2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
FROZEN BALLAST -- PROOF OF PUBLIC HOLIDAY -- SUBSTANTIVE PROOF -- Charterer Award
Two separate demurrage issues arose over the course of the voyage. At loadport, the Vessel appeared to be fully loaded when, in fact, there was frozen ballast water remaining on board. The Charterers argued that the time spent waiting for the ice to thaw and loading recommencement should not count as used laytime. A second arbitration issue concerned the Charterers’ belief that December 27 was a national holiday (and a laytime exception) at disport.
TIME CHARTER -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- WAR OUTBREAK -- COMPENSATION FOR MARKET LOSS -- Charterer Award
The Owners began arbitration when the Time-Charterers returned the Vessel in 2001, several years before the conclusion of their time charter period without reimbursement for the remainder of the charter. The Owners argued that the Time-Charterers were liable for the outstanding payment and demanded compensation. Conversely, the Time-Charterers cited a wartime exception clause which made them indebted only up to the Second Gulf War in 2003.
GENCON -- IMPORT -- CARGO -- POSSESSORY LIEN -- DETENTION AT DISPORT -- ARBITRATION ACT 1996 -- PROPER CHARTER PARTY CANCELLATION -- Owner Award
Because the Receivers recently had their import license revoked, the Vessel was unable to discharge cargo at the nominated disport. The Owners responded by exercising their possessory lien on the cargo and ordered the Vessel to remain outside of port while concurrently accruing demurrage. The Owners began arbitration with the threat of charter party cancellation if the cargo was not received commercially acceptable time.
FRAME CONTRACT -- VOYAGE -- TIME-BAR --CARGO CONTAMINATION -- LIMITATIONS ACT 1980 -- Seller Award
This arbitration began as a result of two disputed "frame contract" voyages between the same Buyer and Seller. The first dispute centered around a potential time-bar exception under the Limitations Act 1980 to the Buyer’s presented claim. The second dispute concerned contaminated cargo onboard the Vessel, the resulting demurrage at disport and the liability of such contamination and delays.
TRUCKER STRIKE -- CONSEQUENTIAL DELAYS -- WORK SLOW-DOWN -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- Charterer Award
Due to a trucking strike at disport, the discharge operation was protracted, causing the Vessel to incur demurrage. The Charterer refuted the demurrage claim, citing that the strike was out of their control, and therefore, exempt from demurrage fees. On the other hand, Owner argued that the Charterers had not satisfied their obligation to search for alternative means of discharge.
ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- ARBITRATION -- TANK CLEANLINESS -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- Charterer Award
Upon the Vessel’s arrival at loadport, the Charterers’ inspector rejected the Vessel due to excess rust and tank lining deterioration. The Vessel crew attempted to clean the tanks over laycan, but ultimately could not meet the inspector’s minimum standards, so the Charterers subsequently terminated the charter party. The Owners refuted the cancellation by claiming that the expected standards were unjust and began arbitration for losses.
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).
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.
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.
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.
