2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
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.
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.
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.
ASBATANKVOY -- BERTHING ORDERS -- CANCELLATION -- MITIGATE -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- LOST PROFITS -- Owner Award
Three days after laycan, the Charterers declared that the cargo transaction had failed and cancelled the charter. The Vessel sailed to fulfill other pre-existing contracts, and initiated arbitration to recover lost profits.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEVIATION -- FREIGHT -- HURRICANE -- WORLDSCALE -- ACT OF GOD -- STORM -- HURRICANE -- DEVIATION COSTS -- Owner Award
After arrival in the Mississippi River for discharge, the Vessel was subsequently ordered to sail to Houston for discharge in order to avoid a hurricane. At issue is the calculation of freight and deviation costs; whether Houston constituted the Charterer’s second discharge port option as per Charterer’s Diversion Clause or did the sole disport with the Mississippi River constitute a deviation.
