2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings
ASBATANKVOY -- LIGHTERING -- CARGO -- DISPORT -- PORT -- ANCHORAGE -- CHARTER PARTY -- BERTH -- DETENTION -- DEMURRAGE -- Partial Owner Award
The Charterer fully loaded the Vessel with the intention of lightering the cargo at disport. However, the Vessel remained at port anchorage for over sixteen days while discharging to lightering vessels. The Owner contended that the Charterer breached the charter party by not procuring a berth reachable upon arrival and therefore demanded damages at the detention rate instead of the demurrage rate.
ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- CARGO -- CHILLING -- CHARTER PARTY -- LAYCAN -- TERMINAL -- DEMURRAGE
After substituting the fixed Vessel for the slower-loading subject Vessel, further delays were incurred at loadport due to insufficient cargo chilling per charter requirements. The Owners argued that this extended laycan was faulted by the terminal’s breach of the charter party and claimed any excess loading time as demurrage.
ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- ANCHORAGE -- TYPHOON -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
The Vessel was forced to wait 28H at loadport anchorage by the Port Authority and Harbor Master because of a typhoon. The Owner counted this time at half the demurrage rate.
ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- Owner Award
Due to a major Vessel casualty at disport, the Vessel was put on demurrage for an additional 1.5 days. The Charterers argued that this event was beyond their control and should be summarily discounted. The Owners, on the other hand, contend that the Charterers had not satisfied their burden of proof that it was indeed out of their control.
Although the charter party stipulated that the Vessel take necessary measures to arrive on time, the Vessel was delayed at loadport due to a congested berth and arrived to disport on demurrage. Afterwards, the Owners filed a demurrage claim for the voyage, but neglected to include the required heating log. The Charterers argued that the missing heating log and an alleged failure to meet voyage provisions for arrival illegitimizes the claim.
After an initial tank failure and a subsequent cleaning, the Vessel's tanks were approved by the Charterer's inspector. But upon further samples taken, the inspector retracted his approval and rejected the tanks because of high water content in the loaded cargo. The Charterer requested that the Vessel sail without the loading balance of cargo and the Owners submitted a claim for demurrage and wrongful cancellation.
The Owner counts the time spent between hoses off and the barges' departure as laytime because the Vessel was restrained from moving.
The Charterer's nominated berth was occupied upon the Vessel's arrival and 4H after tendering NOR, the Port Authority closed the channel due to fog and thereby prohibiting the berthed vessel to leave. The Owner argued that the Charterer had breached the Charter Party clause stipulating a berth reachable upon arrival and claimed the delays as laytime.
The Owner's Pilot gave the Master erroneous information stating that the Vessel was unable to berth due to the channel's restrictive width. Upon further investigation, the Master deemed the Vessel capable of proceeding from anchorage and the Owner subsequently claimed these delays as demurrage.
When the cast iron Vessel arrived at loadport, the loading terminal prohibited its berthing basis the Vessel's poor condition and non-stainless steel manifold. So the Vessel was forced to load at anchorage by barge, thereby putting the Vessel on demurrage. And upon Vessel arrival at disport, the inspection revealed that the cargo was off-color for which the despondent receivers arrested the Vessel.
