Category: Archive

Navalmar UK Ltd v Kale Maden Hammaddeler Sanayi ve Ticaret AS (The “Arundel Castle”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Knowles J) [2017] EWHC 116 (Comm) – 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.

London Arbitration 1/17

DEMURRAGE - DETENTION - WHETHER VESSEL IN BREACH OF PUMP WARRANTY - WHETHER OWNER SHOULD BEAR EXTRA SHIFTING EXPENSES INCURRED WHEN THE VESSEL WAS ORDERED OFF THE DOCK DUE TO SLOW DISCHARGE - DELAY AWAITING DOCUMENTS AT DISPORT Due to a slow discharge rate, the vessel was forced off her berth by port authorities. And after hoses disconnected at the disport, the vessel was delayed in departing for over 4 hours whilst awaiting documents onboard. Charterer denied Owner’s subsequent claims for demurrage, additional shifting expenses, and detention leading to this arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 7/17

INTERIM PORT CALL FOR CUSTOMS REQUIREMENT BEFORE AND AFTER DISCHARGE - DEVIATION - BUNKER COSTS - DEMURRAGE When the vessel was required to attend a port prior to and after the disport for customs reasons, owner charged the transit times from and to the interim port, the time in the interim port, and extra bunkers consumed. The charterer rejected owner’s claim under the auspices that the interim port calls were “beyond charterer’s control”.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 3/17

CHARTER PARTY - SPECIFIC DISCHARGE PORT PROVISIONS - DEMURRAGE COP - DISPUTE OVER “ALWAYS ACCESSIBLE” PROVISION - DEMURRAGE AND DETENTION IN QUESTION After the vessel arrived at the disport, a port strike coupled with low berthing priority status caused extensive delays. The owners argued that charterers had not met their responsibility of providing a berth that was “always accessible” and sought to claim reimbursement for this delay as detention, or alternatively, demurrage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Star Tankers, Inc. v. Chevron Marine Ltd. (The “SN Federica”) – SMA No. 4289, 23 Sep 2016

ASBATANKVOY - DEMURRAGE - NOR VALIDITY - EXPEDITE INSPECTION - SUBSTANTIAL READINESS – “ROOT CAUSE” PRINCIPLE Nearly 38 days after the tender of NOR, charterer inspected and subsequently directed the vessel to repair its anchor chain prior to berthing. The repair took 3 days. Charterer subsequently claimed that as the vessel was not ready the NOR was invalid with the 38 days for Owner’s account.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

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.

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.

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.

London Arbitration 25/16

GENCON – DEMURRAGE/DESPATCH – CAN USED LAYTIME BE PRO-RATED BASIS THE NUMBER OF HATCHES WORKED – DID A WEATHER DELAY OCCUR – DID CHARTER JUSTIFY DEDUCTIONS DURING NIGHTTIME Regarding demurrage incurred, the charterer believed that the used laytime needed to be pro-rated basis the amount of hatches being worked at any given time. Additionally, the charterer requested deductions for bad weather and the times the ship was not working during nighttime hours. The owner disagreed with these points, and took the case to arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 26/16

BALTIMORE FORM C BERTH GRAIN VOYAGE CHARTER – CARGO SHORT LOADED - BUYER DEMANDS DISCOUNT FROM CHARTERER AFFILIATED SELLER – CHARTERER CLAIMS DAMAGES IN THE FORM OF THE DISCOUNT FROM OWNER – WHETHER DISCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE OF DAMAGES - WHETHER CHARTERER EVEN LIABLE FOR LOSSES After a vessel was short loaded, the charterer affiliated seller had to sell the cargo at a discount due to buyer’s demands. The charterer then claimed damages from the owner in the form of the discount, arguing that the vessel was at fault for the short load. The owner rejected this, and the charterer brought the case to arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.