2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
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.
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.
EXXONMOBIL VOY2000 -- PURGE -- VOYAGE ORDERS -- LOAD PORT -- CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- CARGO HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS -- Charterer Award
This arbitration stems from the Contract of Affreightment on ExxonMobil Voy2000 and the responsibility of nitrogen purging. In this case, when the Vessel reached the load port, the Charterers refused Vessel loading because the tanks were not purged to the cargo’s required .5% O2 level. The Owners, however, brought evidence proving that the specific purging requirements were not included in the COA or the voyage orders.
VOYAGE CHARTER PARTY -- LAYDAY -- CARGO -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- DEADFREIGHT -- DETENTION -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- Owner Award
The Vessel arrived at loadport and tendered NOR within laycan, however the Charterer failed to supply the cargo. The Charterer, after fourteen days of expressing to the Owner that loading would begin soon, cancelled the Charter Party because of "unexpected problems." The Owner subsequently demanded compensation for damages to demurrage, deadfreight, and detention.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- FREIGHT -- ARBITRATION -- VOYAGE -- INTEREST ON FREIGHT AND DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
After outstanding demurrage and freight bills for three separate voyages, the Owner began arbitration to recover lost profits and interest. Although the Charterer did not participate in the proceedings, the sole arbitrator pointed out several issues with the Vessel's NOR at the loadport which could have been contested.
BURDEN OF PROOF -- ARBITRATION -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- CARGO -- PORT -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- Owner Award
Upon arriving at the discharge port, the Vessel’s cargo was discovered to be heavily contaminated with sea water. The Charterers subsequently began arbitration to recover expenses; however the Charterer’s claim must prove that cargo quality was intact before voyage and was contaminated after discharge.
BURDEN OF PROOF -- SEAWORTHY -- BARGING COSTS -- STORAGE FEES -- THROUGHPUT CHARGES -- Partial Owner Award
The Charterers sought arbitration for additional barging costs, storage fees, and throughput charges because of Owner's failure to provide a seaworthy vessel. Such charges, however, require the Charterers to support their claim with ample evidence.
ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME BAR -- Charterer Award
A clause in this case’s Charter Party stated that all claims become void unless arbitration begins within one year post-voyage. But after reaching a subsequent demurrage agreement with the Charterer within the specified timeframe, the Owners began arbitration several years later stating that this informal agreement constituted a recognizable second contract.
VOYAGE CHARTER PARTY -- DEADFREIGHT -- DRAFT RESTRICTIONS -- DISCHARGE PORT -- CHARTER PARTY -- QUANTITY IN OWNER’S OPTION -- Charterer Award
In order to meet draft restrictions at disport, the Charterers loaded less than the maximum capacity allowable by the Vessel. In response to the subsequent deadfreight due to the Charterers’ port selection, the Owner started arbitration referencing that the Charterers violated the "always accessible" port clause in their charter and demanded that the deadfreight be compensated.
SYNACOMEX -- DEADFREIGHT -- CHARTER PARTY -- CARGO -- DOCK -- BUNKER -- PORT -- SHIFT TIME -- SHORTLOAD -- SHIFT TIME -- ONCE ON DEMURRAGE ALWAYS ON DEMURRAGE -- DETENTION -- Partial Charterer Award
In this case, the Charterers failed to provide the contracted amount of cargo and agreed to pay the deadfreight rate stipulated in the Charter Party. However, the Charterers argued that the benefits of deadfreight, such as dock savings, bunker savings, and savings on port charges, should offset the net deadfreight cost billed to them.
