2026 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

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 post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

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 post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Katong Investments, Ltd. v. Betoil, Ltd. (The “Front Breaker”) – SMA No. 3804, 8 Oct 2003

ASBATANKVOY — DISPORT — LAYTIME TERMINAL — DISCHARGE RATE — DEMURRAGE — Owner Award

In this case, the Vessel arrived at disport with 6H 48M of laytime left. But in addition to the little remaining laytime, the terminal’s restrictive discharge rate further increased the eventual demurrage claim.

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

Katong Investments, Ltd. v. Betoil, Ltd. (The “Front Breaker”) – SMA No. 3803, 7 Oct 2003

ASBATANKVOY — BERTH — LOADPORT — VOYAGE — LAYTIME — DEMURRAGE — DISPORT — Owner Award

Before leaving berth at loadport, the voyage’s laytime had already expired and the Vessel was now on 5H demurrage. This claim continued to accumulate during the voyage, however after tendering NOR at disport, the Owner granted the Charterer 6H “free time”.

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

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...

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 post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

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 post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

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 post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

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 post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

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 post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.