The Owner, however, argued that they should be reimbursed for disputed claims raised by them before time-bar, for voyage over-performance, and because of unrepresentative assessment of vessel performance during short voyages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 10/07

WHETHER REPAIR WORK CARRIED OUT AT ANCHORAGE CONSTITUTES OFF HIRE -- LIGHTERAGE COSTS INCURRED WHEN MASTER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH LOAD DRAFT INSTRUCTIONS -- DELAY INCURRED BY FAILURE TO PAY DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT -- Owner Award The Charterer began arbitration proceedings to recover losses from four issues that arose under a time charter contract; three are recapped. At arbitration, the Charterer argues that the repair work undertaken at anchorage constitutes an off-hire, that the lighterage charges resulting from an incorrect sailing draft should be due Owner, and that the detention time at disport was avoidable and faulted by the Owner.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 12/07

GENCON -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- BILL OF LADING -- LOADPORT -- STATEMENT OF FACTS -- LETTER OF INDEMNITY -- Owner Award After loading a clearly contaminated cargo, the Charterer and Owner disputed over whether the contamination should be mentioned in the Bill of Lading, which resulted in vessel delays at loadport. The Charterer believed that the contamination could be logged in the statement of facts and withheld the Letter of Indemnity until a clean B/L was issued. The Owner therefore blamed the delay on the Charterer.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

AIC Ltd. v. Marine Pilot Ltd. (The “Archimidis”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 17 May 07

ASBATANKVOY -- SHORTLOADED -- DRAFT -- BAD WEATHER -- SILTING -- DEADFREIGHT -- SAFE PORT WARRANTY -- Partial Owner Award At loadport, the Vessel could only safely load to a less-than-contracted draft level due to bad weather conditions and excess silting. The Owner demanded that the Charterer pay deadfreight for the voyage due to negligence in declaring a safe vessel berth. The Charterer, however, believed that it was the Owner’s responsibility to validate the port’s safety and that the contractual term "safe port" was not a warranty but a mutual agreement that the port was safe.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.