2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- USCG -- OFF-HIRE -- BREAKDOWN -- Owner Award
Although the Charterers paid a majority of the demurrage claim, they refused to consider the two USCG-mandated 6H "crew rest periods" as demurrage. The Charterers argued that these rest periods are comparable to a Vessel “breakdown,” and as such, would render the Vessel off-hire and be for the Owners’ account.
ASBATANKVOY -- PORT -- DISPORT -- FREIGHT -- LOI -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
Before arriving at the contracted discharge port, the Charterers fixed a new disport per Charterers’ option. But upon arrival, the Owners refused to begin unloading until both the full freight payment and an LOI had been received from the new Receivers. The Vessel waited at berth for six days before payment, which the Owners submitted to the Charterers as demurrage.
SHELLTIME 4 -- ARBITRATION -- VOYAGE -- BUNKER -- WEATHER -- ACT OF GOD -- OFF-HIRE -- Charterer Award
This arbitration dispute encompasses several key points of contention that arise over the course of the voyage. The arguments include the Vessel’s bunker usage, compensation for Vessel damage resulting from harsh weather at berth, and various claims for off-hire.
ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- DECK LINES -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
As per the Charter Party, a cargo of LSWR was meant to be loaded between 125F – 135F, however, the LSWR was loaded at 115F – 120F which caused it to congeal and clog the deck lines. The Owner then invoiced the Charterers for cleaning expenses and the resulting demurrage incurred by the clogged lines.
SHELLTIME 3 -- TIME CHARTER -- OFF-HIRE -- TANKS -- Owner Award
Throughout the life of the time charter, the Vessel was declared off-hire on numerous occasions for tank wall cleaning purposes. And at the end of the contract, the Charterers billed the Owners for the entirety of the time spent off-hire plus the cost of the tank cleaning chemicals.
TEXACOVOY 94 -- LOADPORT -- MANIFOLD -- SALES AGREEMENT -- CANCELLATION -- ARBITRATION -- Seller Award
The Vessel had been nominated by the Buyer and subsequently accepted by the Seller. But upon arrival to loadport, the placement of the Vessel’s manifolds made loading impossible and the Vessel was summarily rejected by the Seller. The Buyer claimed that the Seller breached the sales agreement by not rejecting the Vessel in a timely matter and began arbitration to recover cancellation expenses.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- INTEREST -- ARBITRATION -- Owner Award
The Charterers agreed to the Owners’ demurrage invoice; however, they failed to deliver payment over the course of several months. The Owners began arbitration to collect demurrage plus interest.
CARGO -- SAMPLE -- RECONDITIONING -- ARBITRATION -- Owner Award
After sampling the cargo and finding it off spec, the Receiver’s insurance company demanded that the Owner pay for cargo reconditioning. The Owner argued that, upon delivery, the cargo was more pure than the Receiver’s average stock and counterclaimed for punitive cleaning damages.
ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- BUNKER -- DEMURRAGE -- Partial Owner Award
Because of the falling market prices for oil, the Charterer ordered the Vessel to proceed directly to disport after loading and to exercise a "high speed" option that would make her minimum speed 15 knots. However, without a clear discharge program, the Owner decided to divert the Vessel in order to re-stock bunkers. And when billed for the subsequent demurrage and high speed premium, the Charterers refused to pay and counterclaimed for lost profits from a delayed delivery.
ASBATANKVOY -- LAYCAN -- LOADPORT -- PART CARGO -- LOI -- BILL OF LADING -- Charterer Award
The Vessel missed her laycan at loadport, but due to the Owners’ misrepresented ETA for the last layday, the Charterers were not aware of any possible delay until after the cancellation date. And further delays were introduced after part cargo storage confusion and the resulting Charterers’ refusal to deliver an LOI until new Bills of Lading were written to fix the confusion. Likewise, the Owners refused to unload until the time spent waiting for LOI was compensated.
