Tagged: Oct/Dec 2000

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Westgas A/S v. Montpelier Trading, Inc. (The “Varanger”) – SMA No. 3542, 7 Jul 1999

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- VOYAGE -- DISPORT -- CARGO -- SAMPLE -- CONTAMINATION -- BERTH -- Partial and Full Owner Award The Owners began arbitration to collect outstanding payments on two separate voyages with the Charterers. On the first voyage, the Vessel was delayed for two days at disport when cargo samples revealed unacceptable water content. And on the second voyage, when the Vessel arrived at disport, she was forced to wait ten days for berthing instructions.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

AP Moller v. Harbour Rich Chemical Co., Ltd. (The “Haigas”) – SMA No. 3547, 2 Aug 1999

ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- BERTH -- SHORESIDE -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER PARTY -- Owner Award Upon arriving at disport, the Vessel accrued extensive demurrage while being forced to wait for a free berth and shoreside storage space. And when the Owner started arbitration to recover demurrage, the Charterers did not appoint an arbitrator, denied the existence of a binding charter party, and refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Panel to settle disputes.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

AP Moller v. Harbour Rich Chemical Co., Ltd. (The “Maersk Sussex”) – SMA No. 3548, 2 Aug 1999

ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- BERTH -- SHORESIDE -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER PARTY -- Owner Award Upon arriving at disport, the Vessel accrued extensive demurrage while being forced to wait for a free berth and shoreside storage space. And when the Owner started arbitration to recover demurrage, the Charterers did not appoint an arbitrator, denied the existence of a binding charter party, and refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Panel to settle disputes.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Aquacharm Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Venus Lines Agency, Inc. and Venus Line Maritime, Inc. (The “Aqua Sierra”) – SMA No. 3555, 5 Aug 1999

AMWELSH -- STEAMING -- BERTH -- PORT -- DRAFT -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award Because of delays steaming upriver, the Vessel missed her designated berthing time and was forced to wait once she arrived at port. The Owners contend that this delay was due to an insufficient draft while steaming, therefore making it demurrage. The Charterers, on the other hand, argue that this time was un-billable because engine trouble caused the delays to port.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Unisina Navigation Co. v. Tauber Oil Co. (The “Unisina”) – SMA No. 3556, 27 Aug 1999

ASBATANKVOY -- WORLDSCALE -- DISPORT -- LIGHTERING -- BERTH -- FREIGHT -- Charterer Award Fixed under a contract where Worldscale terms apply when not already defined, the Vessel was chartered to discharge at three different locations. However, at one location, the Owners are claiming that because of dual operations (lightering and berthing), they should count as two separate disports which would require extra freight compensation from the Charterers.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Blystad Shipping & Transport, Inc. v. Trammochem, Inc. (The “Aniara”) – SMA No. 3574, 19 Nov 1999

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- BERTH -- ICE BREAKER -- CARGO -- PORT -- VOYAGE -- Charterer Award Because the loadport’s national ice service increased ice class limitations on entering vessels, the Vessel was denied access to berth, and subsequently, the voyage was terminated. The Owners blame the Charterers for failing in their obligation to find a safe berth upon arrival. Conversely, the Charterers argue that their supplier could not provide cargo at another port and accuse the Owners of failing to provide an appropriate vessel for the voyage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.