Online Archive - Browsing 2001 article summaries

In this case, the Owner began arbitration to recover a demurrage claim that was allegedly time-barred. The charter party stipulates that a notice must be submitted within ninety days of discharge completion, followed by all supporting evidence within 150 days of discharge. The notice and full claim were received on the ninety-first day, which the Owners contend satisfies the charter. Read full article...

Once at loadport, the surveyor inspected the Vessel’s tanks and rejected them per latex residue from the previous voyage’s cargo. But even after cleaning and re-tendering NOR, latex residue was still found in surveyor samples. So, the Owners ordered the Vessel to fulfill other charters, and later submitted a claim for demurrage and subsequent deviation costs. Read full article...

This arbitration resulted from the Charterer’s failure to pay an outstanding demurrage claim and an invoice for shifting expenses, and failed to reimburse the Owner for under-consumed bunkers from slow steaming. Read full article...

Upon arriving at loadport, the Vessel’s tanks were rejected due to .01 cm of cargo residue and forced the Vessel off berth to be cleaned. Once cleaned, the Vessel loaded the cargo with no incident, but incurred delays once again because of low water levels in the channel. The Owners submitted a demurrage claim inclusive of both the superfluous cleaning time and the detention trying to leave berth. Read full article...

This arbitration centers upon the appropriation of waiting and shifting time between berths at loadport. In this case, the Vessel shifted from one berth and was forced to wait at another for 30H 16M. The Owners billed the Charterers for this delay under “shifting time”; however, the Charterers argue that the time between a dropped anchor and the commencement of shifting should be considered un-billable “waiting time.” Read full article...

Although the Vessel arrived at loadport and tendered NOR after laydays had expired, the Charterer did not protest against the Vessel’s latency. So, the Vessel berthed, loaded the cargo, and sailed with no incident. And afterwards, the Owner began arbitration to recover the demurrage invoice. Read full article...

As arranged in the charter party, the Vessel lightered 2,100 mt of the Charterers’ cargo and waited for a free berth to discharge the rest. But while waiting, the Vessel began lightering a different charterer’s part cargo and missed its chance to berth and unload. The Charterers argue that the resulting excess time at port was the result of the Owners’ decision to fulfill another cargo interest and should not count as laytime. Read full article...

After voyage, the Charterer demanded compensation for: an off-hire period to change Vessel crews, a breach in the minimum speed warranty, and bunker over-consumption. The Owners counterclaim that the Charterers’ fuel and speed analyses do not take into account the ½ knot below and 5% above speed and fuel allowances, respectively, given to the Owners by their P&I club. Read full article...

The Owners brought arbitration against the Charterers because of an alleged wrongful cancellation of the charter party. In this case, the Vessel was chartered to load a cargo of clean propylene oxide, but failed tank inspection multiple times at loadport. And after the Master did not offer any further cleaning, the Charterer rejected the Vessel and cancelled the charter. Read full article...

Because of Charterer-incurred deadfreight, the Owners computed their laytime allowances based on the amount of cargo loaded. They argued that deadfreight is an element of damages that has no bearings on allowed laytime. The Charterers, on the other hand, contend that a fully loaded Vessel should be the basis for allowed laytime. Read full article...

The Vessel arrived at the nominated offshore discharge platform with insufficient equipment to secure the Vessel to the mooring system. The Charterers then redirected the Vessel to a shore berth and completed discharge without incident. The Owners submitted a demurrage claim for the excess shifting time while the Charterers counterclaim for shore berth expenses. Read full article...

At arbitration, disputes centered upon the interpretation and execution of the pump warranty. The Owners submitted a demurrage claim for excess pumping time and argued that the Charterers had set a charter- amending precedent by agreeing to the Owners’ interpretation of the pump warranty in the past. The Charterers refute any such precedent for open claims. Read full article...

Upon tendering NOR at an uncustomary anchorage 226 miles away from port, dense fog forced the Vessel to wait three additional days before undergoing a necessary US Coast Guard survey and proceeding to customary anchorage. At arbitration, the Owners claim this time under demurrage while the Charterers argue that the Vessel was not an “arrived ship” 226 miles away from port. Read full article...