Online Archive - Browsing 2006 article summaries

This is the appellate award for Tidebrook v. Vitol. Upon acknowledging that the Vessel would arrive before laycan, the Charterer sent several messages to the Vessel requesting that she tender NOR upon arrival with the intent of commencing loading prior to laycan; which she did. The Owner argued that this signified the commencement of laytime due to Charterer-given consent; however, the Charterer contends that they merely requested an early NOR. Read full article...

En route to disport, the Charterers deducted an off-hire deviation from the Owner without consent. Subsequently, the Owner exercised his right of a possessory lien by refusing to berth at the discharge port until properly reimbursed. At arbitration, the two major issues were if the Owner had acted in the right by refusing discharge and if the initial deduction by the Charterers was properly submitted. Read full article...

The central conflict of this case is the language and intention of “A.D.A. WOG” (“All Details About Without Guarantee”) in the context of contracts. In this case, the Charterer claimed that the acronym only applies to the recaps containing “about” in their description. The Owner, on the other hand, argues that because - in this instance - it concludes the speed and consumption recap, it applies to all preceding statements. Read full article...

In this case, the Charterers failed to provide the contracted amount of cargo and agreed to pay the deadfreight rate stipulated in the Charter Party. However, the Charterers argued that the benefits of deadfreight, such as dock savings, bunker savings, and savings on port charges, should offset the net deadfreight cost billed to them. Read full article...

In order to meet draft restrictions at disport, the Charterers loaded less than the maximum capacity allowable by the Vessel. In response to the subsequent deadfreight due to the Charterers’ port selection, the Owner started arbitration referencing that the Charterers violated the “always accessible” port clause in their charter and demanded that the deadfreight be compensated. Read full article...

A clause in this case’s Charter Party stated that all claims become void unless arbitration begins within one year post-voyage. But after reaching a subsequent demurrage agreement with the Charterer within the specified timeframe, the Owners began arbitration several years later stating that this informal agreement constituted a recognizable second contract. Read full article...

The Charterers sought arbitration for additional barging costs, storage fees, and throughput charges because of Owner's failure to provide a seaworthy vessel. Such charges, however, require the Charterers to support their claim with ample evidence. Read full article...

Upon arriving at the discharge port, the Vessel’s cargo was discovered to be heavily contaminated with sea water. The Charterers subsequently began arbitration to recover expenses; however the Charterer’s claim must prove that cargo quality was intact before voyage and was contaminated after discharge. Read full article...

After outstanding demurrage and freight bills for three separate voyages, the Owner began arbitration to recover lost profits and interest. Although the Charterer did not participate in the proceedings, the sole arbitrator pointed out several issues with the Vessel's NOR at the loadport which could have been contested. Read full article...

The Vessel arrived at loadport and tendered NOR within laycan, however the Charterer failed to supply the cargo. The Charterer, after fourteen days of expressing to the Owner that loading would begin soon, cancelled the Charter Party because of “unexpected problems.” The Owner subsequently demanded compensation for damages to demurrage, deadfreight, and detention. Read full article...

This arbitration stems from the Contract of Affreightment on ExxonMobil Voy2000 and the responsibility of nitrogen purging. In this case, when the Vessel reached the load port, the Charterers refused Vessel loading because the tanks were not purged to the cargo’s required .5% O2 level. The Owners, however, brought evidence proving that the specific purging requirements were not included in the COA or the voyage orders. Read full article...

The Owners brought arbitration against three separate Charterers in order to collect lost profits from an improper cancellation. Six days before arriving at loadport, the Owner received a message asking Him/Her to cancel the Charter Party because the cargo was unavailable. However, because voyage was underway and there was no locatable substitute cargo, the Vessel arrived, tendered NOR, and sailed with deadfreight. Read full article...

After engine problems delayed the original Vessel from arriving at loadport, the Charterers cancelled the Charter Party with the Owners and chartered another vessel to take its place. At arbitration, the Charterers held the Owners in full responsibility for failing to provide a timely vessel and demanded compensation for resulting market loss. Read full article...

A collapsed breasting fender at loadport caused an eleven day berthing delay for the Vessel, subsequently allowing the Owner to file for a demurrage claim. The Charterers counterclaimed that the fender collapse was caused by the Vessel and demanded indemnity for demurrage on four other vessels and indemnity for a potential damages claim from the dock owner. Read full article...

Although the Vessel had arrived and tendered NOR at loadport, another vessel was berthed out of turn. Subsequently, the Owner claimed detention at the demurrage rate for the four days of delay that the Charterer incurred by berthing the second vessel out of turn. Read full article...

After arriving at port and once approved for loading, the Vessel tendered NOR, but waited fourteen days before berthing. However, before load operations could commence, onboard hydraulic problems delayed cargo loading further and gave the Charterers fodder to claim that the NOR tender was premature. The Charterers argued that if the Vessel was not ready to load in all respects, then laytime cannot commence. Read full article...

This arbitration centers on the Owner’s refusal to load His/Her vessels on four voyages during March/May to a full arrival draft of eleven meters. Instead, He/She used a safer draft of 10.5 meters in accordance with Navtex costal warnings during these months. The Charterers, however, brought arbitration against the Owner with evidence that the discharge port authority was berthing vessels up to the desired eleven meters draft. Read full article...

In order to collect outstanding demurrage claims, the Owner started arbitration; however, originally, the claim was erroneously calculated with a lower prorated waiting time which the Owner raised at arbitration. The Charterers argued that they were exempt from this new rate because they believed it to be punitive and an alteration of the original contract. Read full article...

During laytime, and after the Charterer’s cargo was partially loaded, the Charterer altered the agreed amount of cargo as specified by the Charter Party, thereby incurring stowage delays and confusion in the loading plan. After these delays extended loadtime past laycan, the Charterer cancelled the voyage and refused responsibility for the resulting deadfreight claiming that the delays resulted from the Vessel’s unreadiness to load. Read full article...

Upon acknowledging that the Vessel would arrive before laycan, the Charterer sent several messages to the Vessel requesting that she tender NOR upon arrival with the intent of commencing loading prior to laycan; which she did. The Owner argued that this signified the commencement of laytime due to Charterer-given consent; however, the Charterer contends that they merely requested an early NOR. Read full article...

This arbitration dispute centers around the finer responsibilities of the Owner to load with “utmost dispatch” and to load concurrently in cases of more than one cargo. However, if the Charterer sustains a loss from delayed loading, the burden to prove any such loss lies on the Charterers. Read full article...

Fulfilling an option granted by the Charter Party, the Charterer added a second loadport to the voyage. But when the Vessel tendered NOR at the first loadport, the NOR was rejected because the Vessel’s tanks to be loaded at the second loadport were unclean. The Charterers argued that the NOR cannot be valid if the Vessel is not ready to load cargo in all respects (including subsequent port loading). Read full article...

Although arriving promptly on the first day of laycan, bad weather kept the vessel from berthing for two weeks. Subsequently, the Buyer cancelled the contract arguing: that the Seller failed to ship the cargo within the shipping period, that the seller failed in His/Her obligation to ship the cargo expediently, and that the disport ETA’s were unrealistic in the context of Winter weather. Read full article...

After an initial barge loading failure at the original loadport, the Owner mitigated the Charterer’s demurrage and fixed the new loadport as the Owner’s terminal. The Vessel tendered NOR at the terminal, but was forced to wait three days for the Charterer’s barges to arrive because of rough seas and lock delays. The subsequent demurrage claim for the three day delay was refuted in arbitration by the Charterers on the grounds that the weather and lock detentions were out of their control, and therefore exempt from demurrage. Read full article...

After repeatedly delaying its ETA, the Vessel ultimately arrived, but the port authority had closed the berth for scheduled maintenance. In response to the subsequent Owner demurrage claim, the Charterer counterclaimed that neither the maintenance nor the delays leading to the prolonged ETA were in His/Her control. Read full article...

This case began with Charterer allegations that the Vessel did not tender NOR for this STS transfer—or if it did, it was invalid and premature. The Owner, however, counterclaimed that when the Charterer remitted partial payment of the demurrage claim, they thereby admitted validity to the Vessel’s NOR and sacrificed their right to challenge it. Read full article...

When the Charterer’s pilot boarded the Vessel to begin berthing six days after NOR declaration, the pilot noted operational deficiencies and refused to berth the Vessel until repaired. The Owner subsequently filed for demurrage beginning at NOR tender while the Charterer argued that NOR cannot be considered a valid beginning of laytime because of Vessel unreadiness at berthing. Read full article...

After loading was completed, a latent document delivery to the Vessel detained it at berth for an extra 14.5H. The Charterer did not contest His/Her fault in the delay, however, He/She argues that the canal was concurrently closed due to adverse weather for several days and the time spent at berth during this closure should be deducted from the claim. Read full article...

This case’s Charter Party clearly stipulates that there are no grounds for demurrage unless the claim (along with supporting documentation) is received within ninety days of cargo discharge. So when the Owner submitted a claim on the ninetieth day without the specifically outlined terminal logs, the Charterer deemed the demurrage time-barred by the Charter Party. Read full article...

Upon arriving at loadport after a new cargo revision in the Charter Party, the Vessel was kicked off of berth because of survey results revealing that the Vessel’s tanks were insufficiently cleaned for the revised cargo. The Owner submitted demurrage for the cleaning costs and delays arguing that the tanks were acceptable for the original cargo. Read full article...