Tagged: Vol. 10 No. 4

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Katong Investments, Ltd. v. Betoil, Ltd. (The “Front Breaker”) – SMA No. 3803, 7 Oct 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- BERTH -- LOADPORT -- VOYAGE -- LAYTIME -- DEMURRAGE -- DISPORT -- Owner Award Before leaving berth at loadport, the voyage’s laytime had already expired and the Vessel was now on 5H demurrage. This claim continued to accumulate during the voyage, however after tendering NOR at disport, the Owner granted the Charterer 6H "free time".
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Katong Investments, Ltd. v. Betoil, Ltd. (The “Front Breaker”) – SMA No. 3804, 8 Oct 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- LAYTIME TERMINAL -- DISCHARGE RATE -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award In this case, the Vessel arrived at disport with 6H 48M of laytime left. But in addition to the little remaining laytime, the terminal’s restrictive discharge rate further increased the eventual demurrage claim.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Sea Goddess Shipholding, Inc. v. Standard Tankers Bahamas, Ltd. (The “Strimon”) – SMA No. 3807, 15 Oct 2003

EXXONVOY 90 -- ACT OF GOD -- DISPORT -- DRAFT -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- DEMURRAGE RATE -- Charterer Award Because of high winds pushing water out of the Houston Channel, the Vessel was unable to arrive at disport with its ordered draft. The Owners demanded that this extensive delay be paid in full by the Charterers, however, the Charterers cite the contract which stipulates that any delay due to adverse weather is paid at half the Demurrage Rate.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Odfjell Seachem ASA v. Vinmar International, Ltd. (The “Bow Lady”) – SMA No. 3810, 30 Oct 2003

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- LOADPORT -- SHIP-TO-SHIP -- COASTER -- DEMURRAGE -- ARBITRATION -- DOCK -- Owner Award While loading other charterers’ cargo at the loadport, the Vessel tendered NOR for the Charterer’s ship-to-ship transfer. The Charterer’s coaster, however, waited until all other Vessel loading ceased before coming alongside the Vessel, causing an additional day of laytime. But at arbitration, the Charterer argued that the Vessel’s NOR was invalid because He/She claims that STS transfer could not begin while dock loading.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Maritime Articles

Terminal Breakdown: Is Fault Or Pre-Existing Condition An Exception?

The recent decision by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) UK to overturn the High Court’s prior ruling in the case of Portolana Compania Naviera v. Vitol SA – “The Afrapearl” is sure to have a profound affect on how the maritime industry views a one-half demurrage provision such as the “breakdown of machinery or equipment in or about the plant of the charterer, supplier, shipper or consignee of the cargo…” as per Asbatankvoy’s Clause 8. In short, per the Court of Appeal’s ruling, Owners will need to further amend Asbatankvoy’s Clause 8 and other like clauses as contained in similar charter parties if they wish to protect themselves from delays resulting from ill-maintained terminals or terminal breakdowns due to the fault of the charterer. As we shall see, the wording provided in BPVOY 4’s exceptions clause may be one way Owners can protect themselves from ill-maintained terminals.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.