Category: English Maritime Cases

DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – WHETHER BROKER IS AGENT OF OWNER OR CHARTERER – INTERMEDIATE BROKER – CONSEQUENTIAL DELAYS When Owner claimed demurrage with respect to eight voyages Charterer contended that seven of those were time-barred. The claim documents were sent to broker “D” who did not send them to the Charterer until after the time bar period. Owner contends that D was an agent of the Charterer, while Charterer contends D was an agent of the Owner.  Further, when engine troubles at the load port led to consequential delays at the disport which Charterer claimed...

PARTIAL FINAL AWARD – LA 4/19 – HIRE DEDUCTIONS – WHETHER CHARTERER HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS TO DEDUCT FROM HIRE Owner claimed for hire amount deducted by Charterer stating the Charterer offered no reasonable grounds to make that deduction. his arbitration follows the award made in London Arbitration 4/19. The result of that arbitration was that the Owner would not be held liable to the cargo claim involving the Charterer, and therefore the Charterer’s deduction from hire would be dismissed. Owner pursued the issue further and claimed that the Charterer could not show reasonable grounds for the deduction from hire and...

UNPAID HIRE – DEDUCTIONS TO HIRE – CHARTERER SETTLING WITH CARGO RECEIVER – CARGO CLAIM – INTER-CLUB NEW YORK PRODUCE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT – UNSEAWORTHINESS Owner claimed for unpaid hire from Charterer after Charterer had deducted it on the basis that the Charterer had to settle with the cargo receiver due to a delay in the vessel’s arrival at the discharge port caused by the vessel being unseaworthy. he subject of this arbitration is an unpaid hire sum amounting to $295,000.00 claimed by the Owner against the Charterer. Counterclaims were issued by the Charterer for the amount of $2,985.88 on the...

DEMURRAGE – SALES CONTRACT – TERM CONTRACT – TIME BAR – WHETHER DEMURRAGE IS INDEMNITY OR FREE-STANDING – CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – COA Seller claimed for demurrage and other sums against Buyer, which the Seller named incorrectly in the claim. Buyer contended that the demurrage claim was time-barred under the contract of affreightment provision to which the Buyer was not a party, the demurrage rate was not in line with market rate, and the Seller’s entitlement to demurrage was an indemnity under the contract of affreightment. unvor SA (hereinafter, “Seller”) entered into a written term contract for the sale of...

CHARTER PARTY – REPUDIATORY BREACH – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFIT Owner claimed demurrage and damages from loss of profit after Charterer failed to provide cargo at loading port resulting in a repudiatory breach of the charter party. nder a fixture note using the Gencon 1994 form the Vessel was chartered to lift a shipment of coal ex Newcastle, Australia and discharging Kemen, China. Upon arrival at the loading port in Newcastle the Charterer failed to provide the cargo, and subsequently the Vessel accrued demurrage. Charterer then informed Owner that they would no...

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...