FOB SALE - VESSEL ARRIVING LATE - SECOND VESSEL NOMINATED - CONTRACT AMENDED FOR NEW LAYCAN - PRODUCER’S MARKETER CLAIMED DAMAGES FOR ALLEGED EFFORTS TO AVOID PLANT SHUTDOWN - BUYER CLAIMED FOR DEMURRAGE AND DAMAGES DUE TO MISSED OPPORTUNITY A contract was fixed for the sale of ammonium sulfate to be loaded in Pasadena, Texas. After the originally nominated vessel was to miss the laycan, a replacement vessel was nominated. The contract was then re-negotiated with a new window and cargo quantity. Later, the producer’s marketer claimed for damages incurred when several barges were loaded to avoid a plant shutdown. The buyer claimed for demurrage and damages due to a missed opportunity.
TIME CHARTER – VESSEL CRANE FAILURE – UNABLE TO USE 1 HOLD ON THE SHIP – CHARTERER WITHHELD A PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF HIRE – OWNER BELIEVED HIRE DUE IN FULL – CHARTERER GOING OUT OF BUSINESS – PARTIAL AWARD FOR SECURITY Although continuing to trade, due to a crane breakdown onboard a time chartered vessel cargo capacity was reduced for a month and a half for which the charterer withheld a pro rata share of hire. The owner countered that as no time was lost, hire is due in full. After the owner was informed that the charterer was going...
BPVOY4 - "ALL INCLUSIVE" FREIGHT COVERING ALL COSTS OF VOYAGE - RIVER BERTH REQUIRING STANDBY TUGS Afforded a range of ports within the fixture recap, Charterer directed the Vessel to a river berth wherein due to high current, standby tugs were required. Owner claimed the cost of the standby tugs from Charterer. Charterer pointed to freight being “ALL INCLUSIVE” and thus covering all costs of the voyage inclusive of standby tugs.
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.
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”.
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.
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”.
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.
ASBATANKVOY - DEMURRAGE - NOR VALIDITY - EXPEDITE INSPECTION - SUBSTANTIAL READINESS – “ROOT CAUSE” PRINCIPLE Nearly 38 days after the tender of NOR, charterer inspected and subsequently directed the vessel to repair its anchor chain prior to berthing. The repair took 3 days. Charterer subsequently claimed that as the vessel was not ready the NOR was invalid with the 38 days for Owner’s account.
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.