Category: U.S. Maritime Cases

Navig8 Chemicals Asia Pte, Ltd. and Navig8 Chemicals Pool, Inc. v Crest Energy Partners LP (The “Songa Peace”) – SMA No. 4262, 11 Sep 2015

ASBATANKVOY - UNPAID DEMURRAGE - VESSEL IDLE FOR 20 DAYS - FORCE MAJEURE - REPUDIATED CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT (COA) - Owner Award The Charterer failed to pay demurrage on the first voyage of a two-voyage COA. On the second voyage, the Vessel sat for 20 days before the Charterer repudiated the contract by claiming force majeure because of “recent tropical storm activity” and the resulting high water content in the intended cargo.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Batca Global AS v. Prams Water Shipping Co Inc – SMA No. 4264, 13 Nov 2015

GENCON - NO LAYCAN - CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT- FORCE MAJEURE - WHETHER PRE-PAID FREIGHT TO BE REFUNDED- FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ARBITRATORS’ ORDERS- Owner Award Charterer and Disponent Owner agreed to transport cows from northeastern US to Turkey under a consecutive voyage charter. Before the recognized load date for the first voyage Charterer requested extensions and ultimately cancelled the charter due to a fire at the receiving facility and the Syrian civil war which saw fighting on Turkey’s border with Syria. Charterer sought to recover $600k in pre-paid freight from Owner with Owner rejecting Charterer’s claim and countering for unpaid freight and lost profit on the unperformed voyages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Trammochem Asia Pte Ltd. and Trammochem AG v. Desert Orchid Shipping Pte Ltd. (The “LPG/Desert Orchid”) – SMA No. 4253, 10 April 2015

ASBATANKVOY – STS TRANSFER - CONTAMINATED CARGO – HAGUE VISBY & COGSA - BURDEN OF PROOF – DEMURRAGE - FAULT OF THE VESSEL - TIME-BAR – Charterer Award The vessel was loading LPG via a ship-to-ship transfer when it was discovered that the cargo she had loaded was contaminated by moisture. Both the charterer and the owner held each other responsible for the burden of proof. The dispute was over who was liable for the damages due to the contamination and if demurrage, detention and deviation were to be incurred. And if incurred, whether owner’s claims for same were time-barred.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

NS United Kaiun Kaisha Ltd. (Daishin Maru) v. Cogent Fibre Inc. – SMA 4249 23 Jan 2015

CONSECUTIVE VOYAGE CHARTER – VESSEL DRY DOCKED WITHOUT MUTUAL AGREEMENT - IN TURN CARGO NOT PROVIDED – MATERIAL & REPUDIATORY BREACH – Owner Award Charterer claimed owner’s dry docking of the Vessel without obtaining mutual agreement for same equated to a material and repudiatory breach of the contract and subsequently refused to provide a cargo or assurances for the continuance of the charter. After waiting 66 days for the cargo and assurances owner canceled the charter and claimed for damages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Falcon Navigation (Hanze Goslar) v. Rensselaer Iron and Steel Inc. – SMA 4250 10 April 2015

VOYAGE CHARTER – BALTIC 99 INCORRECT IN REGARDS TO CRANE TYPE – REDUCED LOAD RATE – Owner Award At the time of fixture, the type of crane listed on the Baltic 99 form was incorrect. Charterer claimed the decision to conduct the fixture was based on the listed crane and adjusted the load and discharge rate upon which the allowed laytime was calculated based on what they believed the actual crane could handle. Owner disagreed with this change and brought the case to arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

NS United Kaiun Kaisha, Ltd. v. Cogent Fibre Inc. – SMA 4259, 14 Jul 2015

PETITION TO CONFIRM AWARD – CONSECUTIVE VOYAGE CHARTER – VESSEL DRY DOCKED WITHOUT MUTUAL AGREEMENT - IN TURN CARGO NOT PROVIDED – MATERIAL & REPUDIATORY BREACH – Owner Award Owner petitioned to confirm an earlier arbitration award in which the arbitrators held that the Charterer had breached the Charter by not providing cargo for the Vessel. Charterer argued that the arbitrators had acted with complete disregard of past precedent in assessing damages against them and filed a cross-motion to vacate the award.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Sargeant Trading Ltd. & Sargeant Marine, Inc. vs Betteroads Asphalt Corp. – SMA No 4256, 20 Jun 2015

INTEREST ON OUTSTANDING DEMURRAGE- REBILLING COUNTERPARTIES- DELAYED PAYMENTS Outstanding demurrage claims were not paid to the owner due to economic hardship itself caused by non-payment by charterer’s suppliers. Charterer did not deny the validity of the claims yet objected to being charged interest as same was not allowed for within the charter parties.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Agathonissos Special Maritime Enterprise v. ST Shipping & Transport PTE, Ltd. (The “Agathonissos”) – SMA No. 4248, 27 Mar 2015

ASBATANKVOY – PARTIAL FINAL AWARD – PARTIAL DEMURRAGE COLLECTION -- DELAYS AT OTHER PORTS EXTENDING FROM COLLISION AND REPAIRS – Owner Award Due to a collision in port Owner was required to repair the Vessel. Because of the delay the Owners contended that they should receive partial demurrage payment for the period after the collision. Charterer believed that a full hearing covering the entire voyage should be concluded before judgement can be passed on the demurrage from any single part of the voyage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Idemitsu Apollo Corp. v. Navig8 Chemical Pool Inc. (The “Atlantic Jupiter”) – SMA No. 4257, 23 Jun 2015

CHARTER PARTY – CANCELED – MAJOR ISSUES DURING LOADING – VESSEL BANNED FROM TERMINAL – VESSEL UNABLE TO FULLY LOAD CARGO – Charterer Award Because of multiple terminal compliance issues the vessel was banned from berthing to load its cargo at the terminal. The charterers then canceled the charter party. Owners contended that the cancellation was invalid.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Invista S.A.R.L. v. Stolt Tankers BV (The “Stolt Perseverance”) – SMA No. 4244, 25 Feb 2015

ASBATANKVOY -- DAMAGES -- COGSA -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- PRE-SHIPMENT CONDITION -- OWNER’S DUE DILIGENCE TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award Upon arrival at the discharge port, the Vessel’s onboard cargo was found to be off-spec. The Charterer concluded that the Vessel had caused the contamination and submitted a damages claim. Owner rejected the claim stating that their Vessel had met the cleaning requirements set forth by the Charterer’s surveyors at the load port and submitted a counterclaim for demurrage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.