Online Archive - Browsing 2010 article summaries

The first, second, and third foot samples of ULSD cargo were off-spec with respect to flashpoint (a key commercial criterion for this cargo) resulting in offloading and further Vessel cleaning. Although there was a dedicated line from the shore tank to the terminal manifold, an additive was injected at the terminal manifold (from bulk containers and drums) which could have affected the ULSD flashpoint. Thus, Charterer failed in proving by a preponderance of credible evidence that the Vessel’s tanks were the cause of the cargo damage. Furthermore, the burden is on the Charterer to prove that the Vessel did not exercise due diligence in tank preparation which he failed to do. Read full article...

The Vessel arrived and tendered Notice of Readiness (NOR) just prior to the commencement of laydays, but waited several days because the port was closed due to a hurricane. On berthing, the Vessel had to obtain a Certificate of Compliance (COC) before any loading operations could begin. Charterer refuted Owner's demurrage claim, declaring that the Notice of Readiness (NOR) was invalid as the NOR was tendered prematurely (prior to the laydays) and Vessel was not legally ready to load without the COC. The arbitrator reviews the charter terms and facts to determine the validity of NOR and the commencement of laytime. Read full article...

After loading, Charterer gave the Vessel orders to wait at the loadport until ordered to sail. The Vessel waited 22 days. At the heart of the dispute was the time at which laytime expired and detention began. Charterer argued that it is entitled to the benefit of the total load laytime allowance (calculated basis the maximum cargo volume negotiated for the freight paid) prior to accruing detention. Read full article...

The Master was instructed to load the Vessel to meet a brackish water draft to safely transit the channel in the discharge port, but used an incorrect factor to make his calculations. On arrival, the Vessel's draft was too deep and she had to be lightered in order to proceed to the discharge berth. The Panel was asked to determine whether the discharge berth was a "safe berth" and decide which party was responsible for lighterage delays and costs. This dispute also addressed whether a late-presented claim could be time-barred considering the respondent had initially promised to pay. Read full article...

The Vessel was approved for the first voyage under a time charter and carried out the first voyage without incident. Prior to the second voyage, the holds were rejected due to stains from a cargo carried just prior to the commencement of the time charter. After five days of cleaning, the holds were approved. In dispute is Charterer's claim for off-hire and expenses during the cleaning. Read full article...

Charterer appealed to have all time that the Vessel was held by pirates count as off-hire. The High Court examined whether the Vessel was prevented from working due to any of the three causes listed in the charter party: a) detention by average accidents to ship or cargo; b) default and/or deficiency of men; c) any other cause. Read full article...

After nominating the loadberth an accident occurred forcing its closure for repairs. Owner claimed demurrage for the time spent by the Vessel awaiting the repair of the berth, but Charterer refuted the claim basis the notion that the accident was beyond Charterer’s control. In addition, the Court was asked to determine whether the berth was safe at the time it was nominated due to the complex mooring maneuvers required in order for vessels to safely berth. Read full article...

After waiting eight days at the loadport to berth, cracks were found in the Vessel's hull necessitating repairs. Charterer argues that the deficiency invalidates the waiting time and that the Vessel was off-hire or, alternatively, presents a claim for damages due to demurrage lost under a sub-charter. Read full article...

Due to miscommunications with the Agent, the Vessel did not file a timely 96-hour Notice of Arrival to the loadport and was precluded from berthing when ordered to do so. As the Vessel did not gain clearance until after the cancelling date, Charterer cancelled the fixture. In its ruling, the Panel had to consider which party bore responsibility for the Agent's actions, whether the Vessel's NOR was valid, and if the Vessel was “in all respects” ready to load. Read full article...

On the first day of laydays, without expressly saying so, Charterer is alleged to have cancelled the fixture after the Buyer pulled out of the deal. At issue was whether Owner acted properly in terminating the charter party and claiming damages. Read full article...

Owner seeks recovery of demurrage encompassing over 17 days that the Vessel spent awaiting cargo at the loadport which, despite Charterer’s repeated promises, the cargo was never forthcoming causing Owner to terminate the fixture. The Panel rules on a remedy for Owner's lost time. Read full article...

The CFR Buyer declared force majeure after its Pasadena, TX facility was struck by Hurricane Ike and cancelled one of two CFR contracts with the Seller. The dispute concerns whether the event constituted force majeure within the context of the sales contract, whether the sales contract allowed Buyer to cancel the contract and whether Buyer's steps to restore operations at its facility constituted the due diligence required. Read full article...

With the Vessel arriving at the disport approximately 72 days later than projected for a customary 14-day voyage, the Charterer incurred $103K demurrage on two barges that were on standby to receive the cargo. After the Vessel arrived, Owner subsequently refused to discharge the cargo until Charterer remitted loadport demurrage. The issues decided by the Panel include liability of consequential barge demurrage and whether the Owner is entitled to collect demurrage prior to discharging when the fixture stipulates “reversible laytime”. Read full article...

After discovering that one of its cargo was contaminated by another following a simultaneous discharge, Charterer alleged the contamination occurred during discharge due to leakage or a faulty valve lineup onbard the Vessel. In this award, the Panel reconstructs the course of events, sampling procedures and piping systems onboard and ashore to determine if Charterer has met their burden of proof that contamination was the fault of the Vessel. Read full article...

After Charterer prematurely cancelled a time charter, Owner secured a lucrative replacement contract. In determining Owner's damages, Charterer argued that the profits from the replacement contract should be weighed as a whole against the lost revenue from the early redelivery. Read full article...

Because the Vessel failed a Port State Inspection due to structural deficiencies and was detained until Owner could affect repairs, Charterer missed a layday window with a sub-charterer. Charterer sought to recover lost profits in arbitration and won. Owner appealed and the Judge considered whether the Charterer’s damages were unforeseeable, too remote, or erroneously derived. Read full article...

The Vessel arrived EOSP to discharge 179 miles up the Mississippi River shortly after the passage of Hurricane Gustav through the area which resulted in the closure of the river and Charterer’s terminal. Shortly thereafter, an upriver section of the river re-opened to traffic, but a draft restriction at the mouth of the river and berth congestion prevented the Vessel from proceeding to the discharge berth. Owner started laytime once the discharge berth re-opened following the hurricane. Conversely, Charterer rejected all waiting time basis the Agent’s SOF remark that the River was closed to navigation during presumably much or all of the waiting time; and, Charterer held that the Vessel was not an arrived ship when NOR was tendered because she later stopped her upriver transit to take on bunkers. Whilst bunkering, Charterer’s berth was unavailable. Read full article...

With no incorporation of a proforma charter party form, at issue was whether the fixture constituted a berth charter or port charter. The key terms considered include “one good and safe Charterer’s berth” in conjunction with other clauses addressing a safe port warranty and shifting time. In overturning the arbitration award, the Court examined the fixture terms and explained contract construction. Read full article...

With the charter party fixed on an amended Shellvoy 5 form inclusive of “Shell Additional Clauses – February 1999”, this dispute hinged on whether the Vessel’s NOR was valid in light of the fact that Free Pratique was not granted within six hours as specified within Shell Additional Clause 22. Read full article...

This laytime dispute hinged on the interpretation of a fixture recap term, SHINC (Sundays and Holidays included), in conjunction with the terms of the underlying charter party form. The underlying charter party Clause 63 stipulated “Sundays and Holidays included”, followed by the phrase, “…excluding Super Holidays”. At issue is how the contract should be interpreted specifically relating to the terminal shutdown during the Christmas holiday period. Read full article...