Online Archive - Browsing 1997 article summaries

Upon arriving at the nominated Berth 2 for discharge, the Vessel was rejected at berth because of having a low flash part cargo for another Charterer. The Owners therefore deemed it unsafe and demanded another berth nomination. Conversely, the Charterer argued that the berth was safe and that it was the Owners’ responsibility to know their cargo’s compliance to the terminal’s regulations. Read full article...

In order to reduce their demurrage claim, the Charterer referenced the Owner’s transshipper’s Statement of Facts clause which states that demurrage would be apportioned between Charterers in the ratio of their part cargo onboard. Read full article...

En route to the nominated disport, the Vessel Master deviated course due to draft restrictions that were deemed unsafe for berth. Eventually, the Master agreed to shift to the allegedly hazardous port with additional assistance and subsequently claimed demurrage for the delayed arrival. The Charterer refuted the claim on the grounds that both the Vessel’s arrival and departure from port were safe. Read full article...

The Vessel was unable to berth at the Charterers’ terminal because of a line handler strike. The Owners argued that delays should be held as demurrage because the Charterers did not supply a berth “reachable upon arrival.” The Charterers challenged this claim by classifying the strike as a delay “…over which the Charterer has no control, such delay shall not count as used laytime.” Read full article...

This arbitration centered upon two separate claims for demurrage. In the first case, the Buyer and Seller agreed that laytime would begin upon berthing if the Vessel was late. But because the Vessel did not arrive on time, it was given an unfavorable berth rotation with no Buyer repercussion, which the Sellers now claim as demurrage. The second dispute was over whether a legal charter party existed for the voyage. Read full article...

The Owners began arbitration to recover detention damages from four separate charter parties that the Time Charterers had contracted. The Vessel was idle for extended periods between these voyages instead of being utilized. On the other hand, the Charterers rejected the claims basis laches and time-bar breaches. Read full article...

Due to clogged Vessel lines, the Vessel could only receive the first cargo parcel at a much slower rate than the terminal’s potential output. So, fearing additional slowdowns, the terminal forced the Vessel off berth to clean her lines before loading a second parcel and simultaneously chartered another vessel to load the third parcel. The Owner drafted a demurrage claim for off berth cleaning time while the Charterer counterclaimed for hedge loss, reduced market value, and freight compensation. Read full article...

The Charterer argued that the Owner’s six-year post voyage demurrage claim was time-barred and that the Owner was subsequently responsible for costs stemming from the untimely arbitration. But if the case was not deemed time-barred, then the Charterer asked for a demurrage reduction basis the “grossly excessive” shifting time. Read full article...

Because the Vessel’s generator was damaged en route to disport, the Owner wanted to revise the discharge process in order to compensate for lost pumping power. The terminal wanted US Coast Guard approval for the new procedure before pumping was allowed. The USCG subsequently rejected the Vessel and the Owners began arbitration to recover demurrage expenses for de-berthing and re-berthing delays. Read full article...