2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Sea Goddess Shipholding, Inc. v. Standard Tankers Bahamas, Ltd. (The “Strimon”) – SMA No. 3807, 15 Oct 2003

EXXONVOY 90 -- ACT OF GOD -- DISPORT -- DRAFT -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- DEMURRAGE RATE -- Charterer Award Because of high winds pushing water out of the Houston Channel, the Vessel was unable to arrive at disport with its ordered draft. The Owners demanded that this extensive delay be paid in full by the Charterers, however, the Charterers cite the contract which stipulates that any delay due to adverse weather is paid at half the Demurrage Rate.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Odfjell Seachem ASA v. Vinmar International, Ltd. (The “Bow Lady”) – SMA No. 3810, 30 Oct 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- LOADPORT -- SHIP-TO-SHIP -- COASTER -- DEMURRAGE -- ARBITRATION -- DOCK -- Owner Award While loading other charterers’ cargo at the loadport, the Vessel tendered NOR for the Charterer’s ship-to-ship transfer. The Charterer’s coaster, however, waited until all other Vessel loading ceased before coming alongside the Vessel, causing an additional day of laytime. But at arbitration, the Charterer argued that the Vessel’s NOR was invalid because He/She claims that STS transfer could not begin while dock loading.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Terminal Breakdown: Is Fault Or Pre-Existing Condition An Exception?

The recent decision by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) UK to overturn the High Court’s prior ruling in the case of Portolana Compania Naviera v. Vitol SA – “The Afrapearl” is sure to have a profound affect on how the maritime industry views a one-half demurrage provision such as the “breakdown of machinery or equipment in or about the plant of the charterer, supplier, shipper or consignee of the cargo…” as per Asbatankvoy’s Clause 8. In short, per the Court of Appeal’s ruling, Owners will need to further amend Asbatankvoy’s Clause 8 and other like clauses as contained in similar charter parties if they wish to protect themselves from delays resulting from ill-maintained terminals or terminal breakdowns due to the fault of the charterer. As we shall see, the wording provided in BPVOY 4’s exceptions clause may be one way Owners can protect themselves from ill-maintained terminals.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Portolana Compania Naviera Ltd v Vitol SA (The “Afrapearl”) – Court of Appeal (Ward, Clarke and Laws LJJ) – 9 July 2004

ASBATANKVOY – BREAKDOWN OF MACHINERY – FAULT OF CHARTERER Although the sealine was considered ill-maintained, each individual breakdown must be looked at within the context of the governing charterparty – Breakdown, per Cl. 8 of Asbatankvoy, 1/2 demurrage applies /  Shifting expenses not to count. [dropcap]I[/dropcap]n overturning the High Court, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in the case of Portolana Compania Naviera v. Vitol SA – “The Afrapearl” [9 Jul 04] had to consider the difficult question of what constitutes equipment and the circumstances where the Charterers could rely on the half rate provisions of Asbatankvoy, Part II, Clause...

Bayoil Supply and Trading Ltd. v. Lamar Navigation, Ltd.Sea Giant, SMA No. 3790

SHELLTIME 4 -- TIME CHARTER -- VOYAGE -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award In this time charter voyage, the Charterers had credit owed to them by the Owner. But because a company tied to the Charterer is in debt to the Owner, the Owner refused to pay the Charterer and used the other claim as credit to offset the debt.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Addison Shipping & Trading SA v. Bayoil Supply and Trading Ltd. (The “Sea World”) – SMA No. 3791, 10 Jun 2003

SHELLTIME -- ARBITRATION -- MARKET RATE -- CHARTER PARTY -- VOYAGE -- CHARTER -- Owner Award Although the Vessel was twenty days late for delivery, the disagreement at arbitration was the correct rate for the Vessel after this delay. The Charterers refused to grant the Owners the new market rate and cite the Charter Party clause which states that the final voyage must be completed "at the same rate and conditions" as in the Charter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Anan Shipping Co., Ltd. v. ED & F Man Sugar Ltd. (The “An An”) – SMA No. 3792, 12 Jun 2003

FIOT BULK SUGAR -- PORT -- DISPORT -- CRANE -- BERTH -- DETENTION -- DELAY -- GOOD FAITH -- BERTH -- Owner Award Because the Charterer’s Buyer instructed that Baltimore was the only feasible discharge port, the Charterer ordered the Vessel there despite recent port hazards. Once unloaded at disport, a damaged crane forced the Vessel to wait at berth for forty-six days. The Owners followed through with a detention claim arguing that the Charterers were aware of the anticipated delays and did not make a good faith effort to find another berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Asian Paints Ltd., Adani Exports Ltd., Akin Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Shanghai Jiu Mao Freign Trade Corp., Sinochem Pudong Trading Co. Ltd. v Carleon Shipping, Inc. M/V Santa Margherita, SMA No. 3796, 23 Jul 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- BILL OF LADING -- ARBITRATION -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- DISCHARGE -- PRIMA FACIE -- SEAWORTHINESS -- TRADE ALLOWANCES -- Receiver Award The seven Bill of Lading holders initiated arbitration for damages from cargo contamination and shortages upon discharge. The Owners claimed that the shortages were due to evaporation and trade allowances, while the Receivers argued that the Vessel unseaworthiness was prima facie.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Transportes Maritimos Centroamericanos SA and Paper Sea AS (The “Forest Link”) – SMA No. 3800, 17 Sep 2003

NYPE -- ARBITRATION -- TIME CHARTER -- OFF-HIRE -- REPAIRS -- Charterer Award This case is a Charterer re-petition to the panel to terminate the time charter contract with the Owner because of ongoing repairs that render the Vessel off-hire and because of new information indicating Owner financial difficulty.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

International Ship And Port Facility Security (ISPS)

Effective 1 July 2004, the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code looks to provide a modicum of security in this era of global terrorism. Adopted, along with other maritime security measures, by a conference held at IMO in December 2002, the ISPS Code is now mandatory under amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). Containing two parts, one mandatory and one recommended, the ISPS Code contains security related requirements for Governments, port authorities and shipping companies and then sets out a series of guidelines regarding how to meet these requirements, respectively.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.