2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
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.
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.
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.
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.
ASBATANKVOY -- COGSA -- VOYAGE -- CARGO -- COLLISION -- GENERAL AVERAGE CONTRIBUTION -- Charterer Award
During voyage, the Vessel collided with another tanker, causing cargo loss and damages. The Charterer claimed compensation for said losses while Owner counterclaims for unpaid general average contributions under COGSA.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYCAN -- VOYAGE -- ETD -- PORT -- ACT OF GOD -- CHARTER PARTY -- Owner Award
The focal points of this arbitration are the outstanding demurrage bill and the costs to the Owner to collect demurrage. The Charterers blame the missed laycan on a previous voyage that had a delayed ETD from lack of port space and adverse weather. The Owners, however, argue that the Charterer did not cancel the contract, and therefore, the laycan remains in full effect.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- FREIGHT DIFFERENTIAL -- SUB-CHARTER -- Owner Award
Owner began arbitration to recover an unpaid freight differential on a back-to-back charter agreement. The Charterer needed an Ecuadorian flag Vessel in order to discharge in the contracted Ecuadorian port and could only get around this by sub-chartering the Vessel to itself through this contract’s Owner. However, Charterer argues that Flopec was under no risk in the transaction and had no right to claim a freight differential.
EXXONVOY 90 -- CONSOLIDATION -- INVOICE -- VOYAGE ARBITRATION -- Owner Award
This case is a consolidation of four different outstanding Charterer invoices. After each voyage completion, the Owner would submit the required information in a timely manner, but the Charterer would not respond.
SHELLTIME 4 -- ARBITRATION -- OFF-HIRE -- VETTING -- VOYAGE -- TIME CHARTER -- Owner Award
This arbitration dispute arose from a potentially invalid off-hire declaration by the Charterer. In this case, the Charterer declared the Vessel off-hire until proper CDI vetting approval; however, the Charterer also ordered the Vessel to undergo a voyage during this off-hire. So when the Owners were billed for this period, they argued that the Vessel was technically in use by the Charterer.
ASBATANKVOY -- VOYAGE -- LOADPORT -- LAYCAN -- LAYTIME -- DEMURRAGE -- PORT AGENT -- Owner Award
After an initial vessel substitution, the new Vessel began voyage and tendered NOR at loadport during the designated laycan. Nevertheless, low pumping speeds extended laytime past laycan and gave reason for an Owner demurrage claim. The Charterers, however, refused to pay, arguing that flawed port agent information and Vessel confusion led to a misunderstanding of the Vessel’s acceptable loading speeds.
