2026 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Global Container Lines, Ltd. v. The Rice Co. (The “Berrak N.”) – SMA No. 3850, 23 Jun 2004

NORGRAIN 89 — CHARTER PARTY — GOVERNMENT CURFEW — CARGO — DEMURRAGE — BERTH — DISPORT — Owner Award

The Charter Party specifically stated that if cargo cannot be discharged because of “Civil Commotions,” then there cannot be any demurrage claim for lost time. But, when the Vessel berthed at disport and a national curfew was in place, the Owner filed for demurrage regardless arguing that the curfew did not prevent the cargo from being discharged, but instead the subsequent lack of trucks leaving the port was the root cause of detainment.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Marbulk Shipping, Inc. v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (The “Bahama Spirit”) – SMA No. 3849, 4 Jun 2004

CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT — BERTH — DISPORT — DREDGE PIPE — CHANNEL — GROUNDING — ARBITRATION — UNSAFE BERTH — Charterer Award

While moving to berth at disport, the Vessel ran aground on an abandoned dredge pipe in the navigation channel. The Owner followed suit with an arbitration charge for the damages sustained in the grounding, claiming that the Charterer had breached the safe berth warranty. The Charterer counterclaimed that the Owner faulted the grounding citing the Owner’s frequent usage of the port in the past as well as the lack of prior Owner proof that the berth was unsafe.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Odfjell Seachem A/S v. Continentale Des Petroles et D’Investissesments and Anr (The “Bow Cedar”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 15 Dec 2004

BPVOY 4 — CHARTER PARTY — CARGO — LAYTIME — TIME-BAR — Owner Award

After the Vessel had arrived, tendered NOR, and waited for berthing instructions until after the 84H laytime allowance expired, the Charterer cancelled the Charter Party due to being unable to supply cargo. The Owner responded with a damages claim eleven months later; however, there is a stipulation in the charter that states that any claim after 180 days is time-barred.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

London Arbitration 34/04

SHELLTIME 4 — CARGO — CONTAMINATION — DEADFREIGHT — POSSESSORY LIEN — DISPORT — TIME-CHARTER — OFF-HIRE — Owner Award

In response to a Charterer agreement to use the unclean Vessel for transporting sub-Charterer’s naphtha cargo, the sub-Charterer refused to load the Vessel to full capacity in fear of cargo contamination. The Charterer subsequently claimed deadfreight and incurred a possessory lien for over a month at disport. Under the time-charter contract, the Owner seeks hire payment for the month-long arrest which the Charterer deducted as off-hire.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Petroleo Brasileiro v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Kriti Akti”) – SMA No. 3845, 25 May 2004

ASBATANKVOY — CARGO — BARGE — BERTH — PORT — DEMURRAGE — ACT OF GOD — Owner Award

After part cargo discharge to barge, bad weather delayed the Vessel’s berth at port thereby incurring an Owner demurrage claim. The Charterer agreed to the fine, however, requested that this claim be offset by consolidating it with other outstanding claims that the Owner owes to the Charterer (making net demurrage due Charterer).

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Lakeview Maritime Ltd. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Astro Altair”) – SMA No. 3841, 29 Apr 2004

ASBATANKVOY — ARRIVAL DRAFT — DISPORT — DEMURRAGE — DRAFT — CHARTER PARTY — LAYTIME — ARBITRATION — Charterer Award

Although the Charterers assured that an arrival draft of forty feet was acceptable, tidal changes delayed the Vessel’s arrival to disport. The Owners submitted a claim for demurrage arguing that the Charterers draft levels kept the Vessel from reaching disport. But the Charterers reference a clause in the Charter Party which states that tidal delays cannot count as laytime in arbitration.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Petroleo Brasileiro, SA v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Kriti Art”) – SMA No. 3838, 23 Apr 2004

ASBATANKVOY — DISCHARGE — PORT — DRAFT — DEMURRAGE — ARBITRATION — Charterer Award

The Vessel was required to discharge at two separate ports, however, the draft was erroneously calculated to only accommodate the deeper port. And upon arrival at the deeper port, the berth was occupied by another vessel thereby detaining the Owner’s Vessel. So in response to Owner’s subsequent demurrage, the Charterers blame the erroneous draft level for the delay because otherwise the Vessel could discharge at the shallower (but unoccupied) port first.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Odfjell Seachem AS v. Vinmar International Ltd. (The “NCC Arar”) – SMA No. 3837, 21 Apr 2004

ASBATANKVOY — DEMURRAGE — ARBITRATION — TIME-BAR — BARGE — DISPORT — CLAIM — Owner Award

In this case, there were four separate demurrage issues under dispute. Arbitration disputes focused on the time-bar clause, the allocation of time spent overloading the Vessel and subsequent reloading, delays waiting for the Charterer’s barge at disport, and the Owner’s right to increase a claim.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Gulfcoast Transit Co. v. Russian Farm Community Project (The “Litrico”) – SMA No. 3836, 14 Apr 2004

BALTIMORE GRAIN CP — DISPORT — BERTH — ARBITRATION — LAYTIME — PORT — Partial Owner Award

Although blocked by disport by seventeen miles of ice, the Vessel tendered NOR and awaited icebreaker assistance for five days before continuing to berth. At arbitration, the Owners view the NOR as a valid beginning of laytime and any further delays at port were the fault of the Charterers. The Charterers counterclaimed that an NOR tendered seventeen miles from port limits cannot be considered valid.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Shell’s New Release: SHELLVOY 6 – A Demurrage Analyst’s Perspective

SHELLVOY 6, recently introduced and put into use by Shell effective April 2005, provides an update to SHELLVOY 5 in many different ways. As a quick background, SHELLVOY 5 was created in 1987 and last updated in 1999 through the use of Shell’s additional clauses. SHELLVOY 6 incorporates all of the 1999 standard amendments and further attempts to clarify SHELLVOY 5 in other aspects of a voyage charter. The below will provide a quick summary of the demurrage changes between SHELLVOY 5 and SHELLVOY 6. Although a dry (no pun intended) subject, operations personnel, contract administrators and last but not least, demurrage analysts should find this overview germane.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.