2024 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Leeds Shipping Co Ltd v. Societe Francaise Bunge (The “EASTERN CITY”) – COURT OF APPEAL (Hodson, Romer, and Sellers LJJ) – 30 July 1958

UNSAFE PORT – MOROCCO – UNPREDICTABLE WEATHER CONDITIONS -GROUNDING OF VESSEL – ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF MASTER
Editor’s Note: This 1958 case set the industry standard for determining a safe berth and is referenced in two new recaps: London Arbitration 2/23 and SMA No. 4457 “PRESINGE.”
Leeds Shipping and Societe Francaise were parties to a voyage charterparty with the vessel discharging in “…One or two safe ports in Morocco…” This appeal challenged a previous decision in favor of Leeds Shipping, which claimed Charterers ordered the vessel to an unsafe port, Mogador, where she ran aground and sustained damage. Societe Francaise denied that Mogador was an unsafe port and asserted by accepting the voyage, Owners had consented to the vessel going to Mogador. Charterers also claimed the negligence of· the Master caused the vessel’s grounding.

XCoal Energy v. Classic Maritime – SMA No. 4450, 16 August 2022

DAMAGES – COVID-19 – COA BREACH – BURDEN OF PROOF
A December 2, 2019 contract of affreightment between XCoal Energy and Classic Maritime stated XCoal was to provide cargos for 6 – 7 vessels during the year 2020. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, XCoal was only able to provide cargo for two vessels. Classic believed they should have been awarded damages of over US$ 4.4 million for the breach, however, XCoal asserted they owed far less, claiming Classic did not meet the burden of proof to warrant this higher claim.

Team Tankers Deep Sea v. Tauber Petrochemical (MT “TEAM TOCCATA”) – SMA No. 4441, 18 March 2022

DEMURRAGE – COVID-19 – FORCE MAJEURE – DUE DILIGENCE – PANDEMIC
On March 25, 2020, the Gujarat Maritime Board issued a declaration of a Force Majeure Event at Dighi Port where Team Toccata was due to berth after its discharge was completed at Kandla on April 19, 2020. Team Tankers Deep Sea claimed that the charterer, Tauber Petrochemical, owed demurrage for the entire 118.5 hours Team Toccata waited at Dighi before proceeding to the berth regardless of the force majeure event.

London Arbitration 31/32

DEMURRAGE – DETENTION – GENCON 94 – AWAITING ORDERS
The subject vessel was chartered to carry wheat from the Russian Federation to Turkey. The owners claimed damages for detention at the discharge port, calculated at the demurrage rate. However, the charterer denied the provisions of the charterparty entitled the owner to these damages, and asserted the owner was only entitled to demurrage.

London Arbitration 21/19

DEMURRAGE – TROPICAL STORM- FORCE MAJEURE – DUE DILIGENCE – BAD WEATHER CLAUSE – TERMINAL CLOSING – PORT CLOSING – HURRICANE
A vessel chartered under a contract of affreightment was scheduled to load 60,000 mt of coal from a terminal on the Mississippi when the terminal ordered her to vacate the berth due to an impending hurricane. The owner claimed demurrage of US$330,495 for the time spent awaiting the vessel’s return to the berth, however, the charterer denied any liability for the demurrage incurred claiming bad weather, events outside of their control, and force majeure.

London Arbitration 32/22 

AMENDED NYPE – TIME CHARTER – DEDUCTIONS FROM HIRE- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION- GOOD WEATHER AND SMOOTH SEA- WEATHER CONDITIONS – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY REPORT
The subject vessel was chartered on an amended NYPE to transport steel from Brazil to Baltimore. After the voyage, the owners claimed a balance of hire which the charterers subsequently denied. Under dispute were speed and consumption, vessel weather reporting, and the weather routing company report.

Sea Master Shipping Inc v. Arab Bank (Switzerland) Ltd and Another (The “Sea Master”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 28 July 2020

NORGRAIN 89 FORM – INSOLVENT CHARTERER – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES – COGSA 1992 – CARGO FINANCING – RECEIVERS
Seamaster Shipping, the registered owner of the subject vessel Sea Master, appealed an earlier court decision dismissing their claim for demurrage, or damages in lieu of demurrage, due to delays at the discharge port during a charter to Agribusiness United DMCC.

SK Shipping Europe PLC v. Capital VLCC 3 Corporation and Others (The “C Challenger”) – Court of Appeal (Males, Phillips and Carr LJJ) [2022] EWCA Civ 231– 25 February 2022

OVER CONSUMPTION – REPUDIATORY BREACH – TIME CHARTER – SHELLTIME 4 FORM – FALSE REPRESENTATION
Capital Maritime and Trade Corporation negotiated a two-year time charter with SK Shipping on November 25, 2016. The speed and consumption data of the vessels’ last 3 voyages were set out in the charterparty and were guaranteed for future voyages by SK Shipping. Capital Maritime noticed far greater consumption than was guaranteed and ceased paying hire, eventually terminating the charter. Capital Maritime appealed the first court’s decision claiming the representation of consumption in the charter implied a guaranteed representation of future performance.

Poten & Partners, Inc. v. MTM Trading, LLC. (MTM “Gibralter”) – SMA No. 4445, 16 May 2022

DEMURRAGE – WAITING TIME – AMENDED BPVOY4 FORM – COMMISSION – CHARTER BROKER
The MTM Gibraltar was chartered to voyage from Houston to Tuxpan with an option of one or two consecutive voyages. During the second voyage after loading was completed, the vessel spent 117 days waiting for further orders by the charterer, Laurel Shipping LLC. The charter broker, Poten & Partners, claimed that this waiting period counted as demurrage and claimed they were owed commission for these 117 days.

Stolt Tankers BV v. Stryker Fuels LLC (MT “MONAX”) – SMA No. 4449, 4 August 2022

DAMAGES – UNSTABLE CARGO – TIME BAR CLAUSE
The MT Monax was chartered to make two voyages, one from Ontario to New York carrying Residual Fuel Oil (RFO), and the second from Ontario to Belgium carrying clean products. The voyages were completed between July 1 and September 3. On September 23, 2021, the owner, Stolt Tankers, submitted a claim for damages stating that the RFO was unstable, preventing complete discharge and requiring extensive tank cleaning. The charterer, Stryker Fuels, countered that the claim should be dismissed because it was made outside of the time bar period.