Online Archive - Browsing 2000 article summaries

Because the loadport’s national ice service increased ice class limitations on entering vessels, the Vessel was denied access to berth, and subsequently, the voyage was terminated. The Owners blame the Charterers for failing in their obligation to find a safe berth upon arrival. Conversely, the Charterers argue that their supplier could not provide cargo at another port and accuse the Owners of failing to provide an appropriate vessel for the voyage. Read full article...

Fixed under a contract where Worldscale terms apply when not already defined, the Vessel was chartered to discharge at three different locations. However, at one location, the Owners are claiming that because of dual operations (lightering and berthing), they should count as two separate disports which would require extra freight compensation from the Charterers. Read full article...

Because of delays steaming upriver, the Vessel missed her designated berthing time and was forced to wait once she arrived at port. The Owners contend that this delay was due to an insufficient draft while steaming, therefore making it demurrage. The Charterers, on the other hand, argue that this time was un-billable because engine trouble caused the delays to port. Read full article...

Upon arriving at disport, the Vessel accrued extensive demurrage while being forced to wait for a free berth and shoreside storage space. And when the Owner started arbitration to recover demurrage, the Charterers did not appoint an arbitrator, denied the existence of a binding charter party, and refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Panel to settle disputes. Read full article...

Upon arriving at disport, the Vessel accrued extensive demurrage while being forced to wait for a free berth and shoreside storage space. And when the Owner started arbitration to recover demurrage, the Charterers did not appoint an arbitrator, denied the existence of a binding charter party, and refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Panel to settle disputes. Read full article...

The Owners began arbitration to collect outstanding payments on two separate voyages with the Charterers. On the first voyage, the Vessel was delayed for two days at disport when cargo samples revealed unacceptable water content. And on the second voyage, when the Vessel arrived at disport, she was forced to wait ten days for berthing instructions. Read full article...

Because the port only accepted Vessels less than 16 years of age, the 1975-built Vessel was quickly rejected after tendering her NOR. The Charterers argued that the NOR was invalid due to the Owners’ failure to obtain a waiver and conform to the port regulations. The Owners, on the other hand, contend that the Charterers customarily acquire the waiver. And furthermore, the berth was congested upon arrival, meaning that no time was lost in obtaining the waiver. Read full article...

Due to a valve malfunction, the Disponent Owners’ nominated lightering Vessel missed her berth call at disport and was forced to re-tender NOR. The Owners then argued that the delays incurred at port were beyond their control and likewise defined as demurrage by the charter. But the Sub-Charterers refused their claim per Vessel unseaworthiness and lack of Owners’ due diligence. Read full article...

The Charterers refused to load their decene part cargo because of excess temperature inflowing from adjacent heating tanks. The Owners subsequently filed for deadfreight damages and claimed that the Charterers had allowed cargo loading in a similar case a year earlier. The Charterers, however, denied payment because of the Owner’s failure to provide “a suitable safe space for the cargo.” Read full article...

At some point along the voyage, the cargo had become contaminated and had to be sold as salvage at a great loss to the sub-charterers. The Charterers presented a timely claim to the Owners and communication about reimbursement continued between parties over the next year until the Vessel Owners declared the claim time-barred under COSGA. Read full article...

En route to berth at disport, the Vessel ran aground on an unchartered obstruction and spilled 16,000 gal. of cargo into the channel. The Owners argued that the berth was obviously unsafe due to the presence of an undiscovered rock at berth and demanded compensation. The Charterers, however, maintain that the berth was safe while citing instances of sister vessels berthing at port with no incidents. Read full article...

Although the Charterers paid a majority of the demurrage claim, they refused to consider the two USCG-mandated 6H “crew rest periods” as demurrage. The Charterers argued that these rest periods are comparable to a Vessel “breakdown,” and as such, would render the Vessel off-hire and be for the Owners’ account. Read full article...

Before arriving at the contracted discharge port, the Charterers fixed a new disport per Charterers’ option. But upon arrival, the Owners refused to begin unloading until both the full freight payment and an LOI had been received from the new Receivers. The Vessel waited at berth for six days before payment, which the Owners submitted to the Charterers as demurrage. Read full article...

This arbitration dispute encompasses several key points of contention that arise over the course of the voyage. The arguments include the Vessel’s bunker usage, compensation for Vessel damage resulting from harsh weather at berth, and various claims for off-hire. Read full article...

As per the Charter Party, a cargo of LSWR was meant to be loaded between 125F – 135F, however, the LSWR was loaded at 115F – 120F which caused it to congeal and clog the deck lines. The Owner then invoiced the Charterers for cleaning expenses and the resulting demurrage incurred by the clogged lines. Read full article...