Tagged: Vol. 14 No. 4

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Allied Chemical Carriers, LLC v. National Biofuels LLP (The “Fairchem Colt”) – SMA No. 3998, 30 Apr 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- DISCHARGING PREWASH SLOPS -- DEMURRAGE -- Partial Owner Award Although Charterer didn't respond to Owner's initiation of arbitration proceedings, the Panel took matters into their own hands and edited the demurrage claim for time spent discharging slops. This award explains why.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Allied Chemical Carriers LLC v. National Biofuels LLP (The “Fairchem Steed”) – SMA No. 3999, 30 Apr 2008

ASBATANKVOY --ONE SAFE BERTH -- ADDITIONAL BERTH COSTS -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award Although the Vessel was fixed basis "one safe berth" for discharging, an agreement was made after the fixture adding a second berth. Owner commenced arbitration to recover the additional costs and demurrage incurred during the voyage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

AIC Ltd. v. Marine Pilot Ltd. (The “Archimidis”) – English Court of Appeal, 07 Mar 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- SAFE PORT WARRANTY -- INABILITY TO PROVIDE FULL CARGO DUE TO SILTING -- DEADFREIGHT -- Owner Award In this dispute, the Panel was called upon to determine the Charterer's liability following their failure to provide the minimum amount of cargo stated in the charter party due to draft restrictions caused by silting. The Panel explains what other options the Charterer could have exercised other than simply loading less cargo to the Vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Transfield Shipping Inc. v. Mercator Shipping Inc. (The “Achilleas”) – House of Lords, 09 Jul 2008

NYPE -- LATE REDELIVERY -- WHETHER SUBSEQUENT LOST PROFITS WERE FORSEEABLE -- DAMAGES UNDER SUBSEQUENT FIXTURE -- Charterer Award Following the late redelivery of the Vessel from a time charter, Owners were forced to renegotiate their next time charter at a lower rate. Owners claimed $1.3 million in damages and won the dispute. On this appeal by Charterers, the Panel overturned the previous ruling with the simple question "Would an objective person have anticipated such a large loss of profits from the redelivery of a time chartered vessel made nine days late?" The award details the Panel's ruling and settlement.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Golden Fleece Maritime Inc. v. ST Shipping & Transport Inc. (the “Elli” and “Frixos”) – English Court of Appeal, 23 May 2008

SHELLTIME 4 -- VESSEL FITNESS FOR SERVICE WHEN REGULATIONS RESTRICTING CARGOES CHANGE -- MARPOL -- SEAWORTHINESS -- Charterer Award Two vessels were contracted for the carriage of fuel oils, but following the fixture, MARPOL regulations were changed, requiring fuel oil to be carried only in double-hulled ships. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, and described what changes could have been made to the two vessels to bring them in compliance with the new MARPOL regulations.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 2/08

ASBATANKVOY -- RESPONSIBILITY FOR "PIER DUES" -- CONFLICTING CLAUSES -- AMENDMENTS -- Charterer Award Although this award focuses on the responsibility for paying pier dues, it is relevant to laytime and demurrage in that the charter party contains two clauses which are in conflict. The Panel determines which clause takes precedence, and explains why.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 8/08

STEMMOR -- ACCEPTANCE OF NOR -- REVERSIBLE LAYTIME -- TIME COUNTING DURING BUNKERING -- Owner Award The Panel is asked to rule on a variety of topics, including whether or not the failure to reject a NOR means that it is inherently accepted, the nature of "reversible" laytime and how laytime should be calculated for separate parcels, and whether time spent bunkering while waiting for an available berth counts as laytime.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Maritime Articles

Does Time Count While a Vessel Bunkers at a Waiting Anchorage?

In London Arbitration 8/08 we saw the tribunal rule that time during which a vessel bunkers at a waiting anchorage (i.e. charterers’ berth is not available) is to count as laytime or as time on demurrage. In making their ruling, the panel concluded that no time was lost as the vessel would not have been able to attend to the berth even had she not been bunkering nor was the ship’s readiness deemed impaired as she was doing what the charterer had ordered her to do; wait at the anchorage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.