London Arbitration 6/25 

The vessel was chartered from Terneuzen, Netherlands to Jacksonville, FL, USA, for 25 days total, with laycan from Feb. 4th–8th, under NYPE 1993 terms from a prior charterparty. After redelivery on March 6th, the Owners claimed US$119,557.65 for hire and bunker costs, primarily. The Charterers denied liability, citing the master’s decision to reroute from the Pentland Firth to the English Channel, lengthening the voyage. They counter-claimed for balances ranging from US$20,647.80 to US$70,756.885. The tribunal based their final decision solely on documentary evidence provided by both Parties.

Voyage Details

On Feb. 8th, the Second Officer prepared a passage plan that routed the vessel through the English Channel (the Southern Route) to Florida; it was approved by the master. The Charterers’ weather routing company (WRC) advised that the Northern Route via the North Sea and the Penland Firth had rough weather forecasts – predictions of Beaufort 7-19 winds, and 8.6 m swells – Feb. 12th – 13th. The Charterers’ WRC inquired about special consideration(s) and received no response from the master. Regardless, a second passage plan was prepared. 

The vessel departed Terneuzen by way of the Southern Route plan on Feb. 10th. By 15:55 the Charterers’ WRC had updated the route, predicting Beaufort 9 winds and 9.3 m wave heights on Feb. 13. Similar forecasts were received at 5:07 on Feb. 11, and at 5:54, the master directly raised concerns over safety, going on to suggest 3-4 days of potential delays due to predicted wave heights in excess of 10 m, or general delay until the “cyclone had passed”.  Managers contacted the WRC, advising the vessel to take the Northern Route to avoid dangerous weather conditions. By 18:17, the master informed the Charterers the Northern Route was unsafe and cited their WRC’s forecasts. The master’s assertion was supported by the managers, who consulted a WRC, who then also agreed with the master’s decision. By 19:32, the Owners had relayed the advice to the Charterers’, as well as the recommendation to redirect through the English Channel. At 20:47 the master agreed to reroute, and at 21:00 the vessel officially changed its course southward toward the English Channel.

The Master only cited dangerous weather as the reason for the route change, and the vessel reached Jacksonville safely on March 6th.

CHARTERPARTY CLAUSES

Clause 8 – Performance of Voyages:

The Master shall perform the voyages with due despatch…and (although appointed by the Owners) shall be under the order and directions of the Charterers as regards employment and agency …”

Clause 15 – Sailing Orders and Logs:

The Charterers shall furnish the Masters…with all requisite instructions and sailing directions, in writing …”

Clause 17 – Off-Hire:

… Should the Vessel deviate…during a voyage, contrary to the orders or directions of the Charterers, for any reason other than accident to the cargo …, the hire is to be suspended from the time of her deviating… until she is again in the same or equidistant position from the destination …

All bunkers used by the Vessel while off hire shall be for the Owners’ account. … “

Clause 26 – Navigation:

… The Owners shall remain responsible for the navigation of the Vessel, acts of pilots and tug boats except strike and/or boycott not directed against the Owners, insurance, crew …”

Clause 77 – Weather Routing:

… The Master will comply with Charterer’s independent weather routing service’s reporting procedures at all times and endeavor to follow Charterer’s (or their routing service’s) recommended routing … “

Claims and Counter Claims

The Charterers claimed the master breached Clause 8 by deviating from the planned route on Feb. 11th and sailing through the English Channel, further claiming this violated “legitimate employment orders”. They went on to claim the Northern Route departure waived the master’s right to object to proposed routes, causing significant losses due to additional costs, including bunkers. They sought US$70,000 from the Owners.

The Owners refused the claim, citing Clause 77, asserting the master initially “endeavored to follow” the Charterers’ planned route, but changed course for safety reasons and to project the vessel, crew, and cargo, which was justified. 

The Charterers counter-claimed, stating the master should have originally opted to use the English Channel route prior to departure from Terneuzen, and criticized him for not consulting additional WRCs for further guidance on route optimization. Their expert argued taking the English Channel route from the start would have resulted in an earlier arrival in Jacksonville. The Owners’ expert disagreed, stating the master was only obligated to follow the recommended route until the safety concerns presented themselves, such as the 9+ meter wave forecast which justified the rerouting decision.

The Decisions

Charterers’ Orders

Per Clause 77, it was required the master attempt to follow the Charterers’ routing. Experts agreed the master reasonably attempted this by initially sailing north. The Charterers’ claim the master was barred from safety-related deviations from the planned course was rejected on the basis the master was entitled to change course per Clause 26, which delegated navigation responsibility to the Owners. The master’s emails confirmed safety was the sole reason the route was changed. Additionally, the expert consensus was the master was reasonable for refusing to navigate into waters with 9+ meter waves. Thus the tribunal concluded the deviation through the English Channel was justified.

Due Despatch

Feb. 8th, the WRC forecasted wave heights of 8.6 m for Feb. 13th, with peak waves of 12+ m possible. The master was aware of the predicted weather conditions by Feb. 11th, as well as the risk the waves posed for parametric and synchronous rolling, given the vessel’s rolling period of 11.5 seconds. Though the master should have questioned the WRC’s  original recommendation, his contract terms obligated him to “endeavor to” follow the Charterers’ routing orders. The tribunal did not find the master’s actions unreasonable, but noted the delay in detailed consideration of the Northern Route caused a 3.5-day extension of the voyage. Due to this, the Owners’ claim was reduced by US$86,838.50, primarily for fuel and commission costs.

The Owners maintained the Charterers were liable for the consequences of the WRC’s advice, but the tribunal disagreed – the recommendation was not an order. Further, the Charterers had no obligation to indemnify the Owners. The vessel could not be off-hire under Clause 17 because the master did not defy the Charterers’ order. Therefore, the Charterers’ counterclaim for US$70,000 failed, and their alternative counterclaim of US$20,000 was dismissed due to a lack of evidence the master was obligated to reject the WRC’s advice. 

Conclusion / Award

The Owners’ claim prevailed and they were awarded US$32,719.15 with payable interest at 6.5% annually, with costs reserved. The Charterers’ counterclaim(s) failed.