2026 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
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.
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.
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.
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.
Replacing their “Equiva Trading Company Marine Provisions for Tankers, Tows and Barges Effective December 1, 1998”, Shell Trading (US) Company, STUSCO, recently introduced new General Terms and Conditions (GT&Cs). Intended to be equitable whether selling FOB, CFR, CIF or Delivered, STUSCO’s new GT&C’s is entitled “Shell Trading (US) Company General Terms and Conditions for the Sale and Purchase of Refined Products August 1st 2007”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
