Category: Archive

Articles from past issues of TANKVOYager.

London Arbitration 16/17

TIME CHARTER – OFF-HIRE FOR CLEANING OF HOLDS AFTER DISCHARGE – PROLONGED PORT STAY – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION When charterer’s cargo got wet and was compacted during discharge, extensive cleaning of the holds was required.  During the cleaning, 2 cleaning machines were damaged.  Charterer disputed the time spent cleaning and the cost to repair the damaged machines.  Further, charterer claimed underperformance which owner disputed on the basis that it resulted from the extensive stay in warm waters whilst cleaning. he following arbitral proceedings arose from the carriage of sulphur out of Ust-Luga, Russia under an amended NYPE form charter party...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 18/17

STEMMOR 83 - VOYAGE CHARTER - ACCORD AND SATISFACTION - DETENTION - CUSTOMARY ANCHORAGE - NOR VALIDITY - MARKET RATE VS DEMURRAGE RATE - BUNKER COSTS When charterer directed the vessel to cease loading, as she had originally been directed not to start loading until directed by charterer, additional expenses were incurred by owner which owner claimed from charterer.  Then, at the disport the vessel was directed to wait outside the port and not tender NOR till directed.  Owner subsequently claimed this delay as damages rather than as demurrage and at a rate higher than the demurrage rate.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Vitol SA v Beta Renewable Group SA – QBD (Comm Ct), 7 July 2017

SALES CONTRACT - RENUNCIATORY BREACH - FAILURE TO NOMINATE VESSEL - OBLIGATION TO DELIVER When FOB seller indicated an inability to provide cargo, buyer did not nominate a vessel and later, formally accepted seller’s breach.  Seller claimed the non-nomination was an oversight which alleviated it from having to provide the cargo.  Damages claimed by Buyer were basis losses calculated by reference to hedging or alternatively, market value.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Dainford Navigation Inc v PDVSA Petroleo SA (The “Moscow Stars”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 2 August 2017

TIME CHARTER - FAILURE TO PAY HIRE - ORDER FOR SALE OF CARGO When the vessel was sat by charterer for an extensive period of time with late or non-payment of hire, the Court was tasked with determining whether they had the power to implement an order for the sale of charterer’s cargo and whether they should.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Thorco Shipping A/S v. Effie Business Corporation S.A. (The “Thorco China”) – SMA 4316, 15 December 2015

NORGRAIN 1973 - FIRE - NORGRAIN EXCEPTIONS CLAUSE - IMPRACTICALITY - REPUDIATED / CANCELLED CHARTER PARTY Due to a cargo elevator, allegedly needed in order for a vessel to discharge bulk cargo, being unavailable due to fire, Charterer cancelled the charter party due to commercial impracticality and a clause in the C/P.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 20/17

TIME CHARTER - NYPE - DURATION - OPTION TO EXTEND Basis verbiage in a pro forma recap, charterer argued for a 15 days extension of the time charter.  Owner disagreed that an extension was due, pointing to the ultimate recap which did not reference the extension.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Wagenborg Shipping v. Rain CII Carbon (The “Azoresborg”) – SMA 4314, 17 May 2017

AMWELSH - CANCELLED / REPUDIATED CHARTER PARTY - MITIGATED LOSSES - BALLAST VOYAGE - SUBSTITUTE EMPLOYMENT - POSITIONING VOYAGE Upon cancelling the charter party during loading Charterer instructed Owner to mitigate losses by seeking other cargos. Owner repositioned the original vessel and had a sister ship sail a ballast voyage to the delivery location of the follow on time charter of the original ship.  Owner claimed for lost income and bunker costs due to repositioning.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Agathonissos Special Maritime Enterprise v. ST Shipping & Transport PTE, Ltd. (The “Aganthonissos”) – SMA 4315, 31 May 2017

ASBATANKVOY - COLLISION - ALLISION - SHIP TO SHIP (STS) - SAFE BERTHING / SHIFTING - GENERAL EXCEPTIONS - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - SEAWORTHY - INCOMPETENCE - LANGUAGE BARRIER - DEMURRAGE - DAMAGES Prior to a Ship to Ship Transfer a supply boat collided with the tanker (“Agathonissos”) it was sent to support.  The Agathonissos subsequently was delayed in lightering the vessel to be lightered (VTBL) which, being needed elsewhere, lightered to a replacement lightering tanker.  The replacement lightering tanker eventually lightering to the Agathonissos after the Agathonissos was repaired.  The owner of the Agathonissos alleged the supply vessel was unseaworthy due to its crew and held the Agathonissos’s charterer liable.  The charterer alleged the same of the Agathonissos.  Charterer also attempted to rely upon clauses 6 and 7 of ASBATANKVOY to deduct time from counting.  Owner pointed to two clauses in the C/P, Clauses 9 and 19 of ASBATANKVOY, within which the charterer assumes the risk and peril of a lightering and neither party is to be held liable under certain circumstances.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

BBC Chartering Carriers GMBH v Primavera Importacao E Expoertacao De Carais LTDA and LT Cargo Transportes E Armazens Gerais LTDA. (The “Nalinee Naree”) – SMA 4313, 18 April 2016

DETENTION - REPUDIATED CHARTER PARTY - DEADFREIGHT - HULL CLEANING - MITIGATED DAMAGES After awaiting several weeks for cargo, the charter party was repudiated and the owner fixed mitigating voyages. Owner claimed for detention, deadfreight, and hull cleaning expenses.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Tenacity Marine Inc. v Ecopetrol, S.A. (The “Tenacity”) – SMA 4311, 20 April 2017

EXXONMOBILVOY2005 - DEMURRAGE - DELAY DUE TO FOG - WHETHER GALENA PARK A PORT OR IN THE PORT OF HOUSTON - WHETHER HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL A RIVERPORT - RIVERPORT CLAUSE - DISPUTE OVER BURDEN OF PROOF - Charterer Award When charterer deducted fifty percent of a delay due to fog basis an exceptions clause, owner countered that the Houston Ship Channel was a riverport and thus the “Riverport(s) Clause” applied with the weather delay subsequently counting in full.  In addressing this question, the Panel also advised as to where the burden of proof would lie and whether Galena Park was a port.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.