2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

AHL Shipping Co. v. Clark Oil Trading Co. (The “Captain H. A. Downing”) – SMA No. 3624, 31 May 2000

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- SHIFTING -- WAITING TIME -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- Partial Owner Award This arbitration centers upon the appropriation of waiting and shifting time between berths at loadport. In this case, the Vessel shifted from one berth and was forced to wait at another for 30H 16M. The Owners billed the Charterers for this delay under "shifting time"; however, the Charterers argue that the time between a dropped anchor and the commencement of shifting should be considered un-billable “waiting time.”
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Sun Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Hesnes and PDVSA Petroleos y Gas, SA (The “Hesnes”) – SMA No. 3623, 19 May 2000

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- LAYDAY -- BERTH -- CARGO -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award Although the Vessel arrived at loadport and tendered NOR after laydays had expired, the Charterer did not protest against the Vessel’s latency. So, the Vessel berthed, loaded the cargo, and sailed with no incident. And afterwards, the Owner began arbitration to recover the demurrage invoice.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Bergensbanken ASA v. Old World Industries, Inc. (The “Lady Jannicke”) – SMA No. 3620, 9 May 2000

ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- CARGO -- BERTH -- LIGHTERING -- LAYTIME -- Charterer Award As arranged in the charter party, the Vessel lightered 2,100 mt of the Charterers’ cargo and waited for a free berth to discharge the rest. But while waiting, the Vessel began lightering a different charterer’s part cargo and missed its chance to berth and unload. The Charterers argue that the resulting excess time at port was the result of the Owners’ decision to fulfill another cargo interest and should not count as laytime.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Square Ltd. v. Rohde & Liesenfeld Projects, Inc. (The “Pella”) – SMA No. 3614, 14 Apr 2000

NYPE -- VOYAGE -- OFF-HIRE -- SPEED WARRANTY -- BUNKER -- P&I CLUB -- Partial Charterer Award After voyage, the Charterer demanded compensation for: an off-hire period to change Vessel crews, a breach in the minimum speed warranty, and bunker over-consumption. The Owners counterclaim that the Charterers’ fuel and speed analyses do not take into account the ½ knot below and 5% above speed and fuel allowances, respectively, given to the Owners by their P&I club.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Gaschem Services GMBH & Co. v. Olin Corp. (The “Beatrice”) – SMA No. 3603, 31 Jan 2000

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER PARTY -- CONTAMINATION -- INSPECTION -- TANK SAMPLE -- Charterer Award The Owners brought arbitration against the Charterers because of an alleged wrongful cancellation of the charter party. In this case, the Vessel was chartered to load a cargo of clean propylene oxide, but failed tank inspection multiple times at loadport. And after the Master did not offer any further cleaning, the Charterer rejected the Vessel and cancelled the charter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Fairfield Chemical Carriers, Inc. v. Sapi Spy, Italy (The “Khirurg Vishnevkiy”) – SMA No. 3595, 22 Feb 1999

VEGOILVOY -- DEADFREIGHT -- LAYTIME -- CARGO -- DAMAGES -- Partial Charterer Award Because of Charterer-incurred deadfreight, the Owners computed their laytime allowances based on the amount of cargo loaded. They argued that deadfreight is an element of damages that has no bearings on allowed laytime. The Charterers, on the other hand, contend that a fully loaded Vessel should be the basis for allowed laytime.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Chembulk Trading, Inc. v. Coscol Marine Corp. (The “Courier”) – SMA No. 3587, 7 Jan 2000

ASBATANKVOY -- PLATFORM -- MOORING -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- SHIFTING -- ARBITRATION -- Draw / Claim Offset The Vessel arrived at the nominated offshore discharge platform with insufficient equipment to secure the Vessel to the mooring system. The Charterers then redirected the Vessel to a shore berth and completed discharge without incident. The Owners submitted a demurrage claim for the excess shifting time while the Charterers counterclaim for shore berth expenses.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

O.N.E. Shipping, Inc. v. Pecten Chemicals, Inc. – SMA No. 3583, 29 Dec 1999

SHELLVOY 5 -- ARBITRATION -- PUMP WARRANTY -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- PRECEDENCE -- Charterer Award At arbitration, disputes centered upon the interpretation and execution of the pump warranty. The Owners submitted a demurrage claim for excess pumping time and argued that the Charterers had set a charter- amending precedent by agreeing to the Owners’ interpretation of the pump warranty in the past. The Charterers refute any such precedent for open claims.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Combo Maritime Inc. v. Standard Tankers Bayamas Ltd. (The “Alkaios”) – SMA No. 3582, 16 Dec 1999

EXXONVOY 90 -- ANCHORAGE -- CHANNEL -- FOG -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- PORT -- Charterer Award Upon tendering NOR at an uncustomary anchorage 226 miles away from port, dense fog forced the Vessel to wait three additional days before undergoing a necessary US Coast Guard survey and proceeding to customary anchorage. At arbitration, the Owners claim this time under demurrage while the Charterers argue that the Vessel was not an "arrived ship" 226 miles away from port.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Blystad Shipping & Transport, Inc. v. Trammochem, Inc. (The “Aniara”) – SMA No. 3574, 19 Nov 1999

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- BERTH -- ICE BREAKER -- CARGO -- PORT -- VOYAGE -- Charterer Award Because the loadport’s national ice service increased ice class limitations on entering vessels, the Vessel was denied access to berth, and subsequently, the voyage was terminated. The Owners blame the Charterers for failing in their obligation to find a safe berth upon arrival. Conversely, the Charterers argue that their supplier could not provide cargo at another port and accuse the Owners of failing to provide an appropriate vessel for the voyage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.