2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Star Tankers, Inc. v Citgo Petroleum Corporation (The “DS Promoter”) – SMA No. 4399, 7 Aug 2020

OWNER/CHARTERER – DEMURRAGE – U.S. SANCTIONS AGAINST VENEZUELA – PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR OFAC LICENSE – OWNER AWARD

Owner submitted four undisputed invoices to the charterer, regarding a voyage from the U.S. to Venezuela. The Charterer refused to attempt payment of the invoices, contending that an OFAC License may be needed in order to allow the transfer of funds due to sanctions against Venezuela. Arbitrators were asked to determine if an OFAC License was needed, and if so, which party was responsible for acquiring the Licence.

London Arbitration 1/21

TIME BAR – WHETHER OWNERS PROVIDED CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENTS – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS – SIGNED DOCUMENTS – EQUIVALENT DOCUMENTS

Charterer argued Owner’s demurrage claim was time-barred for lack of containing the contractually required documents.

London Arbitration 27/19

NYPE – DEDUCTION FROM HIRE – SHORE CRANE CHARGES – SPEED – CONSUMPTION

After Charterers had deducted hire based on shore crane charges as well as claimed underperformance and overconsumption from a chartered vessel, the Tribunal was left to determine if these charges were reasonable or if the shipowner’s evidence would disprove these actions.

London Arbitration 26/19

CHARTER PARTY – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION CLAIM – WHETHER CHARTERER ENTITLED TO MAKE DEDUCTION FROM HIRE – WHETHER VESSEL UNDER PERFORMED

After Charterer filed a claim against shipowner for speed and over consumption as well as deduction of hire based on a report made by an independent weather bureau, the Tribunal was left to determine if the claim was unreasonable or if the shipowner had failed to make correct claims about the performance of their vessel.

London Arbitration 25/19

NYPE – VESSEL FAILED INSPECTION – OFF HIRE

After Charterers file a claim against shipowners for overpaid hire and damages due to broken cranes during an in-port inspection, the Panel was left to determine if the claim was unreasonable or if the shipowners had failed to follow accords made in the charter party.

London Arbitration 24/19

TIME CHARTER – AMENDED NYPE CHARTERPARTY – FINAL HIRE – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION – VESSEL UNDERPERFORMANCE – WHETHER CONSIDERED GOOD WEATHER CONDITIONS – BUNKERS ON REDELIVERY
After Owners claimed against Charterers for the alleged underperformance of the Vessel and failure to redeliver the Vessel to Owners with the correct amount of bunkers. The Tribunal was then left to determine whether the Charterer provided adequate proof to deny any amount due to Owner.

Classic Maritime Inc v Limbungan Makmur Sdn Bhd and Another – Court of Appeal (Haddon-Cave, Males and Rose LJJ) [2019] EWCA Civ 1102 – 27 June 2019

CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – FORCE MAJEURE – CLAIMED DAMAGES – CHARTERERS OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE CARGO – “BUT FOR” TEST – COMPENSATORY PRINCIPLE – OWNER’S APPEAL – CHARTERER’S CROSS-APPEAL

After Charterers were found not liable for the damages incurred due to their failure to provide cargo for multiple shipments, Owners then appealed to the Court of Appeal on the damages incurred from the missed shipments whilst Charterers cross-appealed on their liability to provide the cargoes basis the agreed force majeure clause.

Mur Shipping BV v. Louis Dreyfus Company Suisse SA (The “Tiger Shanghai”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 13 November 2019 [Updated 10 August 2020]

TIMEBAR – BREACH OF CHARTERPARTY – NULLIFYING DOCUMENTS – INCOMPLETE CLAIMS

Arbitration proceedings were brought against the owner’s alleged breach of charterparty by refusing vessel modifications per charterer’s request. However, charterer’s left out a supporting document from their claim. Ultimately, the court decided that the documentation was time-barred, causing the cause to be dismissed.

London Arbitration 23/19

TIME CHARTER – OFF-HIRE – WHETHER ANCHOR FOULED – VESSEL SEAWORTHINESS – DELAY TO BERTH
After receiving the berthing orders from Charterer, the time-chartered Vessel was unable to raise its anchor and proceed to berth for a limited period of time. Charterers then claimed that during this delay to berth that the Vessel was off hire. Owner claimed against Charterer for the unpaid hire/ damages, whilst Charterers denied liability and submitted a counterclaim against the Owner.

London Arbitration 2/20

FIXTURE RECAP TERMS – AMENDED CLEAN GENCON 1994 CHARTERPARTY – MAIN AGREED TERMS – ARBITRATOR’S JURISDICTION – ARBITRATION PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES When disputes arose between the Owner and Charterer, Owners then appointed an arbitrator. Charterers in turn challenged the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, claiming that no agreed arbitration provision was included within the charterparty.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.