Online Archive - Browsing 2008 article summaries

Although this award focuses on the responsibility for paying pier dues, it is relevant to laytime and demurrage in that the charter party contains two clauses which are in conflict. The Panel determines which clause takes precedence, and explains why. Read full article...

Two vessels were contracted for the carriage of fuel oils, but following the fixture, MARPOL regulations were changed, requiring fuel oil to be carried only in double-hulled ships. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, and described what changes could have been made to the two vessels to bring them in compliance with the new MARPOL regulations. Read full article...

Following the late redelivery of the Vessel from a time charter, Owners were forced to renegotiate their next time charter at a lower rate. Owners claimed $1.3 million in damages and won the dispute. On this appeal by Charterers, the Panel overturned the previous ruling with the simple question "Would an objective person have anticipated such a large loss of profits from the redelivery of a time chartered vessel made nine days late?" The award details the Panel's ruling and settlement. Read full article...

In this dispute, the Panel was called upon to determine the Charterer's liability following their failure to provide the minimum amount of cargo stated in the charter party due to draft restrictions caused by silting. The Panel explains what other options the Charterer could have exercised other than simply loading less cargo to the Vessel. Read full article...

Although the Vessel was fixed basis "one safe berth" for discharging, an agreement was made after the fixture adding a second berth. Owner commenced arbitration to recover the additional costs and demurrage incurred during the voyage. Read full article...

Although Charterer didn't respond to Owner's initiation of arbitration proceedings, the Panel took matters into their own hands and edited the demurrage claim for time spent discharging slops. This award explains why. Read full article...

The Panel is asked to rule on a variety of topics, including whether or not the failure to reject a NOR means that it is inherently accepted, the nature of "reversible" laytime and how laytime should be calculated for separate parcels, and whether time spent bunkering while waiting for an available berth counts as laytime. Read full article...

The Charterer's inspector rejected the Vessel's tanks due to severe corrosion and rust, and declared the Vessel unsuitable. Charterer held the Owner in breach of the charter not only for the condition of the tanks, but also if the Vessel's tanks were actually epoxy coated as presented in the charter party. Charterer won the initial dispute in the Court of Singapore. Owners appealed, and this award details how the Court approached the issue. Read full article...

Under a NYPE form time charter, the Vessel delivered cargo to Lagos, but wasn't given berthing instructions for nine months. Owners commenced arbitration to recover lost profits from the delay in redelivering the Vessel. How did the Panel define "reasonable time" under a NYPE charter party? This Panel's ruling lays out what happens when parties don't include protective clauses with specific wording in their contracts. Read full article...

This award covered a number of issues, including whether the fixture of "one safe berth" and a WIBON (whether in berth or not) constituted a berth charter party, whether or not port restrictions on night transits are demurrage events, and how a pilot shortage affected the Panel's ruling on waiting time and a grounding incident. Read full article...

During the discharge at Freeport, Charterers informed Owners that they planned on loading additional cargo after discharge operations completed. Owners commenced arbitration to recover this freight payment from Charterers. Charterers disagreed, claiming that they were within their rights to reload cargo at any discharge port within the scope of the charter party. This award describes how the Panel interpreted the special provisions clauses and applied them to the dispute. Read full article...

Owners submitted a claim for additional heating and purging costs beyond the scope of the requirements in the charter party, but Charterers rejected the claim as time-barred. The Panel was called on to settle the dispute and explained how specific modifications to the charter party terms affected their ruling. Read full article...

The Panel in this dispute was called on to determine the amount recoverable by Charterers under a time charter for the Vessel's underperformance in the warranted speed and for the over-consumption of bunkers. The award details how the Panel calculated the damages. Read full article...

The Vessel suffered severe damage allegedly caused by stevedore negligence, and Owners commenced arbitration to recover damages. Charterers contended that they had no first-hand knowledge of the incident, as the Vessel was under sub-charter at the time. Charterers subsequently requested arbitration against their sub-charterer and requested that the Panel consolidate all parties into one proceeding. Read full article...

While under a time charter, the Vessel was sub-chartered for a single voyage. During the single voyage, the time charter expired and the Vessel was delivered late. Owners attempted to consolidate their arbitration claim for damages against both the time charterer and the sub-charterer, citing SMA rules which allow for same when the dispute against all parties involves the same common question of law. The ruling explains why the Panel rejected Owners request for consolidation. Read full article...

The Vessel arrived and tendered NOR at the Libyan discharge port despite not having received permission to discharge from the Libyan Port Authority. Four days after arrival, permission was granted. The Vessel had missed her turn at berth, and the port had closed for a period due to inclement weather. The Charterer rejected both the NOR and the subsequent demurrage claim. The award explains the consequences for the Owner for failing to re-tender NOR after receiving permission to discharge. Read full article...

Charterers presented two complaints against the Owner in this arbitration. The first was regarding a "quick departure procedure" in which a verbal agreement was made between Charterer's and Owner's agents, for the Vessel to sail the loadport without a copy of the bill of lading onboard. The second was regarding the Vessel's location when she tendered NOR at the Nigerian discharge port. The award details why the Panel rejected any agreements made by agents, and how the threat of piracy off the shore of Nigeria affected the Panel's ruling on what constituted a valid NOR. Read full article...

Although the loading operations were uneventful, the discharge on the Mississippi River was delayed due to a recent hurricane (Katrina) as well as the threat of another hurricane (Rita). Charterers declared force majeure, and, in the event that the Panel did not agree, also argued that the demurrage claim should be reduced during an eight day period that the Vessel was under arrest. The award explains why the Panel upheld the Owners claim in full, despite the arrest and a grounding incident. Read full article...

The Charterer began arbitration to recover damages resulting from an Owner breach of contract and demanded for an immediate partial reward. However, the Charterer delayed to prosecute the manner beyond the claim’s submission and after eight years of delayed prosecution, the Owner moved to dismiss the case. Read full article...

The Owner filed a claim for demurrage before the 90-day time-bar, however they did not supply the supporting pump log before the time-bar date. The Owners argue that they only needed to provide the necessary documents supporting their claimed amount and that their claim was not dependent upon the pump logs. Furthermore, they have evidence that the Charterer had received the pump logs from an alternative source before the time-bar. Read full article...

This arbitration appeal deals with the damages that a time-charterer is liable to pay to a shipowner for any late redelivery of the chartered Vessel. Read full article...

The Vessel tendered her NOR to the Charterer’s agents and the Terminal from the outer anchorage within the given laycan. However, a congested berth forced her to wait at the outer anchorage for ten days, which was subsequently claimed as demurrage by the Owners. The Charterer rejected this demurrage claim and stated that because the Vessel was at the outer anchorage upon tender, the NOR was invalid. Conversely, the Owner pointed out that the Terminal unconditionally accepted their NOR. Read full article...

This arbitration began as a result of MARPOL international regulation changes during the operating period of this specific time charter. Due to these changes, the two operating Vessels became legally unable to carry their contracted cargo. This ruling settles which party should bear the commercial risk. Read full article...

En route from disport, the Vessel suffered hull damage from ice and the Owner submitted a claim for damage compensation. The Charterer contended that ice was an obvious expectation at this specific disport during the winter, and therefore, the risk was borne by the Owner upon the port’s acceptance. The Owner defended stating that the charter outlined that all berths, ports and anchorages must be safe regardless of acceptance implications. Read full article...

Although several issues were disputed in arbitration, only the detention claim item will be recapped. The Owner filed for detention damages when the Vessel was delayed at port because there was no launch available for the port’s inspector after nightfall. The Charterer, however, contended that it was customary at the given loadport for the vessel master to be responsible for such launches. Read full article...

In this contract, the Buyer had to nominate a performing Vessel for the voyage, narrow the laycan to a two day period, and then the Seller would have to load the Vessel in 36 + 6 hrs. The Buyer performed all contracted requirements; however, upon arrival, the Seller’s plant was unable to supply cargo within the contracted load window. The Buyer subsequently claimed that the Seller violated the contract and canceled the transaction. Read full article...

This arbitration concerns the interpretation of the time chartered Vessel’s speed and consumption warranties, specifically, if the Vessel's actual speed performance be reduced by taking beneficial sea currents into account. Read full article...

In compensation for damages (specifically shortloading, an address commission on freight issue, legal and administrative costs) incurred by the Owner, the Charterer made an unauthorized freight deduction from the contracted pay amount. In the partial award of SMA No. 3965, the sole arbitrator ruled that the withheld freight and the claim for damages would be addressed in two different rulings. The withheld freight was addressed in the aforesaid partial award and the remaining items are discussed herein. Read full article...