Tagged: Vol. 22 No.4

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

ADM International SARL v Colbun S.A (The “MN Bulk Orion”) – SMA 4281, 30 Jun 2016

VALIDITY OF NOR TENDERED PRIOR TO FREE PRATIQUE AND CUSTOMS CLEARANCE AND WITH STOWAWAYS ONBOARD - OWNER’S OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE PRESENCE OF STOWAWAYS - WHETHER PANAMA CANAL EXPENSES DUE TO OVERLOADING FOR OWNER’S OR CHARTERER’S ACCOUNT Under a COA a vessel was nominated to carry coal from Colombia to Chile. Due to not yet having obtained free pratique and customs clearance, and whilst having stowaways onboard, Charterer argued that the NOR tendered at load was invalid. During transit to the disport the vessel was found in breach of Panama Canal draft restrictions and incurred unexpected expenses due to overloading which each party believes to be for the other party’s account.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 24/16

TIME CHARTER – HOLD INSPECTION FAILED – WHETHER DELAY IN RE-BERTHING AFTER HOLDS CLEANED AND PASSED INSPECTION OFF HIRE Upon arrival at the load port, the vessel’s holds failed inspection. After the holds were cleaned, the vessel was re-entered into the berthing queue. Charterer claimed the second delay in berthing was due to the holds failing inspection whereas owner claimed it was due to berth congestion.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Imperator I Maritime Co v. Bunge SA (The “Coral Seas”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 24 June 2016

TIME CHARTER - VESSEL FAILED SPEED WARRANTY DUE TO FOULING, ITSELF RESULTING FROM A PROLONGED WAIT IN TROPICAL WATERS - WHETHER FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SPEED THE RESULT OF COMPLIANCE WITH CHARTERER'S ORDERS Due to an underperformance caused by fouling on the Vessel, itself caused by extended stay in tropical waters as ordered by charterer, charterer claimed off hire. Owner countered stating the underperformance resulted from compliance with the charterer’s orders.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 22/16

TIME CHARTER – PIRACY CLAUSE – OWNER TAKES SHORTEST ROUTE THROUGH DANGEROUS WATERS - ADDED SECURITY AND INSURANCE OBTAINED – CHARTERER CLAIMS THEIR PROVIDED ROUTE WAS SAFE – OWNER REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS A vessel was chartered to conduct a voyage from New Orleans to India. The Owner of the vessel traveled the shortest route possible, through a high piracy risk area, ignoring the Charterer’s order to proceed via a safer route. The Owner supported their decision by saying that it saved on steaming and bunker costs, and claimed reimbursement for insurance and the extra security obtained.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 21/16

NORGRAIN 89 – HOLDS REJECTED – NOR RE-TENDERED AFTER LAYCAN – LAYCAN EXTENSION AGREED TO SUBJECT TO OWNER ACCEPTING CARRYING CHARGES – OWNER DID NOT RESPOND TO CHARTERER’S EXTENSION REQUIREMENT - OWNER CLAIMED DEMURRAGE – CHARTERER CLAIMED FOR CARRYING CHARGES With a prior NOR being deemed invalid due to holds being rejected, the vessel tendering NOR after the laycan but within a laycan extension. The Charterer stated the laycan extension was amenable subject to carrying charges being for owner’s account. Owner was silent when confronted with this requirement. Upon completion of the voyage, the owner claimed demurrage. The charterer rejected this claim, and counterclaimed for carrying charges.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitraton 20/16

NYPE TIME CHARTER - UNDERPERFORMANCE - SHORT LOAD - BALANCE OF ACCOUNT - LMAA SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE - WHETHER CHARTERER OR OWNER RESPONSIBLE FOR COST OF SURVEYOR AND CRANE HIRE - SUEZ CANAL NRT - WITHOUT PREJUDICE AGREEMENT LATER REVOKED The redelivery of a vessel from an 18 month time charter resulted in charterer withholding hire due to vessel short loading, claiming underperformance in regards to speed, and claiming damages related to a misrepresented Suez Canal NRT. Owner countered all of these and likewise claimed for the cost of surveyors present whilst de-bunkering and the cost of a shore crane.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 16/16

TIME CHARTERS NOVATED UPON NEW VESSEL OWNERSHIP - WHETHER NEW TIME CHARTERS ARE TO UPHOLD THE SAME SPEED AND PERFORMANCE WARRANTIES AS ORIGINAL CHARTERS - TRUE CONSTRUCTION OF CHARTERPARTIES Time charters contained speed and consumption warranties. Upon new ownership these charters included a phrase which owner contended replaced the original warranties with a warranty that the vessels would perform as they were the minute the new charters were concluded. Charterer disagreed and the panel was tasked to determine which warranties were contained in the new charters.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 17/16

TIME CHARTER/ SUB-CHARTER – CARGO SHORTAGE AND CARGO DAMAGE – CLAIM SETTLED BETWEEN REGISTERED OWNER AND RECEIVER – DISPONENT OWNER DISPUTES COST ALLOCATION – WHETHER COSTS TO BE APPORTIONED WITH CHARTERER A vessel was time chartered by a registered owner to a disponent owner, and then subsequently spot chartered to a sub-charterer to transport sugar. After the voyage, it was discovered that there was a cargo shortage and damaged and lost cargo. After the registered owner concluded a settlement with the receivers for damages, the registered owner attempted to collect the same amount from the disponent owner with an apportionment of the costs subsequently coming into question.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 15/16

TIME CHARTER - DEFINITION OF REDELIVERY - WHETHER REDELIVERY MUST STRICTLY ADHERE TO CHARTERPARTY TERMS - WHETHER VESSEL IN FACT REDELIVERED TO OWNER Under a time-charter, Charterer and Owner disputed the redelivery of a vessel. An arbitration panel determined the legal test in respect of redelivery and applied the facts surrounding the case. Albeit not redelivered as stipulated within the charter, the panel majority concluded the ship had been properly redelivered but Owner applied for permission to appeal the ruling to the High Court.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.