by Dionne Lindsay Campbell · Published May 18, 2022 · Last modified April 13, 2023
ASBATANKVOY – TERMINATION OF CHARTER – DAMAGES – NON-PAYMENT – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO
Owner claimed Charterer failed to present a cargo to be loaded onto the vessel. Owner and Charterer agreed to cancel the charter; however, Owner claimed damages because of the cancellation. Charterer agreed to pay damages but did not remit payment.
NORGRAIN – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES – LIQUIDATED DAMAGES- APPEAL – IMPLIED INDEMNITY – LAYTIME
The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s decision in K-Line Pte Limited v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Limited (the “ETERNAL BLISS”) [2021] EWCA Civ 1712, which acknowledged the long-standing question of whether a shipowner can recover damages in addition to demurrage when a charterer’s only breach is failure to load/discharge the ship within the contractually agreed time.
Please note this is a successful appeal of an award already recapped. Search in TANKVOYager via “Eternal Bliss” for the original award. K-Line Pte Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd (The “Eternal Bliss”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Andrew Baker J)[2020] EWHC 2373 (Comm) – 7 September 2020
PURCHASE CONTRACTS – FORCE MAJEURE – TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE CLAUSE – LOSS OF PROFITS – CALCULATION OF DAMAGES
When Respondent failed to ship purchased cargoes in a timely manner, Claimant charged the Respondent failed to perform its obligations under two separate purchase contracts and sought damages, interest, legal, and arbitration fees. Respondent claimed force majeure for changes in Saudi Arabian export laws and delays due to the holy month of Ramadan and Eid holiday.
by Dionne Lindsay Campbell · Published March 11, 2022 · Last modified April 13, 2023
FORCE MAJEURE – DEMURRAGE – DISPONENT OWNER – LOSS OF EARNINGS
After 46 days at load port awaiting cargo, the Claimant terminated the contract claiming breach of charterparty. The Respondent claimed force majeure due to supplier issues. Claimant sought damages plus fees, costs and interest.
by Dionne Lindsay Campbell · Published March 11, 2022 · Last modified May 18, 2022
MEDITERRANEAN IRON ORE VOYAGE CHARTER – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO – DAMAGES – CALCULATION OF DAMAGES – DEMURRAGE – FORCE MAJEURE – GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE
Seacape Shipping and Trading (Claimant) alleged Metalex 2000 (Respondent) breached the voyage charter for failing to provide cargo and subsequently claimed for damages and demurrage. The Respondent claimed government interference and force majeure but participated only minimally in the arbitration.
DEMURRAGE – BERTH OPERATOR RULES (UBT) – COMMENCE OF LAYTIME – DESPATCH
Owner claimed demurrage was due to delays at the Davant, Mississippi, loading port and cited the charterparty. Charterer countered Owner owed despatch and that UBT Rules as incorporated into the fixture superseded the charterparty.
SYNACOMEX 2000 – DEMURRAGE – LOW WATER – DELAYED BARGES – FORCE MAJEURE – LACK OF WAREHOUSE SPACE – STEVEDORE DELAYS – TIME BAR – DEVIATION COSTS – REJECTED CARGO – BUNKERS CONSUMED BETWEEN PORTS
A vessel chartered to carry a cargo of corn was fixed on an amended Synacomex 2000 form dated 18 September 2016 and hired to deliver to a single port, to be nominated. Lack of water delayed barges, lack of warehouse space delayed discharge as did alleged issues with stevedores and cargo rejection. The latter 3 issues led to the vessel sailing to three discharge ports. The owner claimed demurrage and deviation costs.
by Dionne Lindsay Campbell · Published March 10, 2022 · Last modified May 18, 2022
SALES CONTRACT – DEMURRAGE – PUBLIC DOCK CLAUSE – COMMENCEMENT OF LAYTIME
Two vessels encountered delays whilst awaiting berth, resulting in delivered Seller claiming demurrage. Relying upon a public dock clause in the marine provisions, Buyer insisted time waiting for berths did not count and that rather time only starts after the vessels’ gangways were secured. Owner claimed contract confirmations, which included a laytime commencing clause, superseded Marine Provisions, and that laytime began after the tender of NOR
by Dionne Lindsay Campbell · Published March 10, 2022 · Last modified April 13, 2023
ASBATANKVOY – KOLMAR TERMS – VIOLATION OF US SANCTIONS – SANCTIONS CLAUSE – STS TRANSFER – ALTERNATIVE ORDERS – PARTIAL FINAL AWARD – SUBJECT MOTION – DISCERNABLE RISK – VENEZUELA
The consolidated arbitration between the Owner and Respondents centered on whether the owner validly invoked the Charter’s Sanctions Clause when demanding alternative orders (Subject Motion). The owner claimed a discernable risk that the ship-to-ship transfer of cargo could have violated US Sanctions against Venezuela. This partial final award is issued solely in response to the Subject Motion and does not address any other disputes between the Owner and Respondents.
NORGRAIN – CHANGE IN DISCHARGE PORT NOMINATION – OWNERS CLAIM FREIGHT FOR TRANSPORT TO FIRST PORT NOMINATED– ESTOPPEL – UNJUST ENRICHMENT
The vessel was chartered on an amended Norgrain form to transport a cargo of soybeans from Brazil to China. Discharge port(s) were nominated during the voyage and subsequently changed. The owner asserted the first ports nominated were binding and freight payable basis same although the vessel did not complete passage to these ports and instead discharged cargo at another port.
More
