Tagged: Vol. 5 No. 2

ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- ALL-FAST -- TYPHOON -- BERTH -- ACT OF GOD -- DEMURRAGE -- CHARTER PARTY -- LAYTIME -- Charterer Award Although the Vessel was all-fast at disport, a typhoon warning stopped all discharge and forced the Vessel off the berth. The Charterers claim that this time should be considered a weather induced delay and be billed only at half the demurrage rate as per the charter party clause. The Owners argued that because the allotted laytime had not expired, the half-demurrage rate should not apply.

EXXONVOY 90 -- LOADPORT -- LAYCAN -- ETA -- DEMURRAGE -- NOR -- Owner Award En route to loadport, the Charterers instructed the Vessel to not tender her NOR until 0700 on the first day of laycan. However, the Owners communicated an ETA change to 0001 with no protest from the Charterers and thereby formally arrived at that time. But later, the Charterers contend that they were not notified of any arrival change and are therefore exempt from demurrage between the NOR tender and the originally agreed ETA.

ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- ARBITRATION -- CANCELLATION -- Owner Award The Owners had conceded that they wrongfully cancelled the charter, but arbitration was necessary to appropriate the amount of damages due the Charterers.

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- TERMINAL -- BERTH -- CHANNEL -- GROUNDING -- DEADFREIGHT -- PORT -- NOR -- Charterer Award After the Owners’ rejection of the original loadport terminal, the berth was moved to Paktank Richmond at the Owners’ request. However, the Vessel grounded in the berth’s channel due to an incorrect draft publication. The Owners argued that the Charterers did not provide a safe berth for the Vessel and demanded deadfreight compensation, while the Charterers maintained that the Owners nominated the new port and are therefore responsible for any problems resulting from the change.