2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
SHELLTIME 4 -- VOYAGE -- ARBITRATION -- TIME CHARTER -- DECK HEATER -- Partial Charterer Award
In this time-charter contract, the Charterer commissioned the Owner’s Vessel because of its deck heater capability, which was necessary for the contracted cargo. However, the Vessel needed to undergo deck heater repairs and subsequently forced the Charterer to use a different vessel. Afterwards, the Charterer began arbitration to recover damages from the Vessel’s untendered voyage and contract breaches.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- VOYAGE -- FREIGHT -- VESSEL -- Partial Charterer Award
This arbitration from a Contract of Affreightment encompasses four separate disputes pertinent to COA legislation. Owner failure to inform Charterers of ETA changes, proper withdrawal of a notice of repudiation, the number of voyages contracted in a COA, and freight difference for substitute vessels are all discussed in the proceedings.
NYPE -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- SUBCHARTER -- TIME CHARTER -- UNSEAWORTHY -- NONPERFORMANCE -- OFF-HIRE -- Partial Owner Award
After repeated incidents of Vessel-caused cargo contamination, few valued shippers would subcharter the Vessel. The Charterers then began arbitration in order to terminate the long-term time charter with the Vessel on the grounds that the Vessel was consistently unseaworthy. The Owners argued that the only response to nonperformance is the off-hire clause, not cancellation.
NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- OFF-HIRE -- SEAWORTHINESS -- BUNKER -- ARBITRATION -- Partial Owner Award
Throughout the life of the time charter contract, the Vessel had experienced extensive engine problems which rendered the Vessel off-hire on several occasions. The Charterers billed the Owners for the off-hire time and claimed that the delays were because of Vessel unseaworthiness. The Owners, on the other hand, blame the Charterer-supplied, low-grade bunkers for the engine trouble.
ASBATANKVOY -- DIRTY CARGO -- CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- CONTAMINATION -- SWEET CARGO -- FREIGHT -- Owner Award
After transporting several dirty cargos as instructed in the COA, the Charterer ordered the OBO Vessel to load a "sweet" cargo. The Vessel began loading, but when foot samples were taken, the freight was noticeably contaminated. At arbitration, the Owners claim that the Charterers had no proof of Vessel-caused contamination due to lack of shore samples and unreliable analysis reports.
AMWELSH -- FORCE MAJEURE -- LOADPORT -- FOG -- LOCK -- CARGO -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
The Vessel arrived at loadport, tendered NOR, and passed inspection. But due to fog and lock outages, the Charterers declared force majeure ("unexpected event that can excuse a party from a contract") and told the Owner that the cargo’s arrival would be delayed. The Owners subsequently filed for demurrage arguing that the Charterers failed to provide a timely notice of such delays.
ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- EXPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- BERTHING -- EMBARGO -- CARGO -- Owner Award
When the Vessel arrived at loadport, the port’s national government halted all oil exports because of United Nations pricing disputes. The Owner filed a demurrage claim for the berthing delay incurred by this embargo citing that the cargo must conform at all times with UN standards. The Charterers counterclaim that the oil suspension should be seen as a "restraint of prices," which the charter views as billable.
ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- CARGO -- CLAIM -- DETENTION -- PORT -- MITIGATION -- VOYAGE -- Partial Owner Award
Upon the Vessel berthing at loadport, the Owners received a message stating that the Charterers could not supply the contracted cargo. The Owners subsequently filed a claim for detention, port expenses, and loss on mitigation voyage.
ASBATANKVOY -- BERTH -- LOADPORT -- ROB -- LSWR -- DEMURRAGE -- TANK -- Split Award
Because the Vessel berthed at loadport with over 2000 bbls of residual LSWR (previous cargo), the Charterer refused Vessel loading and ordered extensive tank cleaning. The Owners submitted demurrage for the cleaning delay because they argue that the tanks met the contracted cleaning stipulations, while the Charterers counterclaim for the cleaning costs maintaining that the excessive residue rendered the Vessel unready to load.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- INVOICE -- PRIMA FACIE -- Owner Award
The Owners began arbitration to recover an outstanding demurrage claim after hearing no Charterer-reply to their invoices. The Owners based their claim as prima facie.
