2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- LOADPORT -- FIBER GRADE -- CHARTER PARTY -- LAYDAY -- Charterer Award
The Vessel was chartered to load a cargo of corn oil at one loadport as well as a fiber grade cargo of ethylene glycol at another. However, the Vessel’s zinc tanks failed numerous inspections for the ethylene glycol and caused the Charterer to cancel the charter party on the grounds that the Vessel was unready to load within the given laydays.
ASBATANKVOY -- BERTH -- DISPORT -- TYPHOON -- ACT OF GOD -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
Although the berthing delay at disport was caused by a typhoon, the Owners argue that their claim is valid because the typhoon happened sixteen days before berth. Subsequent changes could have been made to accommodate possible delays.
VEGOILVOY -- PORT -- CARGO -- CUSTOMS -- SHORE TANK -- CUSTOMS -- Owner Award
As is customary discharge procedure for the port, the Owners discharged cargo under customs control. However, the Charterers found the shore tank empty and demanded reimbursement for the improper discharge of cargo to customs officials.
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- DISPORT -- CONTAMINATION -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYTIME -- HANDLING COSTS -- Owner Award
Because the cargo was found to be off spec at disport, the Charterers accepted a US$100,000 settlement for the contamination. In addition to the settlement, the Owners submitted a demurrage claim for additional laytime at disport. However, the Charterers counterclaimed for excess handling costs and rejected the Owner’s invoice based on the cargo contamination and the Vessel’s inoperative radar.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME-BAR -- BROKER -- CHARTER PARTY -- Charterer Award
The Owners submitted a demurrage invoice within the 90-day time-bar, however, the Charterers contested its completeness upon submission. The Owners subsequently resubmitted the full claim to the broker on the last day of the time-bar, which they claim satisfies the charter party.
WARSHIPOILVOY -- CARGO -- DEMURRAGE -- DISPORT -- OFFSHORE STORAGE -- LOADPORT -- CONTAMINATION -- Charterer Award
Because the cargo was contaminated, the Charterers used the Vessel as an offshore storage facility while filtering the cargo into a useful form. The Owners argue that contamination came from the loadport’s inferior steel railcars, and therefore claim this extensive delay at disport as demurrage. The Charterers contended that the disport samples prove that the contamination occurred on the Vessel and counterclaimed for cargo damages.
EXXONVOY 90 -- DISPORT -- CHARTER PARTY -- PUMP WARRANTY -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYTIME -- PORT -- Charterer Award
While discharging at the first of two disports, the Vessel failed to meet the charter party’s pump warranty. After the voyage, the Owners presented an adjusted demurrage claim that excluded laytime while not meeting the pump warranty at the first port. The Charterers, however, argued that no laytime at discharge after breaching the warranty, including laytime at the second port, can be counted as demurrage.
VEGOILVOY -- BERTH -- PART CARGO -- TERMINAL -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
Upon arriving at the nominated Berth 2 for discharge, the Vessel was rejected at berth because of having a low flash part cargo for another Charterer. The Owners therefore deemed it unsafe and demanded another berth nomination. Conversely, the Charterer argued that the berth was safe and that it was the Owners’ responsibility to know their cargo’s compliance to the terminal’s regulations.
VEGOILVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- TRANSSHIP -- STATEMENT OF FACTS -- PART CARGO -- Charterer Award
In order to reduce their demurrage claim, the Charterer referenced the Owner’s transshipper’s Statement of Facts clause which states that demurrage would be apportioned between Charterers in the ratio of their part cargo onboard.
ASBA II -- DISPORT -- DRAFT -- BERTH -- SHIFT -- PORT -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
En route to the nominated disport, the Vessel Master deviated course due to draft restrictions that were deemed unsafe for berth. Eventually, the Master agreed to shift to the allegedly hazardous port with additional assistance and subsequently claimed demurrage for the delayed arrival. The Charterer refuted the claim on the grounds that both the Vessel’s arrival and departure from port were safe.
