Author: Ethan Fitzgerald

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 17/17

CLAIM FOR DETENTION - ASSESSMENT OF ACTUAL LOSS - WHETHER DEMURRAGE RATE USED FOR CALCULATION OF DAMAGES TO BE GROSS OR NET OF COMMISSION After sitting at the agreed upon discharge port for an extended period charterer directed the vessel to a disport not included in the fixture recap. Upon the ultimate completion of discharge owner presented charterer with a claim for detention which utilized the agreed demurrage rate. The panel would be tasked at both determining the validity of the claim and the appropriate rate to be used.  
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 8/17

NYPE - INORDINATE AND INEXCUSABLE DELAY AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION - ARBITRATION ACT OF 1996 - APPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL DUE TO WANT OF PROSECUTION - LIMITATION PERIOD - APPLICATION TO APPEAL TO HIGH COURT Damage claims arose after the collapse of a crane on board a vessel. Arbitration commenced two years later however no submissions were made until nearly 12 years after the incident. Charterer applied to have the claim dismissed for want of prosecution by owner. The panel agreed with charterer and owner applied to the High Court for a chance to appeal.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Navalmar UK Ltd v. Kale Maden Hammaddeler Sanayi ve Ticaret AS (The “Arundel Castle”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 31 January 2017

VESSEL ORDERED TO ANCHOR OUTSIDE “PORT LIMITS” BY PORT AUTHORITY - DEFINITION OF “PORT LIMITS” - WHETHER VESSEL CONSIDERED GEOGRAPHICALLY READY TO TENDER NOR WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF C/P - DEMURRAGE A vessel arrived off of the load port and was instructed by the port authority to anchor outside the port limits to await berth availability. The Court was tasked at determining whether the vessel was geographically ready for the purposes of tendering notice of readiness. The Court also looked at the definition of “port limits”.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration: 27/16, 28/16, & 29/16

DISPONENT OWNER TERMINATING TIME CHARTER FOR CHARTERER’S FAILURE TO PAY HIRE - WITHOUT PREJUDICE PRIVILEGE - WHETHER PARTIES IN DISPUTE - WHETHER OWNER WAIVED CHARTERER’S BREACH - IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE DEFENSE - MEASURE OF DAMAGES With the subject vessel out on time charter disponent owner was not receiving hire from charterer. As funds were not passed from disponent owner to head owner, head owner terminated the head charter and disponent owner in turn cancelled the charter with charterer. The panel was tasked at determining whether prior settlement discussions between the parties should be admissible or protected by privilege. Further, the panel would need to determine whether owner had waived charterer’s breaches and then whether or not to award damages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Castleton Commodities Shipping Co. Pte. v Vulica Shipping Ltd. – SMA 4287, 16 Sep 2016

BIMCO OREVOY VOYAGE CHARTER - VESSEL UNABLE TO LIFT MINIMUM QUANTITY - OWNER CLAIMS FORCE MAJEURE - CHARTERER REPUDIATES CHARTER AND CHARTERS SUBSTITUTE VESSEL A vessel arrived at the load port with a portion of her previous cargo frozen to the inside of her hold. After owner failed to secure a substitute vessel charterer terminated the charter and fixed its own sub. Charterer’s claim for damages was denied by owner who presented a counterclaim basis what owner believed to be charterer’s wrongful repudiation of the charter party.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co Ltd – Court of Appeal, 7 Oct 2016

NYPE 1993 TIME CHARTERS - FAILURE TO PAY HIRE - WITHDRAWAL OF VESSEL FROM LONG TERM TIME CHARTER - WHETHER PUNCTUAL HIRE PAYMENTS A CONDITION OF THE CHARTER - WHETHER CHARTERER IN RENUNCIATORY BREACH While on separate time charters owner withdrew three vessels from service due to charterer’s failure to pay hire in accordance with the contracts. Owner brought arbitration against the charterer. However, shortly before the hearing the charterer was liquified and the proceedings stayed. The present case involves the charterer’s parent company, as guarantor.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

ADM International SARL v Colbun S.A (The “MN Bulk Orion”) – SMA 4281, 30 Jun 2016

VALIDITY OF NOR TENDERED PRIOR TO FREE PRATIQUE AND CUSTOMS CLEARANCE AND WITH STOWAWAYS ONBOARD - OWNER’S OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE PRESENCE OF STOWAWAYS - WHETHER PANAMA CANAL EXPENSES DUE TO OVERLOADING FOR OWNER’S OR CHARTERER’S ACCOUNT Under a COA a vessel was nominated to carry coal from Colombia to Chile. Due to not yet having obtained free pratique and customs clearance, and whilst having stowaways onboard, Charterer argued that the NOR tendered at load was invalid. During transit to the disport the vessel was found in breach of Panama Canal draft restrictions and incurred unexpected expenses due to overloading which each party believes to be for the other party’s account.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Imperator I Maritime Co v. Bunge SA (The “Coral Seas”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 24 June 2016

TIME CHARTER - VESSEL FAILED SPEED WARRANTY DUE TO FOULING, ITSELF RESULTING FROM A PROLONGED WAIT IN TROPICAL WATERS - WHETHER FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SPEED THE RESULT OF COMPLIANCE WITH CHARTERER'S ORDERS Due to an underperformance caused by fouling on the Vessel, itself caused by extended stay in tropical waters as ordered by charterer, charterer claimed off hire. Owner countered stating the underperformance resulted from compliance with the charterer’s orders.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitraton 20/16

NYPE TIME CHARTER - UNDERPERFORMANCE - SHORT LOAD - BALANCE OF ACCOUNT - LMAA SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE - WHETHER CHARTERER OR OWNER RESPONSIBLE FOR COST OF SURVEYOR AND CRANE HIRE - SUEZ CANAL NRT - WITHOUT PREJUDICE AGREEMENT LATER REVOKED The redelivery of a vessel from an 18 month time charter resulted in charterer withholding hire due to vessel short loading, claiming underperformance in regards to speed, and claiming damages related to a misrepresented Suez Canal NRT. Owner countered all of these and likewise claimed for the cost of surveyors present whilst de-bunkering and the cost of a shore crane.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.