Tagged: Jul/Sep 2012

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Clipper Bulk Shipping BV v. Korea Line Corp. and Grieg Star Shipping AS and Atlas Shipiing AS (The “Fomalhaut”) – SMA No. 4145, 24 Oct 2011

NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- OFF-SPEC BUNKERS -- BUNKER CONSUMPTION PRIOR TO ANALYSIS -- DAMAGES -- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION -- Partial Owner Award Off-spec bunkers were provided by Charterer yet prior to the sample analysis being received Vessel consumed some of the off-spec bunkers damaging the engines. Owner subsequently claimed for the cost of repairs, the cost to replace the bunkers, and the cost of cleaning of the tanks the off-spec bunkers were stored in. This arbitration also covered eight issues regarding the speed and consumption warranties.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Sherwin Alumina, L.P. v. Western Bulk Carriers KS – SMA No. 4148, 30 Nov 2011

CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT (COA) -- ISPS CODE -- LIABILITY FOR PORT EXPENSES -- DOCKAGE AND SECURITY FEES -- Owner Award Midway through an eight-year fixed freight rate Contract of Affreightment (COA), Charterer's new port manager directed Charterer to pass on port fees to Owner given the COA states Owner is responsible for "all port expenses". Fees were previously not being passed on presumably due to Charterer's lack of experience in this area.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Sinotrans (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Crossbridge Shipping Singapore Ltd. (The “Ming Hai”) – SMA No. 4149, 7 Dec 2011

NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- BUNKER PRICES -- BUNKER SHORTFALL ON REDELIVERY -- Owner Award When Charterer failed to redeliver Vessel with the charter party mandated quantity of IFO and MDO, Owner claimed for the difference.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Interchem 2000 Logistics BV v. Suffolk Tankers Co., Ltd. (The “Rachel B”) – SMA No. 4150, 9 Dec 2011

ASBATANKVOY -- VESSEL BREAKDOWN -- ENGINE PROBLEM -- SEAWORTHINESS -- Owner Award At the time of the fixture, Vessel was in drydock for repairs. After undocking further repairs were found to be required subsequently causing the Vessel to miss her laydays. Charterer cancelled the fixture incurring costs in finding a suitable replacement which Charterer is claiming from Owner in this arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Olendorff Carriers GmbH & Co. v. Sidor, CA (The “New Navigation”) – SMA No. 4151, 22 Jul 2010

GENCON -- CERTIFICATE OF AFFREIGHTMENT (COA) -- GROUNDING IN RIVER -- SAFE PORT / BERTH WARRANTY -- DEMURRAGE -- BUNKERS -- Charterer Award En route to the discharge berth named in the Contract of Affreightment (COA) and warranted as being a "safe berth", Vessel grounded either due to poor seamanship or as a result of a buoy being out of place. As a result of the grounding, Vessel missed its berthing opportunity and after repairs was forced to await berth availability. Disponent Owner, arguing berth was unsafe, claimed for damages resulting from the grounding and demurrage during the aforementioned wait.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Midas Shipping Co. Inc. v. PDVSA Petroleo SA (The “Liberia”) – SMA No. 4153, 16 Dec 2011

PDVSA TIME 2006 -- TIME-CHARTER -- EXTRA WAR RISK INSURANCE -- INSURANCE PREMIUM -- INTEREST CALCULATION -- Owner Award Charterer failed to pay the Extra War Risk Insurance Premiums and interest that was allowed within the charter party. The Panel revised the Owner’s interest rate and calculation methodology.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Korea Line Corp. v. CMC Cometals (The “Namrun”) – SMA No. 4156, 23 Dec 2011

MEDITERRANEAN CHARTER PARTY -- ETA SUBMITTED WITH INCORRECT CALL SIGN -- BERTHING DELAY -- INVALID NOR -- BERTH OR PORT CHARTER -- WIBON -- Owner Award Albeit quickly corrected, Master initially submitted an ETA with an incorrect Vessel call sign which per Charterer, caused the Vessel to be held out at anchorage whilst correcting the paperwork with the Chinese Authorities. As such, per Charterer the NOR is invalid. Further, per Charterer the charter party was of a berth nature, with NOR subsequently only effective in regards to the commencement of laytime upon the Vessel's arrival in berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Glencore Energy (UK) Ltd. v. Sonol Israel Ltd. (The “Team Anmaj”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 26 Oct 2011

EXXONVOY 84 -- CONTRACT OF SALE -- DEMURRAGE -- INDEMNITY -- CAUSE OF ACTION -- TIME BAR -- Buyer Award The relationship between demurrage clauses in the sale contract, underlying charter party, and the relevant commercial background determines what constitutes the accrual of the cause of action for Seller’s claim against the Buyer. The issue that the contract was finalized after the completion of discharge is broached.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Pacific Basin IHX Ltd. v. Bulkhandling Handymax AS (The “Triton Lark”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 25 Jan 2012

NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- RISK OF PIRACY -- CONWARTIME 1993 --GULF OF ADEN -- ALLEGED DEVIATION AROUND CAPE OF GOOD HOPE -- Charterer Award Due to the inherent risk of piracy along the contracted route, the Owner instructed the Vessel to change course incurring additional costs for Charterer’s account. The arbitrators held that the Owner acted appropriately. On appeal the Court ruled that the arbitration panel had deconstructed the CONWARTIME 1993 clause improperly and, as such, remanded the case back to the arbitrators for reconsideration on findings of fact.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. v. Trafigura Beheer BV (The “Gaz Energy”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 25 May 2012

SHELLTIME 3 -- TIME CHARTER -- SPEED WARRANTY -- PERFORMANCE CLAUSE -- UNDERPERFORMANCE -- BUNKER CONSUMPTION -- ALL WEATHER WARRANTY -- Charterer Award The sub-charterer contends that the time-chartered vessel did not meet the contracted requirements for speed and fuel performance basis the construction of the relevant clauses. Such construction is based on the inclusion of an all weather warranty, which the owners claim is not proper in the context of this time-charter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.