2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
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.
Recapped in this issue of The TANKVOYager is London Arbitration 12/06 which among other subjects, deals with the tender of NOR prior to the Vessel’s arrival at the customary anchorage; as required in Asbatankvoy as well as
certain other boilerplates. Thus, the intention of this article is to look at both London and New York arbitrators’ respective approaches to the tender of NOR at end of sea passage (EOSP) when the underlying C/P requires NOR be tendered from the customary anchorage.
ASBATANKVOY -- VALIDITY OF NOR TENDERED EOSP -- RECEIPT OF NOR -- VESSEL RESTRICTED LOADING -- LOW DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE AND EFFECT ON DISCHARGE RATE -- LINING UP -- REDUCED INTEREST -- Owner Award
This dispute arises out of the finer aspects of proper NOR declaration. In this case, the Vessel tendered NOR upon arriving at the disport’s entry buoy, which the Charterers refute as "customary anchorage." If this is not considered “customary anchorage,” then the Vessel’s NOR cannot represent a valid laytime beginning.
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.
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.
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.
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.
