Online Archive - Browsing 2005 article summaries

The Vessel arrived at loadport, passed surveyor inspection, and began loading cargo. However, when the surveyor inspected the cargo after partial loading, He/She rejected the loaded cargo because of floating particles in the sample. After the voyage, the Owner claimed that the surveyor passed the Vessel before loading and filed demurrage for the tank cleaning delays. Read full article...

After arriving at anchorage, the Vessel was arrested for reasons concerning previous charters. Once the Vessel had passed inspection by authorities but not before being released, it tendered NOR. At arbitration, the Charterers refute the tender saying that the Vessel could not shift to berth while arrested; yet, the Owners stipulate that, in fact, the court order specifically allowed berthing and the commencement of load operations. Read full article...

The Buyer preliminarily contacted the Seller to ask if the Vessel characteristics agreed with Seller requirements for shipping. After granting approval, the Seller allegedly sent documents stipulating that the agreement was conditional on whether the Vessel had an operating VR system. However, the Buyer never received such stipulations and submitted demurrage for delays at port when the Seller refused Vessel loading without VR. Read full article...

This arbitration centers around the finer aspects of the pump warranty. In this case, the Charterers argue that the agreed pressure at the Vessel’s manifold was not maintained throughout the unloading. The Owners, on the other hand, stipulate that the referenced pressure drops were at the beginning and end of discharge, a common safety and loss prevention practice. Read full article...

The Charter Party specifically states that if cargo cannot be discharged because of “Civil Commotions,” then there cannot be any demurrage claim for lost time. But, when the Vessel berthed at disport and a national curfew was in place, the Owner filed for demurrage regardless arguing that the curfew did not prevent the cargo from being discharged, but instead the subsequent lack of trucks leaving the port was the root cause of detainment. Read full article...

While moving to berth at disport, the Vessel ran aground on an abandoned dredge pipe in the navigation channel. The Owner followed suit with an arbitration charge for the damages sustained in the grounding claiming that the Charterer had breached the safe berth warranty. The Charterer counterclaimed that the Owner faulted the grounding citing the Owner’s frequent usage of the port in the past as well as the lack of prior Owner proof that the berth was unsafe. Read full article...

The arbitration following the Vessel’s voyage encompassed several key demurrage arguments. Disputes center around the Vessel speed warranty, the fault for broken anchor chains (Charterer port unsafety or Owner Vessel unseaworthiness), and the validity of subsequent NOR tender if the anchors were broken. Read full article...

After part cargo discharge to barge, bad weather delayed the Vessel’s berth at port thereby incurring an Owner demurrage claim. The Charterer agreed to the fine, however, requested that this claim be offset by consolidating it with other outstanding claims that the Owner owes to the Charterer (making net demurrage due Charterer). Read full article...

Although blocked by disport by seventeen miles of ice, the Vessel tendered NOR and awaited icebreaker assistance for five days before continuing to berth. At arbitration, the Owners view the NOR as a valid beginning of laytime and any further delays at port were the fault of the Charterers. The Charterers counterclaimed that an NOR tendered seventeen miles from port limits cannot be considered valid. Read full article...

In this case, there were four separate demurrage issues under dispute. Arbitration disputes focused on the time-bar clause, the allocation of time spent overloading the Vessel and subsequent reloading, delays waiting for the Charterer’s barge at disport, and the Owner’s right to increase a claim. Read full article...

Although the Charterers assured that an arrival draft of forty feet was acceptable, tidal changes delayed the Vessel’s arrival to disport. The Owners submitted a claim for demurrage arguing that the Charterers draft levels kept the Vessel from reaching disport. But the Charterers reference a clause in the Charter Party which states that tidal delays cannot count as laytime in arbitration. Read full article...

In response to a Charterer agreement to use the unclean Vessel for transporting sub-Charterer's naphtha cargo, the sub-Charterer refused to load the Vessel to full capacity in fear of cargo contamination. The Charterer subsequently claimed deadfreight and incurred a possessory lien for over a month at disport. Under the time-charter contract, the Owner seeks hire payment for the month-long arrest which the Charterer deducted as off-hire. Read full article...

The Charterer cancelled the Charter Party after being unable to supply cargo during laytime. The Owner responded with a damages claim eleven months later; however, there is a stipulation in the charter that states that any claim after 180 days is time-barred. Read full article...

The Vessel was required to discharge at two separate ports, however, the draft was erroneously calculated to only accommodate the deeper port. And upon arrival at the deeper port, the berth was occupied by another vessel thereby detaining the Owner’s Vessel. So in response to Owner’s subsequent demurrage, the Charterers blame the erroneous draft level for the delay because otherwise the Vessel could discharge at the shallower (but unoccupied) port first. Read full article...

This arbitration dispute centers around the fault of cargo contamination and the proper evidence to support the blame. After contaminants were found in the tank samples, the Vessel was forced off berth and the Owner filed demurrage for the cleaning time. The Charterer counterclaimed that the contamination came from the Vessel’s tank, so therefore, any delays came from Owner unreadiness. Read full article...

The governing period charter rate, in this case, is defined by “per Platts Oilgram average on delivery.” However, the delivery day price was not available until after voyage, so the prior day’s rate was used and then updated when the delivery day price was published. The Charterer refuted this change arguing that the updated average became available only after delivery and was in breach of the contract. Read full article...

Once inspected by the coastguard, the Vessel was required to undergo minor repairs in order to comply with berthing standards at loadport. The Charter Party stipulates that any time loss resulting from non-compliance to safety regulations shall not count as laytime; however, the Owner filed for demurrage claiming that the infractions were minor and did not hinder the loading process. Read full article...

After the Vessel tendered NOR at loadport, the Charterer responded that the cargo was unavailable and agreed to pay the contracted deadfreight. The Charterer tried to make allowances for the deadfreight by negotiating another voyage, however, the new voyage was never carried out and the Owner subsequently began arbitration to recover the outstanding invoice. Read full article...

The Charterer ordered the Vessel to arrive at loadport ready in all respects and duly cleaned to load a cargo of naphtha. Upon berthing, the inspector rejected the Vessel’s tanks and ordered them to be fresh water rinsed. Afterwards, the Owner filed for demurrage claiming that fresh water rinsing was neither required nor industry standard. Read full article...

The Vessel arrived at loadport and tendered NOR, but was forced to wait for the berth to be free. The Owners filed demurrage for this lost time, however, the Charterers wanted to offset this claim with the delays resulting from Vessel unreadiness when berth became free (lack of proper gangway rigging). Read full article...

This arbitration settles the dispute pertaining to the Shellvoy 5 charter party clause that defines the savings earned by the Charterers if loading ends before laycan begins. The Charterers interpret the clause as crediting their savings from when laytime begins to the beginning of laycan, while the Owners argue that the savings period begins only after the end of the early laytime. Read full article...