Tagged: Jan/Mar 2008

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

PDVSA Petroleon y Gas SA v. Poseidon Schiffahrt GmbH (The “Pharos”) – SMA No. 3972, 6 Aug 07

ASBATANKVOY -- DELAY -- FAILURE TO PROSECUTE -- DISMISSAL -- Partial Owner Award The Charterer began arbitration to recover damages resulting from an Owner breach of contract and demanded for an immediate partial reward. However, the Charterer delayed to prosecute the manner beyond the claim’s submission and after eight years of delayed prosecution, the Owner moved to dismiss the case.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Team Tankers AS v. Apex Energy, LLC. (The “Team Jupiter” and “Loukas I”) – SMA No. 3973, 17 Aug 07

ASBATANKVOY -- SHORTLOADING -- WITHHELD FREIGHT -- TWO BOTTOMS -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award In compensation for damages (specifically shortloading, an address commission on freight issue, legal and administrative costs) incurred by the Owner, the Charterer made an unauthorized freight deduction from the contracted pay amount. In the partial award of SMA No. 3965, the sole arbitrator ruled that the withheld freight and the claim for damages would be addressed in two different rulings. The withheld freight was addressed in the aforesaid partial award and the remaining items are discussed herein.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 15/07

TIME CHARTER -- SPEED WARRANTY -- CONSUMPTION WARRANTY -- SPEED CALCULATION -- SEA CURRENT FACTOR -- WEATHER FACTOR -- FAVORABLE CURRENTS -- Owner Award This arbitration concerns the interpretation of the time chartered Vessel’s speed and consumption warranties, specifically, if the Vessel's actual speed performance be reduced by taking beneficial sea currents into account.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA v. Chevron USA Inc. (The “Luxmar”) – Court of Appeal, 22 May 07

SALES CONTRACT -- CARGO -- BREACH -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- MEANING OF LAYCAN IN SALES CONTRACT -- Seller Award In this contract, the Buyer had to nominate a performing Vessel for the voyage, narrow the laycan to a two day period, and then the Seller would have to load the Vessel in 36 + 6 hrs. The Buyer performed all contracted requirements; however, upon arrival, the Seller’s plant was unable to supply cargo within the contracted load window. The Buyer subsequently claimed that the Seller violated the contract and canceled the transaction.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 18/07

GENCON -- DETENTION -- VESSEL MASTER -- DELAYED LAUNCH FOR CARGO INSPECTOR -- Owner Award Although several issues were disputed in arbitration, only the detention claim item will be recapped. The Owner filed for detention damages when the Vessel was delayed at port because there was no launch available for the port’s inspector after nightfall. The Charterer, however, contended that it was customary at the given loadport for the vessel master to be responsible for such launches.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd v. Ugland Bulk Transport AS (The “Livanita”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 6 Jun 2007

NYPE -- HULL DAMAGE -- ICE -- ANCHORAGE -- SAFE PORT WARRANTY -- CHARTER PARTY CONSTRUCTION -- Owner Award En route from disport, the Vessel suffered hull damage from ice and the Owner submitted a claim for damage compensation. The Charterer contended that ice was an obvious expectation at this specific disport during the winter, and therefore, the risk was borne by the Owner upon the port’s acceptance. The Owner defended stating that the charter outlined that all berths, ports and anchorages must be safe regardless of acceptance implications.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Golden Fleece Maritime Inc v. ST Shipping & Transport Inc (The “Elli” and “Frixos”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 2 Aug 07

SHELLTIME 4 -- MARPOL -- CHANGE OF INTERNATIONAL REGULATION -- TIME CHARTER -- CARGO RESTRICTIONS -- COMMERCIAL RISK -- DUE DILIGENCE -- Charterer Award This arbitration began as a result of MARPOL international regulation changes during the operating period of this specific time charter. Due to these changes, the two operating Vessels became legally unable to carry their contracted cargo. This ruling settles which party should bear the commercial risk.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Ocean Pride Maritime Ltd. Partnership v. Quingdao Ocean Shipping Co. (The “Northgate”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 27 Nov 07

NOR -- TENDERED FROM OUTER ANCHORAGE -- NOR ACCEPTED UNCONDITIONALLY BY THIRD PARTY TERMINAL -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award The Vessel tendered her NOR to the Charterer’s agents and the Terminal from the outer anchorage within the given laycan. However, a congested berth forced her to wait at the outer anchorage for ten days, which was subsequently claimed as demurrage by the Owners. The Charterer rejected this demurrage claim and stated that because the Vessel was at the outer anchorage upon tender, the NOR was invalid. Conversely, the Owner pointed out that the Terminal unconditionally accepted their NOR.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v. Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia (The “Achilleas”) – Court of Appeal, 6 Sep 07

TIME CHARTER -- LATE REDELIVERY -- LOST PROFITS UNDER SUBSEQUENT FIXTURE -- LIABILITY -- Owner Award This arbitration appeal deals with the damages that a time-charterer is liable to pay to a shipowner for any late redelivery of the chartered Vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Waterfront Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Trafigura AG (The “Sabrewing”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 31 Oct 07

BPVOY3 -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME-BAR -- REQUIRED DOCUMENTS -- PUMP LOG NOT PROVIDED BY OWNER -- Charterer Award The Owner filed a claim for demurrage before the 90-day time-bar, however they did not supply the supporting pump log before the time-bar date. The Owners argue that they only needed to provide the necessary documents supporting their claimed amount and that their claim was not dependent upon the pump logs. Furthermore, they have evidence that the Charterer had received the pump logs from an alternative source before the time-bar.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.