2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Odfjell Tankers, K.S. v Trammochem (The “Bow Heron”) – SMA No. 3176, 26 May 1995

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Gantrade Corp. v. Pakistan Synthetics, Ltd. (The “Stolt Advance”) – SMA No. 3170, 1 May 1995

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Gaz Horizon, SMA No. 3165

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Dalgan Trade, Ltd. v. Sun International, Ltd. (The “Warda”) – SMA No. 3162, 10 Apr 1995

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Bibby Tansport, Ltd. v. Chemical Trading, Inc. (The “Cheshire”) – SMA No. 3146, 10 Feb 1995

ASBATANKVOY -- LOAD OPERATIONS -- DEMURRAGE -- CHARTER PARTY -- BERTH -- SHIFTING TIME -- TANK PURGING -- CARGO -- Charterer Award Over the course of load operations, the Vessel allegedly accrued demurrage basis certain charter party clauses, including berth call shifting time, tank purging, and cargo cooling.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Seachem Tankers, Ltd. v. Oxyde Chemicals, Inc. (The “Peaceventure L.” and “Prideventure L.”) – SMA No. 3137, 21 Dec 1994

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- VOYAGE -- LAYTIME -- QUARANTINE -- CUSTOMS -- BERTH -- PORT -- Owner Award The arbitration proceedings encompass several points of contention during the voyage. Laytime disputes include laytime deductions for tank cleaning, laytime during quarantine and customs clearance, and daylight restrictions for berthing at port.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

North Pacific Carriers, Ltd. v. AOT, Ltd. (The “Proteus”) – SMA No. 3136, 20 Dec 1994

ASBATANKVOY --PORT -- DISPORT -- TERMINAL -- DRAFT -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- LIGHTERING -- BARGE -- Owner Award Upon arrival at the Charterer’s nominated port, the Vessel was loaded beyond the disport terminal’s published draft. So because the berth was unreachable upon arrival, the Owner subsequently submitted a demurrage claim for the time spent awaiting the Charterer’s lightering barges. The Charterer, however, cited other instances where vessels with greater drafts had berthed safely at the terminal.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Arnada Tankers, Ltd. v. Delphi Petroleum, Inc. (The “Shoun Nectar”) – SMA No. 3133, 30 Dec 1994

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- LAYTIME -- VOYAGE -- TIME-BAR -- SEAWORTHY -- CARGO -- SHIP LOG -- DISPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award This arbitration award covers several laytime issues between voyage parties. Pertinent issues include the time-bar clause, Owner’s diligence to provide a seaworthy Vessel, the Vessel’s minimum transit speed, the ship log of cargo temperature, daylight restrictions at the Charterer’s disport, and delays due to a census conducted by the disport’s national government.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Bibby Tansport, Ltd. v. Chemical Trading, Inc. (The “Cheshire”) – SMA No. 3129, 5 Dec 1994

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- LAYTIME -- VOYAGE -- PURGING -- DEMURRAGE -- MARITIME -- SHIFTING TIME -- Partial Owner Award This arbitration award covers several laytime issues between voyage parties. The responsibility for time spent purging the Vessel’s tanks, shifting time, cooling down time, and the application of the maritime maxim "once on demurrage, always on demurrage" are all discussed in the proceedings.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Chemifalcon Shipping Co. v. Maravan S.A. (The “Chemifalcon”) – SMA No. 3128, 23 Nov 1994

ASBATANKVOY -- FOOT SAMPLE -- CHARTER PARTY -- REFINERY -- CONTAMINATION -- BALLAST -- SHIFT -- BERTH After the Vessel failed both a tank inspection and the first foot sample, the Charterers exercised their right to terminate the charter party. However, the Owners insisted on a second foot sample and blamed the first foot sample’s contamination on the Refinery Loading Master’s order to ballast the Vessel during the shift to berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.