2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
ASBATANKVOY -- VOYAGE -- BERTH -- DISPORT -- LOADPORT -- CARGO -- TRANSSHIP -- Owner Award
Because the previous voyage’s berth to disport was clogged by a state-owned vessel, the Vessel had an estimated loadport ETA outside of the demands of the Charterers’ cargo interest. So, a new agreement was made where the Vessel would temporarily abandon her current voyage, load the Charterers’ cargo, and transship the previous cargo later. The Vessel sailed to loadport, however was notified by her previous Charterer that transshipment would not be allowed, which forced the Charterers to renegotiate their sales contracts.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- PART CARGO -- VOYAGE -- ARBITRATION -- Owner Award
After a timely demurrage claim was made for a part cargo voyage, the Charterer did not respond to any Owner request for payment. After three years of non-compliance, the Owner reevaluated the claim to include interest and began arbitration.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYCAN -- PUMP WARRANTY -- DISPORT -- PUMP LOGS -- MANIFOLD -- Owner Award
This arbitration began as a result of the Charterer’s refusal to pay demurrage for an extended laycan at discharge. The Charterer claims that the Vessel violated the pump warranty, and therefore, excess time at disport is for the Owner’s account. The Owners counterclaim that the pumping logs are consistent with the warranty and that the dock’s inferior manifold connections were the cause of delay.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEADFREIGHT -- DEMURRAGE -- ARBITRATION -- SHORTLOAD -- Owner Award
Upon completing load operations, the Owners discovered that the Charterers shortloaded the Vessel by about 462 mt. The Owners subsequently began arbitration to recover the deadfreight damages and additional demurrage.
ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- PUMP WARRANTY -- TERMINAL -- SHORELINES -- GENERATOR -- Owner Award
While at sea, the Vessel suffered a breakdown that left her with only one operating generator. And once at disport, the Charterer complained of pumping delays and argued that such delays were faulted by the lack of generator power. The Owners, on the other hand, claimed that the lack of terminal shorelines for discharge caused the delays.
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- FREIGHT -- PREMIUM -- HIGH POUR -- ROB -- ARBITRATION -- COW -- Charterer Award
The Charterers paid an additional freight premium to keep their "high pour" cargo heated to 110°F. However, 6,000 bbls remained on board due to heating coils being out of place and insufficient crude oil washing. The Charterers began arbitration to recover the Owner-faulted cargo loss.
EXXONVOY 90 -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME-BAR -- CHARTER PARTY -- Charterer Award
In this case, the Owner began arbitration to recover a demurrage claim that was allegedly time-barred. The charter party stipulates that a notice must be submitted within ninety days of discharge completion, followed by all supporting evidence within 150 days of discharge. The notice and full claim were received on the ninety-first day, which the Owners contend satisfies the charter.
ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- VOYAGE -- CARGO -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- DEVIATION -- Owner Award
Once at loadport, the surveyor inspected the Vessel’s tanks and rejected them per latex residue from the previous voyage’s cargo. But even after cleaning and re-tendering NOR, latex residue was still found in surveyor samples. So, the Owners ordered the Vessel to fulfill other charters, and later submitted a claim for demurrage and subsequent deviation costs.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- SHIFTING -- BUNKERS -- SLOW STEAMING -- Owner Award
This arbitration resulted from the Charterer’s failure to pay an outstanding demurrage claim and an invoice for shifting expenses, and failed to reimburse the Owner for under-consumed bunkers from slow steaming.
ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- CONTAMINATION -- RESIDUE -- BERTH -- DRAFT -- DEMURRAGE -- DETENTION -- Charterer Award
Upon arriving at loadport, the Vessel’s tanks were rejected due to .01 cm of cargo residue and forced the Vessel off berth to be cleaned. Once cleaned, the Vessel loaded the cargo with no incident, but incurred delays once again because of low water levels in the channel. The Owners submitted a demurrage claim inclusive of both the superfluous cleaning time and the detention trying to leave berth.
