Category: English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 9/17

DEMURRAGE - DELAY DUE TO A LABOR STRIKE A labor strike at the disport interrupted the Vessel's discharge. After the voyage, the Charterer refuted the resulting demurrage basis the Gencon General Strike Clause.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 15/17

NYPE – CRANE BREAKDOWN – OFF HIRE – LASHING MATERIALS – SHORE CRANE HIRE – BURDEN OF PROOF – PROVISION OF ORIGINAL INVOICES VERSUS PDF’s When one of the Vessel’s cranes couldn’t be used, charterer asserted the vessel was off hire and claimed for costs.  Owner countered that as no time was lost the vessel was on hire and in response to charterer’s claim for costs, owner requested original invoices rather than .pdf’s.  Owner also claimed for the cost of lashing material whilst charterer claimed for the cost of a shore crane hired due to vessel’s broken crane. long with...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 11/17

TIME CHARTER - GULF OF ADEN TRANSIT, YEMEN DISCHARGE - PREMIUMS AND WAR RISKS - ARMED GUARDS - CREW BONUS - CHARTERER CLAIMED CULPABLE DELAY After discharging in Yemen, the shipowner claimed for additional premiums, armed guards, the armed guards’ meals, expenses related to a crew change, and crew bonuses. The charterer rejected these charges, claiming that the charges were due to a culpable delay on the owner's part.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 8/17

NYPE - INORDINATE AND INEXCUSABLE DELAY AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION - ARBITRATION ACT OF 1996 - APPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL DUE TO WANT OF PROSECUTION - LIMITATION PERIOD - APPLICATION TO APPEAL TO HIGH COURT Damage claims arose after the collapse of a crane on board a vessel. Arbitration commenced two years later however no submissions were made until nearly 12 years after the incident. Charterer applied to have the claim dismissed for want of prosecution by owner. The panel agreed with charterer and owner applied to the High Court for a chance to appeal.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

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.

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.

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.