Author: Brendan Hoffman

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 19/18

DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – BROKER AS AGENT - ESTOPPEL – CONSEQUENTIAL DELAY – EQUIPMENT BREAKDOWN – ASBATANKVOY – WITHOUT PREJUDICE This arbitration concerned a contract of affreightment (COA) for a series of voyages performed by two vessels carrying fuel oil/bitumen mix, chartered on an amended Asbatankvoy form. The dispute arose over unpaid demurrage in relation to eight of 87 total voyages, with the charter containing two relevant time bar provisions—one in Part I requiring demurrage claims and supporting documents within 30 days of discharge, and Clause 40 stipulating a 21-day limit.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 1/90

LAYTIME – ASBATANKVOY – STATUTORY READINESS – NOR WITHOUT COC – NULLITY – ESTOPPEL REJECTED Owners claimed laytime began at 22:30 on 4 August after NOR was tendered and accepted, but charterers argued the NOR was invalid due to the vessel lacking a U.S. Coast Guard certificate of compliance (COC) at the time.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 3/18

VOYAGE CHARTER - DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – VALID NOTICE OF READINESS – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO Charterer cancelled a voyage charter party after failing to provide cargo. Owner claimed demurrage and damages from the alleged repudiatory breach.  Charterer countered that the claim was time barred, the Vessel’s NOR was invalid, and the damages if awarded, should be basis the C/P’s lowest freight option.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Macsteel International USA Corp. v. Inter Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. – SMA 4322, 14 Aug 2017

PARTIAL FINAL AWARD - ARREST AND ATTACHMENT OF VESSEL - MARITIME LIEN - DEFAULT IN HIRE - UNSEAWORTHY The vessel was denied entry into a prior port for other charterers’ accounts which subsequently delayed her arrival at charterer’s disport. The panel was tasked to determine the party at fault for the delay and whether demurrage and other damages for barges awaiting the vessel at charterer’s disport for transshipment purposes were to be considered as consequential.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Tankschiffahrts GmbH & Co KG v. Ping An Property and Casualty Insurance Co of China Ltd (MT “Cape Bonny”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 4 December 2017

ENGINE BREAKDOWN - TYPHOON - SEAWORTHINESS - GENERAL AVERAGE - REASONABLE EXPENDITURES After suffering an engine breakdown, the shipowner employed a tug to avoid a typhoon and to bring the vessel to port.   The owner then brought claim against the insurance company for general average contribution. The defendant argued that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage and that the casualty was caused by actionable fault of the Owner and thus no contribution was due. Further, the defendant argued that owner’s expenditure as claimed under general average was unreasonable.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 1/18

NYPE - NON PAYMENT OF HIRE - PREMATURE WITHDRAWAL BY OWNER - REPUDIATORY BREACH - BALANCE OF HIRE - ADDITIONAL HIRE After charterer missed making hire payments, the owner informed charterer of its “rights” under the C/P.  When no payments were made by the 3rd day after its notice, owner withdrew the vessel. Charterer pointed to a clause in the C/P requiring owner give “3 clear banking days notice” prior to withdrawal.  Charterer claimed the balance of hire and owner claimed additional hire.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 27/17

CARGO SHORTAGE - OWNER PROACTIVELY SETTLED WITH CHARTERER’S RECEIVER - CHARTERER INDEMNIFY OWNER - NON REVERSIBLE - DEMURRAGE After discharging, the receiver claimed a cargo shortage and detained the vessel.  The shipowner settled the receiver’s claim in order to allow the vessel to depart the disport and in turn claimed reimbursement from the charterer.  Owner also claimed demurrage incurred at the disport despite laytime being saved at load given that the laytime was non-reversible.  
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Gard Marine & Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Co Ltd and Another (The “Ocean Victory”) – UKSC 35 – 10 May 2017

TIME CHARTER - SAFE PORT - CLAIM AGAINST DEMISE CHARTERERS - LIMITED LIABILITY When a ship sank upon departing a port in a storm, the court was tasked with answering 3 questions.  1) Was there a breach of the safe port warranty? 2) If so, did provisions for joint insurance preclude owner from the right to recover losses covered by hull insurers?  3) If there was a breach, are losses by a sub-charterer limited to the losses incurred by it’s owner to head owner’s insurance company.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia business Travel SAU (The “New Flamenco”) – Supreme Court

TIME CHARTER  – ANTICIPATORY BREACH – DAMAGES – VESSEL REDELIVERED EARLY – VALUE OF VESSEL SOLD AT REPUDIATION GREATER THAN VALUE OF VESSEL AT CONTRACTUAL DATE OF REDELIVERY Under a time charter, Charterer redelivered the Vessel to the Owner two years early. In doing so, Owner considered Charterer in anticipatory repudiatory breach of the contract and filed for damages. Charterer, however, pointed out that the early redelivery allowed Owner to sell the Vessel at a much higher price before the market collapsed. They argued that this windfall should be factored into the Owner’s damages claim. This is an appeal of...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Glencore International AG v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co SA – EWCA Civ 365, 24 May 2017

ERS – BILL OF LADING – CARGO DISCHARGE TO WRONG RECEIVER After 69 uneventful deliveries, the 70th delivery was misappropriated when delivering against an electronic release system (ERS) rather than in exchange for a B/L or Delivery Order. [dropcap]A[/dropcap]fter 69 deliveries, discharge of the 70th shipment saw 2 of 3 containers misappropriated.  Glencore claimed damages against MSC for breach of contract, bailment and conversion when MSC delivered the cargo without requiring the B/L or a Delivery Order in exchange for it.  The B/L provided, “If this is a negotiable (To Order/of) Bill of Lading, one original Bill of Lading, duly...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.