Online Archive - Browsing 2009 article summaries

At issue is whether the Charterer improperly canceled the charter party. The fixture stipulated the discharge as “one safe berth” and when the Receiver at the intended berth rejected the Vessel as being unsuitable (taking into consideration the size of the terminal’s grabs relative to the size of the Vessel’s hatch openings), the Charterer canceled the fixture claiming that the Owner failed in providing a suitable vessel thereby frustrating the commercial purpose of the charter. Read full article...

This award follows up an earlier decision under London Arbitration 23/07 for the same voyage, and addresses two new points: 1) who is responsible for dues paid by Owner resulting from the delayed discharge; and, 2) whether time is interrupted for discharging delays that are beyond Charterer’s control e.g. awaiting shoreside equipment and personnel. Read full article...

The Court was called to determine if, following the Charterer's failure to pay hire, Owner's withdrawal of the Vessel during load operations was legal. If so, was the Owner entitled to damages or solely compensation for expenses (bunkers and time consumed discharging the cargo) incurred fulfilling their duties as bailee, plus the cost of securing the bank guarantee as required by the Charterer. Read full article...

In an appeal over the late redelivery of a time-chartered vessel, the Court was called on to determine if a clause stipulating that in the event of late redelivery the daily hire rate for the 30 days prior to the commencement of the overrun period is to be calculated at the higher prevailing market rate, is a penalty clause and unenforceable in English law. Read full article...

This ruling hinged on whether there is an implied term warranting condition of cargo after delivery; and, if so, whether the Seller was relieved of such obligation under an express exclusion clause (which, in this instance, did not reference “conditions”) or, alternatively a certificate final clause (which, in this instance, did not exclude implied terms). Read full article...

This dispute revolves around the interplay of Asbatankvoy's clauses 6, 8, and 9, as well as whether of not the Conoco Weather Clause applies during periods of bad weather, which occurred while the Vessel was awaiting berthing due to unavailable cargo. In addition to the award, one dissenting arbitrator recontructs the facts in the case and presents his own conclusion. Read full article...

The Charterer failed to provide any cargo whatsoever, and the Panel determined how to assess Owner’s damages for lost profits. Additionally, the Panel ruled on how to compensate Owners for the Vessel’s long wait at anchorage subsequently requiring her to shift to berth for freshwater. Read full article...

After submitting an approximate notice of redelivery, Charterer revised the date of redelivery in order to complete an additional voyage. Though the revised date still fell within the contractually stated range of delivery, Owner rejected the change and withdrew the Vessel from Charterer's service. Charterer claimed damages, alleging wrongful withdrawal. Read full article...

A hurricane swept through the loadport while the Vessel was awaiting berthing. The Panel was asked to determine the scope of Charterer's liability to the Owner regarding the lengthy waiting period caused by the aftermath. Read full article...

In a chain of back-to-back charters with sub-Charterers (with identical terms and LOI clause), the Judge decides who is responsible for putting up security to prevent the Vessel’s arrest by the bill of lading holder for alleged non-delivery of the cargo. Read full article...

Under a time charter contract, the Vessel incurred damage necessitating transit to a repair port along the same voyage route as the Charterer’s next intended port call. The Judge decides whether that constitutes off-hire, or if the vessel was operating under the Charterer’s instructions. Read full article...

This ruling concerns a time charter clause which stipulates a remedy for a vessel’s late redelivery including compensation to the Owner if the market has risen and is calculated commencing a period of 30 days prior to the maximum period date until actual redelivery. The question posed to the Judges was, is that considered a penalty clause and thus illegal under English law? Read full article...

The Panel was asked to determine the Charterer's liabilily where the charter party expressly defines the Vessel’s stowage capacity and the cargo requirement as “Min 38,000 MT, Max 4 grade(s) WVNS” (within Vessel’s natural segregation). Is the Charterer liable for deadfreight if the Owner refuses to load a portion of 2 of the nominated 3 parcels because it would be necessary to load through a single-valve segregation? Is the Charterer liable for deadfreight because they refused to sign Owner’s Letter of Indemnity (relieving Owner of risk of cross-contamination) which would have permitted Owner to load the full nomination? The Panel explains their decision in this award. Read full article...

If the Vessel’s crew failed to secure the common Inert Gas line resulting in the contamination of Charterer’s two cargoes, is the Owner excused under Hague Visby Article IV rule 2(a) i.e. “an act, neglect or default of the master and/or servants of the carrier in the management of the vessel”? Regarding demurrage time bar requirements, if the governing clause stipulates that the Vessel’s pump log is to be counter-signed by the Terminal and said signature is not obtained, is this cause for barring the entire claim or just that one aspect of the claim? If the operative demurrage time bar clause requires the Vessel’s documents to be counter-signed by a “Terminal” representative and the cargo transfer takes place at anchorage in a ship-to-ship (STS) transfer, does the lack of the Terminal’s signature give cause to bar that aspect of the claim? Read full article...

Even though the Charterer doesn't repond to the arbitrator's request to participate in the arbitration, the arbitrator looks critically at Owner's demurrage claim and makes revisions to reduce the demurrage amount. A key question in this award is what time counts as used laytime when the Vessel shifts off the berth to await documents at the anchorage prior to departure. Read full article...

On arrival at the discharge port, the cargo was found to be contaminated and the Receivers refused delivery. Charterer presented a prima facie claim showing that there was no apparent contamination in the cargo as it was delivered to the Vessel. The Panel sorted through a wealth of information to ascertain the source of cargo contamination, and explains the process of discovery. Read full article...

While the Vessel was in port awaiting cargo for another charterer, Owner was approached with the opportunity to load another cargo in the interim. The second fixture was quickly made, and Owner re-negotiated their laydays with the first charterer. The second charterer then promptly cancelled the fixture. Owner submitted a claim for lost profits, which the second charterer refuted due to the brevity of the fixture. Read full article...

The Panel makes several attempts to contact the Charterer for participation in the proceedings, but received no response whatsoever. The Panel examines the demurrage claim at the heart of the award. Read full article...

On arrival at the third loading port, the inspectors found the Vessel's remaining tanks unsuitable to load, calling the epoxy coating too badly deteriorated. The Vessel sailed to the discharge port without loading the balance cargo. The Charterer withheld freight, citing the Vessel's condition and the cost of acquiring alternate carriage for the unloaded cargo. Read full article...

If a demurrage claim is paid, and later discovered to have contained an error, is there an obligation to pay the additional amount, even if the time bar has long since passed? When negotiating a contract, what is the meaning of the phrase "accept/except"? Read full article...

If a specific port is named in a voyage charterparty and there are several possible berths within that port to which a vessel could be directed and there is no express “safety” warranty of either the port or the berth, is the charterparty subject to an implied term that the Charterers must nominate a “safe” berth? Read full article...

On the 5th lifting under a contract of affreightment (COA) covering six voyages, the Charterer nominated the layday spread but was subsequently unable to secure a cargo, and asked Owner to move the laydays back two weeks. Due to a rising freight market, Owner was unwilling to do so, but offered to simply cancel voyage #5 and lift the cargo as the last voyage under the fixture. At issue is whether the laydays were irrevocable even though Owner had not yet nominated a Vessel. Read full article...

Although the Vessel was due to be delivered to Nigeria to commence a time charterer contract, she was at drydock in Greece and missed the deadline for the delivery date. Charterer cancelled the charter, which Owner refuted, citing additional work which Charterer had ordered on the Vessel's tanks which made the deadline impossible to meet. Owner also argued that Charterer failed in their obligation to nominate a specific delivery port, which would have given Owners 30 days to make delivery. Read full article...