Online Archive - Browsing 1996 article summaries

This arbitration centered upon the slow load rate at the Vessel’s second berth. The Charterers claim that this rate was faulted by shipside flow restrictions basis the high pressures in the terminal pipeline. The Owners, however, argue that the flow restriction could have been avoided if, instead of using only one hose, the terminal utilized the Vessel’s full range of manifold connections. Read full article...

This shortened arbitration dispute arose from the Charterers neglecting to respond to any of the Owners’ requests for demurrage payment. The Charterers did not respond to arbitration proceeding nor nominate an arbitrator. Read full article...

Because the Owners advised the Charterers that the Vessel would arrive within laycan, the Charterers did not terminate the charter party before the cancellation date. The Vessel then arrived at loadport after the last layday and likewise incurred berthing delays which the Owners claimed as demurrage. The Charterers blamed the delay on the Owners’ failure to produce a good faith ETA and counterclaimed for refinery damages from the late delivery. Read full article...

The Owners filed a demurrage claim for the extensive delays at loadport. The Charterers argued that a recent workers strike out of their control caused the loading slowdown, and therefore, all demurrage should either be rescinded or reduced to 50% demurrage. Read full article...

Once a demurrage sum was agreed upon, the Charterers confirmed that payment would follow. However, after nine months of no response to their invoices, the Owners began arbitration to recover the demurrage amount plus interest and legal fees. Read full article...

The Owners were forced to start arbitration against the Charterers after they refused to pay the voyage’s demurrage claim. The Charterers denied liability basis the Trinidad Daylight Docking Rules, excess pumping time at disport because of Vessel’s low pressure, the 6H laytime credit after NOR tender, and laytime credit at loadberth for USCG inspection. Read full article...

This arbitration encompasses several different disputes which arise from multiple charter parties. The points of contention include the application of the 50% weather delay exception at berth, the Owner’s failure to meet the pump warranty, an occupied berth upon arrival, and the responsibility of wharfage fees during discharge. Read full article...

Although the Buyers understand their contractual obligation to pay demurrage for delays at disport, they claim that this voyage’s delays were caused by government action and likewise a laytime exception. Additionally, the Buyers argue that they are not bound by the Panel’s decision because they never agreed to arbitration. Read full article...

Over the course of load operations, the Vessel allegedly accrued demurrage basis certain charter party clauses, including berth call shifting time, tank purging, and cargo cooling. Read full article...

The Charterers began arbitration to recover losses stemming from two separate issues of alleged Owner error. Basis storm delays at loadport, the Charterers claimed that they should count at 50% the demurrage rate regardless of the Vessel already being on demurrage. The other issue centered upon the interpretation of “about” in the cargo stipulations and the subsequent Vessel shortloading which the Owners attribute to crew error. Read full article...

In response to the Owners’ claim for demurrage at disport, the Charterers contended that the delays resulted from Owners’ lack of required US port documentation and the subsequently occupied berth when the documents were finally received. Conversely, the Owners cited other arbitrations where the laytime began at NOR despite having lost its turn at berth due to Owner negligence. Read full article...

This arbitration award settles several pertinent demurrage issues from voyage. These issues include the responsibility for delayed tugboat arrival, demurrage from an occupied berth, Vessel pilot delays, the responsibility to know tidal and daylight port restrictions, and the pump warranty. Read full article...

After not receiving any response to their invoices for demurrage, the Owners began arbitration against the Charterers to recover the delay compensation. Read full article...

The Owners began arbitration to recover demurrage costs from two consecutive charter parties with the Charterer. The Charterers claim that the demurrage time should be reduced basis an alleged breach of the pump warranty, stoppages during loading, and Owner non-compliance with port authorities. Read full article...

The Owners began arbitration to recover compensation for delays arising from the Vessel’s inability to safely berth at disport. They argue that the Charterers knowingly loaded the Vessel beyond the channel’s draft restrictions and are therefore responsible. Conversely, the Charterers claim that the root cause of delay was the Vessel’s failure to obtain the necessary TVE from the Coast Guard. Read full article...

Due to a major Vessel casualty at disport, the Vessel was put on demurrage for an additional 1.5 days. The Charterers argued that this event was beyond their control and should be summarily discounted. The Owners, on the other hand, contend that the Charterers had not satisfied their burden of proof that it was indeed out of their control. Read full article...

The arbitration proceedings encompass several points of contention during the voyage. Laytime disputes include laytime deductions for tank cleaning, laytime during quarantine and customs clearance, and daylight restrictions for berthing at port. Read full article...

Upon arrival at the Charterer’s nominated port, the Vessel was loaded beyond the disport terminal’s published draft. So because the berth was unreachable upon arrival, the Owner subsequently submitted a demurrage claim for the time spent awaiting the Charterer’s lightering barges. The Charterer, however, cited other instances where vessels with greater drafts had berthed safely at the terminal. Read full article...

This arbitration award covers several laytime issues between voyage parties. Pertinent issues include the time-bar clause, Owner’s diligence to provide a seaworthy Vessel, the Vessel’s minimum transit speed, the ship log of cargo temperature, daylight restrictions at the Charterer’s disport, and delays due to a census conducted by the disport’s national government. Read full article...

This arbitration award covers several laytime issues between voyage parties. The responsibility for time spent purging the Vessel’s tanks, shifting time, cooling down time, and the application of the maritime maxim “once on demurrage, always on demurrage” are all discussed in the proceedings. Read full article...

After the Vessel failed both a tank inspection and the first foot sample, the Charterers exercised their right to terminate the charter party. However, the Owners insisted on a second foot sample and blamed the first foot sample’s contamination on the Refinery Loading Master’s order to ballast the Vessel during the shift to berth. Read full article...

The Charterer fully loaded the Vessel with the intention of lightering the cargo at disport. However, the Vessel remained at port anchorage for over sixteen days while discharging to lightering vessels. The Owner contended that the Charterer breached the charter party by not procuring a berth reachable upon arrival and therefore demanded damages at the detention rate instead of the demurrage rate. Read full article...

After substituting the fixed Vessel for the slower-loading subject Vessel, further delays were incurred at loadport due to insufficient cargo chilling per charter requirements. The Owners argued that this extended laycan was faulted by the terminal’s breach of the charter party and claimed any excess loading time as demurrage. Read full article...

The Vessel was forced to wait 28H at loadport anchorage by the Port Authority and Harbor Master because of a typhoon. The Owner counted this time at half the demurrage rate. Read full article...