Author: Haugen Consulting

Star Tankers, Inc. v. Chevron Marine Ltd. (The “SN Federica”) – SMA No. 4224, 23 Dec 2013

ASBATANKVOY -- AMBIGUITY OF OWNER NAMED IN CHARTER PARTY -- CONTRACT REFORMATION -- DEMURRAGE -- Partial Owner Award This partial final award addresses the claimant’s right to assert a demurrage claim against Charterer, when the claimant is not expressly named as the Owner in the fixture recap. Star Tankers, as disponent Owner, filed a demurrage claim with Charterer which was rejected on the basis that the charter party names the Owner as Scerni Di Navigazion.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 4/14

SALE CONTRACT -- FOB DEMURRAGE -- RIVER PORT -- NOR TENDERED PRIOR TO ARRIVAL -- VESSEL’S SUSPENSION OF LOADING DUE POSSIBLE CARGO CONTAMINATION -- APPROPRIATE DATE FOR CURRENCY EXHANGE RATE -- Buyer Award Under an FOB sale of ethanol ex Matadi, Democratic Republic of the Congo the Seller invoiced the Buyer for the contract price, which was paid by the Buyer. Subsequently the Seller claimed additional costs and supplemental freight, which the Buyer did not dispute, however Buyer presented a counterclaim for demurrage stating that it should be set off against Seller’s claim. Seller brought arbitration proceedings against the Buyer to dispute the demurrage and to recover the supplemental charges.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Flame SA v. Glory Wealth Shipping Pte. Ltd. (The “Glory Wealth”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 22 Oct 2013

CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award A three-year contract of affreightment (COA) was fixed basis six liftings per year from 2009 to 2011. Charterer failed to declare laycans for the last two shipments of 2009 and for all shipments the following year. At arbitration the Disponent Owner was awarded damages in the form of lost revenues, being the difference between the COA and market rate. Charterer appealed claiming that the Tribunal erred at law and serious irregularity. Namely, that after the sudden collapse of the freight market in 2009 the Owner’s financial position had deteriorated to a point that would have prevented them from being able to provide the required vessels; the tribunal’s belated request for supporting documents from Owner; and, the tribunal’s failure to consider the issue of Owner’s dishonesty raised by Charterer.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 1/14

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER TRIP -- SPEED AND BUNKER CONSUMPTION -- ONGOING PERFORMANCE WARRANTY -- Partial Charterer Award At issue is whether the seaworthiness of the Vessel as warranted in clause 1 "for the service and all time during the currency of this Charter" applies to the speed and consumption warranty as a continuing warranty throughout the duration of the charter (not just at the time of delivery).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

DS-Rendite-Fonds Nr 106 VLCC Titan Glory GmbH & Co Tankschiff KG and Others v Titan Maritime SA and Others (The “Titan Glory”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 13 Nov 2013

LONG-TERM PERIOD TIME CHARTERS -- CHARTER RESTRUCTURING AGREEMENT (CRA) -- SEMI-ANNUAL HIRE ADJUSTMENT -- CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION -- Owner Award Due to the financial challenges brought on by the market collapse of 2008/9, Owner and Charterer restructured the long-term period time charters for eight VLCCs. Under this new agreement, the hire would be derived on a month-to-month basis relative to the Clarkson Index and adjusted semi-annually. Disagreements arose with respect to the proper construction of the contract and interpretation of the semi-annual adjustment clause.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 5/14

GENCON -- VOYAGE CHARTER -- COST OF SECURITY GUARDS -- DISTINCTION OF BIMCO ISPS CLAUSES -- NATIONALITY OF CREW -- Owner Award This dispute arose under a voyage charter from Turkey to a U.S. port wherein the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (hereinafter CBP) ordered security guards to be posted. Charterer denied liability for the cost of the guards on the basis that the latest BIMCO ISPS clause excuses Charterer from liability when security guards are required due to the nationality of the crew.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 7/14

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- REPUDIATION OF CHARTER -- UNPAID HIRE -- CALCULATION OF DAMAGES -- Owner Award Charterer withheld payment for hire thereby frustrating the charter. Owner considered this a repudiatory breach and withdrew the Vessel from the Charterer’s service.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Caresse Navigation Ltd. v. Office National de L’electricite and Others (The “Channel Ranger”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 14 Oct 2013

NYPE -- WHETHER BILL OF LADING INCORPORATED CHARTER PARTY LAW AND JURISDICTION -- Owner Award With respect to a cargo contamination claim, the consignees and the cargo insurers challenge the jurisdiction of the English court and law (stipulated in the charter party) when the cargo contamination occurred at the place of delivery in Morocco.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Milestone Shipping SA v. Estech Trading, LLC (The “Santa Barbara”) – SMA No. 4218, 9 Oct 2013

GENCON -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- BEST EFFORTS -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award After the Vessel’s arrival at the loadport, the Charterer’s representative notified the Disponent Owner that they were unable to provide a cargo for the Vessel and had to cancel the charter party. The Disponent Owner brought arbitration proceedings against the Charterer to recover costs associated with their breach.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Venetico Marine SA v. International General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others (The “Irene EM”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 27 Nov 2013

GROUNDING -- PERIL OF SEAS OR NEGLIGENCE OF CREW -- MARINE INSURANCE -- MEASURE OF DAMAGES -- Owner Award The Vessel grounded while she was at anchorage awaiting berth and the insurance underwriters refused to compensate the Owner. The underwriters argued that the Owner had not proven how the grounding occurred. In ruling for the Owner, the Panel held that whether the grounding was due to peril of the seas or negligence of the crew, either was sufficient for insurance compensation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.