2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- ARBITRATION -- INTEREST -- Owner Award
Once a demurrage sum was agreed upon, the Charterers confirmed that payment would follow. However, after nine months of no response to their invoices, the Owners began arbitration to recover the demurrage amount plus interest and legal fees.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- VOYAGE -- DEMURRAGE -- PUMP -- DISPORT -- LAYTIME -- NOR -- LOADBERTH -- Partial Owner Award
The Owners were forced to start arbitration against the Charterers after they refused to pay the voyage’s demurrage claim. The Charterers denied liability basis the Trinidad Daylight Docking Rules, excess pumping time at disport because of Vessel’s low pressure, the 6H laytime credit after NOR tender, and laytime credit at loadberth for USCG inspection.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER PARTIES -- WEATHER -- STORM -- BERTH -- PUMP WARRANTY -- WHARFAGE -- Partial Charterer Award
This arbitration encompasses several different disputes which arise from multiple charter parties. The points of contention include the application of the 50% weather delay exception at berth, the Owner’s failure to meet the pump warranty, an occupied berth upon arrival, and the responsibility of wharfage fees during discharge.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- CHARTER PARTY -- PUMP WARRANTY -- STOPPAGE -- PORT -- Owner Award
The Owners began arbitration to recover demurrage costs from two consecutive charter parties with the Charterer. The Charterers claim that the demurrage time should be reduced basis an alleged breach of the pump warranty, stoppages during loading, and Owner non-compliance with port authorities.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- ARBITRATION -- INVOICE -- Owner Award
After not receiving any response to their invoices for demurrage, the Owners began arbitration against the Charterers to recover the delay compensation.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- VOYAGE -- TUGBOAT -- BERTH -- TIDE -- DAYLIGHT RESTRICTION -- PUMP WARRANTY -- PORT -- Owner Award
This arbitration award settles several pertinent demurrage issues from voyage. These issues include the responsibility for delayed tugboat arrival, demurrage from an occupied berth, Vessel pilot delays, the responsibility to know tidal and daylight port restrictions, and the pump warranty.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- DISPORT -- PORT -- BERTH -- ARBITRATION -- LAYTIME -- NOR
In response to the Owners’ claim for demurrage at disport, the Charterers contended that the delays resulted from Owners’ lack of required US port documentation and the subsequently occupied berth when the documents were finally received. Conversely, the Owners cited other arbitrations where the laytime began at NOR despite having lost its turn at berth due to Owner negligence.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- DISPORT -- VOYAGE -- LAYTIME -- ARBITRATION -- Seller Award
Although the Buyers understand their contractual obligation to pay demurrage for delays at disport, they claim that this voyage’s delays were caused by government action and likewise a laytime exception. Additionally, the Buyers argue that they are not bound by the Panel’s decision because they never agreed to arbitration.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- ACT OF GOD -- LOADPORT -- STORM -- DEMURRAGE -- CARGO -- SHORTLOADING -- Charterer Award
The Charterers began arbitration to recover losses stemming from two separate issues of alleged Owner error. Basis storm delays at loadport, the Charterers claimed that they should count at 50% the demurrage rate regardless of the Vessel already being on demurrage. The other issue centered upon the interpretation of "about" in the cargo stipulations and the subsequent Vessel shortloading which the Owners attribute to crew error.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- BERTH -- DISPORT -- DRAFT -- CHANNEL -- Charterer Award
The Owners began arbitration to recover compensation for delays arising from the Vessel’s inability to safely berth at disport. They argue that the Charterers knowingly loaded the Vessel beyond the channel’s draft restrictions and are therefore responsible. Conversely, the Charterers claim that the root cause of delay was the Vessel’s failure to obtain the necessary TVE from the Coast Guard.
