2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

SK Shipping Europe PLC v. Capital VLCC 3 Corporation and Others (The “C Challenger”) – Court of Appeal (Males, Phillips and Carr LJJ) [2022] EWCA Civ 231– 25 February 2022

OVER CONSUMPTION – REPUDIATORY BREACH – TIME CHARTER – SHELLTIME 4 FORM – FALSE REPRESENTATION
Capital Maritime and Trade Corporation negotiated a two-year time charter with SK Shipping on November 25, 2016. The speed and consumption data of the vessels’ last 3 voyages were set out in the charterparty and were guaranteed for future voyages by SK Shipping. Capital Maritime noticed far greater consumption than was guaranteed and ceased paying hire, eventually terminating the charter. Capital Maritime appealed the first court’s decision claiming the representation of consumption in the charter implied a guaranteed representation of future performance.

Poten & Partners, Inc. v. MTM Trading, LLC. (MTM “Gibralter”) – SMA No. 4445, 16 May 2022

DEMURRAGE – WAITING TIME – AMENDED BPVOY4 FORM – COMMISSION – CHARTER BROKER
The MTM Gibraltar was chartered to voyage from Houston to Tuxpan with an option of one or two consecutive voyages. During the second voyage after loading was completed, the vessel spent 117 days waiting for further orders by the charterer, Laurel Shipping LLC. The charter broker, Poten & Partners, claimed that this waiting period counted as demurrage and claimed they were owed commission for these 117 days.

Stolt Tankers BV v. Stryker Fuels LLC (MT “MONAX”) – SMA No. 4449, 4 August 2022

DAMAGES – UNSTABLE CARGO – TIME BAR CLAUSE
The MT Monax was chartered to make two voyages, one from Ontario to New York carrying Residual Fuel Oil (RFO), and the second from Ontario to Belgium carrying clean products. The voyages were completed between July 1 and September 3. On September 23, 2021, the owner, Stolt Tankers, submitted a claim for damages stating that the RFO was unstable, preventing complete discharge and requiring extensive tank cleaning. The charterer, Stryker Fuels, countered that the claim should be dismissed because it was made outside of the time bar period.

Eagle Bulk PTE. LTD. v. Salt Source, LLC, (M/V “Gladiator”) – SMA No. 4448, 29 July 2022

FORCE MAJEURE – ANTICIPATORY BREACH – COVID 19 – HURRICANE DAMAGE – CARGO CONTAMINATION – REPUDIATORY BREACH – DEMURRAGE
The MV Gladiator was chartered under a Contract of Affreightment to transport salt from Brazil to Alabama from March-December 2020. The disponent owner, Eagle Bulk, disputed load port demurrage from the first lifting, unpaid freight charges, and losses for a breach of contract due to the charterer, Salt Source, failing to nominate a second cargo. Salt Source counterclaimed for damages to a portion of their cargo which they claimed had been contaminated during the voyage and claimed force majeure due to Covid-19 and Hurricane Sally for the cancellation of the remaining contracted voyages.

London Arbitration 12/22

BERTHING CHARGES – LAYTIME – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES – AMENDED GENCON 94
Owner refused to let its vessel proceed to berth at the discharge port due to lack of space in its storage yard. Arbitration continued to decide whether the owner was entitled to refuse the orders of the charterer.

Astir Holdings, Inc. v. Xcoal Energy & Resources (The “Lacon”) – SMA No.4438, 25 February 2022

AMERICANIZED WELSH COAL CHARTER – DEMURRAGE – SECOND DISCHARGE BERTH – QUARANTINE INSPECTION – REPOSITIONING CREDIT
Xcoal Energy & Resources chartered Astir Holdings Inc. for carriage of coal from Mobile to one safe berth at Jingtang. En route, Xcoal changed its discharging port from Jingtang to Lanshan, and claimed a repositioning credit since Lanshan was closer to the vessel’s next port. Astir approved the request to unload at two discharging berths instead of the one that was contractually agreed upon, however exceptions to laytime and demurrage at the second berth were not discussed at the time. Arbitration was sought to determine if the charterer’s exceptions to time counting as demurrage should apply for the second discharging berth.

Stolt Tankers B.V. v. Tricon Energy Limited (The “Stolt Lotus”) – SMA No. 4442, 11 April 2022

DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – AMENDED ASBATANKVOY CHARTERPARTY – STORAGE OR DEMURRAGE
Stolt Tankers was chartered by Tricon Energy Limited to ship mono ethylene glycol (MEG) from Baton Rouge and Houston to Antwerp. At Antwerp, the cargo was transshipped to two barges, but the shipments were rejected before discharge. The charterer could not find suitable shoretank storage before another buyer was secured. Stolt submitted invoices to Tricon for “storage” after their 90 day demurrage time bar. NOTE: This recap includes the majority decision and dissenting opinion.

BBC Chartering Carriers GmbH & Co. KG v. Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais (M/V “LEFKES”) – SMA No. 4446, 4 July 2022

DEMURRAGE – LAYTIME CALCULATION – AMENDED GENCON 1994 CHARTER – NO CORRESPONDENCE
BBC Chartering Carriers and Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais entered into an amended GENCON charter to deliver galvanized steel coils from Praia Mole to Houston. After the voyage the charterer paid the freight invoice in full but disputed the total of the invoice for the demurrage costs. The charterer then gave no reasoning or defense for the disputed demurrage.

London Arbitration 29/22

SPEED AND CONSUMPTION METHODOLOGY – REDELIVERY – REDELIVERY OF BUNKERS – ARMED GUARDS – HULL FOULING – AMENDED NYPE 1946 FORM – TUG ASSISTANCE – OFF HIRE – BIMCO PIRACY CLAUSE
A subject vessel was chartered for four to seven months. After redelivery, the owner issued a Final Hire Statement, and the charterer denied owing any balance to the owner. The issues under dispute in the proceedings were speed and consumption, redelivery, redelivery of bunkers, armed guards, hull fouling, damage, and tug assistance.

London Arbitration 19/22

NOTICE OF READINESS – NOR – DEMURRAGE – ALTERNATIVE ANCHORAGE
The subject vessel was hired to transport aniline from China to Houston and tendered NOR while at the Shanghai shipyard. The owner claimed there was no waiting space at the loadport, the berth was occupied, and the anchorage at CJK was congested. Charterers denied demurrage costs incurred, asserting the NOR was invalid for it was not tendered at the customary anchorage per charterparty requirements. The owner asserted it was implied that if the vessel were not able to enter the loadport, NOR could be tendered at a location equidistant or nearer to the loadport than the customary anchorage.