2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
VEGOILVOY -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER -- LOADPORT -- CHARTER PARTY -- CARGO -- VOYAGE -- DEADFREIGHT -- PAYMENT AND CALCULATION OF DEADFREIGHT -- Owner Award
The Owners brought arbitration against three separate Charterers in order to collect lost profits from an improper cancellation. Six days before arriving at loadport, the Owner received a message asking Him/Her to cancel the Charter Party because the cargo was unavailable. However, because voyage was underway and there was no locatable substitute cargo, the Vessel arrived, tendered NOR, and sailed with deadfreight.
ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- BERTH -- DETENTION -- DEMURRAGE -- INDEMNITY -- CONSOLIDATION OF POTENTIAL CLAIMS INVOLVING MULTIPLE PARTIES -- Partial Charterer Award
A collapsed breasting fender at loadport caused an eleven day berthing delay for the Vessel, subsequently allowing the Owner to file for a demurrage claim. The Charterers counterclaimed that the fender collapse was caused by the Vessel and demanded indemnity for demurrage on four other vessels and indemnity for a potential damages claim from the dock owner.
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- PORT -- LAYTIME -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- NOR VALIDITY -- Owner Award
After arriving at port and once approved for loading, the Vessel tendered NOR, but waited fourteen days before berthing. However, before load operations could commence, onboard hydraulic problems delayed cargo loading further and gave the Charterers fodder to claim that the NOR tender was premature. The Charterers argued that if the Vessel was not ready to load in all respects, then laytime cannot commence.
ASBATANKVOY -- VESSEL -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER PARTY -- LOADPORT -- CANCELLATION DUE LATE ARRIVAL – MARKET LOSS -- Owner Award
After engine problems delayed the original Vessel from arriving at loadport, the Charterers cancelled the Charter Party with the Owners and chartered another vessel to take its place. At arbitration, the Charterers held the Owners in full responsibility for failing to provide a timely vessel and demanded compensation for resulting market loss.
Loading prior to the commencement of laydays can have many positive outcomes, not least of which is the expedited turn around of the voyage. However, this being said, there are pitfalls for which both Owners and Charterers should be aware of. Discussed below are two of them.
ASBATANKVOY -- LAYCAN -- LAYTIME -- NOR -- APPEAL -- LOADING PRIOR TO LAYCAN -- Charterer Award
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.
LAYCAN -- ACT OF GOD -- CONTRACT -- CARGO -- SHIPPING -- CIF PURCHASE CANCELLED DUE LATE LOAD -- VALIDITY OF ETA -- Buyer Award
Although arriving promptly on the first day of laycan, bad weather kept the vessel from berthing for two weeks. Subsequently, the Buyer cancelled the contract arguing: that the Seller failed to ship the cargo within the shipping period, that the seller failed in His/Her obligation to ship the cargo expediently, and that the disport ETA’s were unrealistic in the context of Winter weather.
ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- LOADPORT -- TWO PORT LOAD -- ALL TANKS NOT READY AT FIRST PORT -- VALIDITY OF NOR -- Owner Award
Fulfilling an option granted by the Charter Party, the Charterer added a second loadport to the voyage. But when the Vessel tendered NOR at the first loadport, the NOR was rejected because the Vessel’s tanks to be loaded at the second loadport were unclean. The Charterers argued that the NOR cannot be valid if the Vessel is not ready to load cargo in all respects (including subsequent port loading).
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- CARGO -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- PREMATURE NOR -- DESPATCH -- CARGO LOSS -- SIMULTANEOUS CARGO HANDLING -- Owner Award
This arbitration dispute centers around the finer responsibilities of the Owner to load with "utmost dispatch" and to load concurrently in cases of more than one cargo. However, if the Charterer sustains a loss from delayed loading, the burden to prove any such loss lies on the Charterers.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- ARBITRATION -- PRORATE -- INCREASED DEMURRAGE INVOICE -- Owner Award
In order to collect outstanding demurrage claims, the Owner started arbitration; however, originally, the claim was erroneously calculated with a lower prorated waiting time which the Owner raised at arbitration. The Charterers argued that they were exempt from this new rate because they believed it to be punitive and an alteration of the original contract.
