Tagged: Vol. 21 No. 2

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Kassiopi Maritime Co Ltd v. FAL Shipping Co Ltd (The “Adventure”) – QBD (Comm Ct.), 19 Feb 2015

BPVOY4 -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME BAR -- FREE PRATIQUE -- WHETHER ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PRESENTED WITH CLAIM -- Charterer Award This dispute concerns demurrage incurred due to delays at both ports of loading and discharge. Certain documents required by the charterparty, based on the BPVOY4 form, had not been submitted within the 90-day limit and Charterers were attempting a time bar defense.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 3/15

FORCE MAJEURE -- LOADING OF BAUXITE CAUSING UNAVOIDABLE DUST -- SUSPENSION OF LOADING ORDERED BY PORT AUTHORITY -- WHETHER CHARTERERS LIABLE FOR DELAY -- Owner Award This dispute arose under a contract of carriage of a sepiolite cargo from “1-2 load berth chop always afloat Santander” to a UK port. Charterer asserted that the force majeure clause in the governing contract denied any Owner’s claim in the form of demurrage, or alternatively, damages, as a result of delays caused by the port authority’s suspension of loading operations.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Industry News

Maritime Industry News…In Brief

EMISSIONS REGULATIONS  . . .  Hong Kong has announced that its emissions regulations for ocean going vessels will be ready to take effect from July 1, 2015.  The regulation requires fuel sulfur content  not to exceed 0.5 percent while at berth in Hong Kong (except during the first hour after arrival and the last hour before departure).  Breach of this regulation will result in a $25,000 fine and six month jail term for owners and masters.  Records of fuel switching must be maintained for three years. On 1 January 2015, MARPOL Annex VI, Regulation 14.3.4 came into effect, lowering fuel...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Invista S.A.R.L. v. Stolt Tankers BV (The “Stolt Perseverance”) – SMA No. 4244, 25 Feb 2015

ASBATANKVOY -- DAMAGES -- COGSA -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- PRE-SHIPMENT CONDITION -- OWNER’S DUE DILIGENCE TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award Upon arrival at the discharge port, the Vessel’s onboard cargo was found to be off-spec. The Charterer concluded that the Vessel had caused the contamination and submitted a damages claim. Owner rejected the claim stating that their Vessel had met the cleaning requirements set forth by the Charterer’s surveyors at the load port and submitted a counterclaim for demurrage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 1/15

CLERICAL ERROR -- DOCUMENTS WRONGLY IDENTIFIED IN NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT -- LIMITED JURISDICTION -- TIME BAR -- Respondent Award This dispute arose as a result of a clerical error made by the consignee’s lawyers. When appointing an arbitrator, they used incorrect references to the same bill of lading contracts on various correspondences / documents. This variation inadvertently made the correspondences / documents apply to a non-existing contract, and subsequently, the Respondent argued that the corresponding claims should be time barred.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Trafigura Beheer BV v Navigazione Montanarini SpA (The “Valle di Cordoba”) – English Court of Appeal, 18 Feb 2015

BPVOY3 -- PIRACY -- FORCED TRANSFER OF CARGO -- LIABILITY FOR IN-TRANSIT LOSS OF CARGO -- Owner Award While en route to the discharge port the Vessel was overtaken by pirates who transferred about 15% of the cargo to an unknown vessel. Charterer argued that Owner had accepted a strict “In-Transit Loss” clause in the charter party and are therefore liable in this matter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Navig8 Inc v. South Vigour Shipping Inc and Others – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 16 Jan 2015

CHARTERPARTY -- WHETHER THE AGENT/MANAGER ACTED ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTERED OWNERS -- WHETHER REGISTERED OWNERS WERE PARTY TO THE CHARTERPARTIES -- MEANING OF THE PHRASE “DISPONENT OWNER” -- Registered Owners Award The Charterer submitted a damages claim against the Registered Owners of four vessels after they were withdrawn from the Charterers service. The Registered Owners claimed that they were not bound to the charterparties because they were not party to them, but rather by a third party without the authority to act on their behalf.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd (The “Ocean Victory”) – Court of Appeal, 22 Jan 2015

BARECON 90 FORM -- SAFE PORT -- SEVERE WEATHER -- WHETHER HULL INSURERS ENTITLED TO FILE SUBROGATED CLAIM AGAINST DEMISE CHARTERER -- Charterer Award This dispute between the Claimant and Intermediate Charterer began over damages stemming from the loss of the Vessel when she went aground at the discharge port due to severe weather. However, the claim did not succeed as the demise charter contained an express stipulation to exclude the rights of subrogation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Market Trends

Market Trends Through Mar 2015

These charts represent freight rate trends (USD/M.T.) over a three-year period for 1,000 M.T. lots of easy liquid chemicals between Houston, Rotterdam, Mediterranean, Brazil, Latin America, Asia Pacific and Kandla. Data provided by New England Tanker Chartering, Inc. (NETCO).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.