Category: Current

DEMURRAGE – SUBSTITUTE CHARTER PARTY – UNPAID FREIGHT – WHETHER OWNER CAN DELAY DISCHARGE OPERATIONS – POSSESSORY LIEN When Owner entered a substitute charter party upon the Original Charterer’s failure to pay freight the Substitute Charterer signed the fixture recap of the original charter. The question is whether the terms of the original charter pertain to the demurrage amount accrued by Substitute Charterer. he matter of this dispute arose following claims over the demurrage balance from a voyage under a substitute charter party. The Disponent Owner (hereinafter, “Owner”) entered into a charter party on the Gencon 4 form with the...

DEMURRAGE – PORT CHARTER – NOTICE OF READINESS – WIPON PROVISION – GEOGRAPHICAL READINESS Owner claimed demurrage arising from delay where vessel was unable to proceed directly to berthing. The vessel tendered four notices of readiness, the third of which was argued as triggering laytime. he dispute of this arbitration concerns establishing the party responsible for the delay that occurred when the vessel attempted to berth at the discharge port of Saleef, Yemen. The vessel was chartered on an amended Gencon 94 form as a port charter. Owner claims for demurrage arising from the delay amounting to $86,088.02 plus interest...

TIME CHARTER PARTY – OFF HIRE – SUB-CHARTER – OFF SPECIFICATION CARGO – WRONGFUL REDELIVERY When vessel was detained due to legal proceedings by the receiver against the charterer due to off spec cargo, charterer deducted the lost time from hire. his arbitration was consolidated from two that were held concurrently in accordance with para 14(b) of the LMAA Terms. Charterer under an amended Shelltime 4 form chartered the vessel from Owner for a time charter for a period of forty to seventy-five days with redelivery of the vessel in “med/black sea”. Subsequently the Charterer then sub-chartered the vessel under...

TIME CHARTER – OFF-HIRE PROVISIONS – VESSEL PERFORMANCE – SPEED – CONSUMPTION – TIME BAR – HAGUE RULES Charterer made deductions to hire that were attributed to underperformance of the vessel. These deduction claims were submitted using the off-hire provision. Owner contended off-hire provisions did not account for deductions made in regard to vessel performance, and in any case performance claims were time-barred. he Charterer made deductions to the hire sum totaling $729,158.76, of which about $450,000 was attributed to vessel underperformance regarding speed and the overconsumption of bunkers. Charterer’s performance claims were described as “off-hire due to under performance...

TIME CHARTER PARTY – SLOW CRANE MOVEMENT DURING LOADING – UNDERPERFORMANCE OF VESSEL – WHETHER OWNER IN BREACH OF CHARTER PARTY Charterer claimed for time lost due to perceived slow movements of vessel’s cranes during loading operations and underperformance of vessel. It asserted that for both disputes the Owner breached warranties in the charter party. harterer filed claims against Owner over two disputes arising during a single time charter voyage. The first dispute brought by the Charterer was that the cranes utilized in the vessel’s loading operations were moving slowly and subsequently lost them time to the amount of 1.89...

DEMURRAGE – DETENTION – TIME BAR – NOTICE OF READINESS Vessel was requested to wait in gulf outside discharge port due to a lack of berthing prospects. Owner invoiced detention inclusive of extra bunkers consumed from CFR seller whom in turn claimed it from the CFR buyer.  The CFR time-barred the claim via the demurrage time bar clause. lencore Energy UK Ltd (hereinafter, “Glencore”) sold 80,000 mt of light crude oil CFR to OMV Supply and Trading Ltd (hereinafter, “OMV”) to be loaded at Novorossiysk, Russia and carried by a vessel that was to be nominated to the discharge port...

REPUDIATORY BREACH – CHARTER PARTY – EXISTENCE OF A COMPLETED CONTRACT – PRO FORMA CHARTER PARTY – COURT OF APPEAL The claimant charterer filed damages against defendant disponent owner for repudiatory breach of a charter party. The defendant argued that the presence of a Subject Review clause implied no formal contract existed. optip Holding Pte Ltd (hereinafter, “Toptip”) as charterer claimed damages against Mercuria Energy Trading Pte Ltd (hereinafter, “Mercuria”) as disponent owner for repudiatory breach of a charter party. Toptip claimed for the difference in freight rate between the charter party with Mercuria and the substitute charter party. The...