2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
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.
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.
