2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Handy Tankers K/S v. Citgo (The “Magpie”) – SMA No. 3948, 6 Nov 2006

PUMP WARRANTY -- DELAY -- DISCHARGE -- INTERPRETATION -- INTEREST ON UNCONTESTED DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award At discharge, the Vessel failed to meet the 100 PSI pump warranty, which thereby faulted the Owners for subsequent delays. Because the 100 PSI limit was not reached, the Charterers argued that any time over 24H was delay time. The Owners, on the other hand, felt that this method did not accurately interpret the clause’s definition of true Vessel underperformance delays.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 13/06

ASBATANKVOY -- CLINGAGE -- SHORTAGE -- BILL OF LANDING -- SHORT OUTTURN OF GASOIL -- RIGHT TO DEDUCT FREIGHT -- INDEPENDENT SURVEYOR -- Owner Award This dispute arose from the Vessel having 1.06% less cargo at the discharge port than what was specified in the Bill of Lading. Referencing the "Cargo clingage" clause in the contract, the Charterers argued that any short cargo in excess of 0.5% shall be deducted from freight, which they proactively did. However, the Owners counterclaimed that this clause deals only with cargo clingage and that the Vessel survey report did not mention any such clingage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 14/06

SHELLVOY 5 -- DISCOLORATION -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- VESSEL -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE WITHOUT SECURITY -- DEMURRAGE LIABILITY -- Owner Award When the Vessel arrived at the discharge port, the Charterer refused to accept apparently contaminated cargo without the Owner’s security. In the initial contract, the Owner would be liable for the cargo if it became contaminated because of any breakdowns, but the Owner argued that the Charterer had no proof of any condition change in the cargo during voyage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Independent Petroleum Group Ltd. v. Seacarriers Count Pte. Ltd. (The “Count”) – Comm. Ct. EWHC 3222, 12 Dec 2006

ASBATANKVOY -- HARBOR -- GROUNDING -- PORT -- SAFE PORT WARRANTY -- CHANNEL BLOCKAGE -- PREVAILING CONDITIONS DO NOT AMOUNT TO A TEMPORARY HAZARD -- Owner Award Upon tendering NOR, the Vessel’s arrival to and departure from port was impeded by two separate occurrences of other vessels grounding in the channel. The issue at arbitration became whether the Charterers were accountable for damages from delays because of their failure in nominating a safe port or if the grounding of the other vessels truly influenced the safety of the designated berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 1/07

ARBITRATION -- BUNKERS -- CONSUMPTION -- CHARTER -- PERFORMANCE WARRANTY CLAUSE -- Owner Award In this time-charter contract, the Vessel had under-consumed its allotted bunkers because of slow steaming. The difference in the allotted and actual consumption would be paid to the Owners; however, due to vague language in the charter, the amount of under-consumption was under dispute in arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

What Constitutes a Safe Port / Berth?

Intrinsic within the majority of charter parties is the need for the charterer to provide a safe berth and/or a safe port for the particular chartered Vessel. This is well defined by J. Bond Smith in the “Tulane Law Review” (Vol. 49, No. 4 p. 61).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Gulf Atlantic Operations, LLC. v. Andorra Services, Inc. BVI (The “Elise Schulte”) – SMA No. 3921, 20 Apr 2006

BPVOY4 -- LAYTIME -- FREE PRATIQUE -- NOTICE OF READINESS CLAUSE -- PORT -- Owner Award After the Vessel tendered NOR in the Port of New York, it took over 6H to grant free pratique—a violation to the BPVOY4’s Notice of Readiness Clause. However, the Port of New York does not formally endow free pratique, but instead views a tendered NOR as the beginning of laytime.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Odfjell Seachem AS v. Tokyo Marine Co. Ltd. (The “Bow Petros”) – SMA No. 3922, 19 Apr 2006

ASBATANKVOY -- LAYTIME -- PRORATED -- CHARTER PARTY -- CARGO -- DEMURRAGE -- PARCEL TANKER -- ARBITRATION -- Owner Award The original Charter Party contained no stipulation on laytime rates, so in order to incentivize payment, the Owners gave a gratis prorated cost for time at port. However, when the demurrage claim became outstanding, the Owners began arbitration and removed the original prorate and pursued the claim in full.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Elvado Trading Ltd. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Cariad”) – SMA No. 3924, 14 Apr 2006

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- TERMINAL -- DEMURRAGE -- TERMINAL -- DOCK MASTER -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES -- Charterer Award After the vessel had been loaded with separate cargos, the Charterer discovered that one of the cargos had been contaminated with another. The Owner claimed that the contamination came from the terminal and commenced arbitration for demurrage and shifting expenses caused by the contamination. The Charterer counterclaimed for costs lost material costs arguing that the contamination resulted from tank seal defects.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 10/06

ASBATANKVOY -- LPG CARGO -- VALIDITY OF LOAD NOR WHEN POSSIBLE CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN VESSEL’S TANKS -- NIGHTTIME TRANSIT RESTRICTION -- DELAY FINDING SOLUTION FOR CONTAMINANTS IN TANKS -- DOCUMENTS ONBOARD -- UNSAFE BERTH -- SHIFT COSTS -- ROB -- Partial Owner Award The arbitration following the Vessel’s voyage encompassed several key demurrage arguments. Disagreements centered on the validity of the Vessel’s NOR (tendered after a pre-inspection revealed contaminants in three tanks), the responsibility of the Charterer in supplying a safe berth "reachable on [the Vessel’s] arrival," shifting delays, and ROB compensation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.