2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
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.
In The TANKVOYager, Vol. 12 No. 2, the English High Court’s ruling in the case of Tidebrook Maritime Corp.
V. Vitol SA of Geneva (The “Front Commander”) [2005] was recapped and has now resurfaced in light of the Court of Appeal ruling.
ASBATANKVOY -- LAYCAN -- LAYTIME -- NOR -- APPEAL -- LOADING PRIOR TO LAYCAN -- Partial Owner Award
This is the appellate award for Tidebrook v. Vitol. Upon acknowledging that the Vessel would arrive before laycan, the Charterer sent several messages to the Vessel requesting that she tender NOR upon arrival with the intent of commencing loading prior to laycan; which she did. The Owner argued that this signified the commencement of laytime due to Charterer-given consent; however, the Charterer contends that they merely requested an early NOR.
POSSESSORY LIEN -- ARBITRATION -- DISPORT -- BERTH -- TIME CHARTER TRIP -- DEVIATION -- OFF-HIRE DEDUCTION -- CARGO LIEN -- Owner Award
En route to disport, the Charterers deducted an off-hire deviation from the Owner without consent. Subsequently, the Owner exercised his right of a possessory lien by refusing to berth at the discharge port until properly reimbursed. At arbitration, the two major issues were if the Owner had acted in the right by refusing discharge and if the initial deduction by the Charterers was properly submitted.
FIXTURE RECAP -- CHARTER PARTY -- TIME CHARTER RECAP "A.D.A. WOG" -- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION WARRANTY -- Owner Award
The central conflict of this case is the language and intention of "A.D.A. WOG" (“All Details About Without Guarantee”) in the context of contracts. In this case, the Charterer claimed that the acronym only applies to the recaps containing “about” in their description. The Owner, on the other hand, argues that because - in this instance - it concludes the speed and consumption recap, it applies to all preceding statements.
