Author: Brendan Hoffman

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Freight Connect (S) Pte Ltd v. Paragon Shipping Pte Ltd.- SGCA (Singapore Court of Appeal), 31 July 2015

GENCON – BERTH OR PORT CHARTER PARTY- VALIDITY OF NOTICE OF READINESS- DETENTION- INDEMNITY

When owner’s vessel was due to be late, a replacement vessel was provided by owner and agreed to by charterer. The panel was tasked with determining whether the replacement vessel was just that or whether a new fixture had been agreed to, whether this new fixture was a port charter or a berth charter, and when the vessel was considered to be an arrived ship. Additionally, claims for detention and indemnity were addressed.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Trammochem Asia Pte Ltd. and Trammochem AG v. Desert Orchid Shipping Pte Ltd. (The “LPG/Desert Orchid”) – SMA No. 4253, 10 April 2015

ASBATANKVOY – STS TRANSFER – CONTAMINATED CARGO – HAGUE VISBY & COGSA – BURDEN OF PROOF – DEMURRAGE – FAULT OF THE VESSEL – TIME-BAR – Charterer Award

The vessel was loading LPG via a ship-to-ship transfer when it was discovered that the cargo she had loaded was contaminated by moisture. Both the charterer and the owner held each other responsible for the burden of proof. The dispute was over who was liable for the damages due to the contamination and if demurrage, detention and deviation were to be incurred. And if incurred, whether owner’s claims for same were time-barred.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 13/15

SHELLVOY 5 – PUMP WARRANTY – PERFORMANCE OR CAPABILITY – PUNITIVE – DEMURRAGE – Owner award

This dispute revolved around whether the pump warranty was breached during the discharge of crude oil. The owner submitted its demurrage claim with the belief that the pump warranty had been met. Charterer however contended that the vessel had not met its requirements and thus excess pump time should be deducted from time counting.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 14/15

GENCON 76 – DUNNAGE: OWNER’S OR CHARTERER’S RESPONSIBILITY – NOTICE OF READINESS – COMMENCEMENT OF LAYTIME – DEMURRAGE – DETENTION – Charterer award

A cargo of steel H-beams were to be loaded on top of a previously loaded part cargo of rebar. Charterer and Owner could not agree as to which party should be responsible for costs and time associated with building a false deck, whether the vessel’s NOR was valid, and thus when laytime commenced counting.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA v. MT Maritime Management BV (The “MTM Hong Kong”) – QBD (Comm Ct) , 1 September 2015

REPUDIATED VOYAGE CHARTER – SMITH v M’GUIRE – THE COMPENSATORY PRINCIPLE – Owner award

When the charterer wrongfully repudiated a voyage charter, an arbitration panel awarded owner damages basis the vessel’s actual earnings versus hypothetical earnings up to the conclusion of the mitigating employment despite the mitigating employment ending well after when the repudiated voyage charter would have concluded. In doing so, the arbitrators awarded owner for its losses suffered whilst returning to an area of more profitable employment. The charterer appealed.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

NS United Kaiun Kaisha Ltd. (Daishin Maru) v. Cogent Fibre Inc. – SMA 4249 23 Jan 2015

CONSECUTIVE VOYAGE CHARTER – VESSEL DRY DOCKED WITHOUT MUTUAL AGREEMENT – IN TURN CARGO NOT PROVIDED – MATERIAL & REPUDIATORY BREACH – Owner Award

Charterer claimed owner’s dry docking of the Vessel without obtaining mutual agreement for same equated to a material and repudiatory breach of the contract and subsequently refused to provide a cargo or assurances for the continuance of the charter. After waiting 66 days for the cargo and assurances owner canceled the charter and claimed for damages.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 15/15

DISPONENT OWNER CLAIMING DAMAGES FROM SHIPPER – IDENTIFICATION OF CARRIER UNDER COGEN FORM BILL OF LADING – DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL- IMPLIED CONTRACTS

After loading a bulk cargo shipper ran into difficulties with its sales contract which the FOB buyer / charterer ultimately repudiated. At the request of the shipper the vessel was detained and waited at the load port until she eventually discharged the cargo on instruction from a local court. The disponent owner claimed damages from the shipper stating that under the bill of lading the disponent owner was the carrier. The shipper, i.e. seller under FOB terms, denied the basis of owner’s claims with the implication being that the shipper’s contract was not with the disponent owner and thus no arbitration clause existed between the disponent owner and shipper.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Avonwick Holdings Ltd v Webinvest Ltd and Another [2014] EWCA Civ 1436

LOAN AGREEMENT – WITHOUT PREJUDICE RULE – CORRESPONDENCE – DOES RULE APPLY – Claimant award

When a Claimant requested correspondences to be admissible in evidence, Defendant objected given they were headed “Without Prejudice and Subject to Contract” and thus privileged.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Falcon Navigation (Hanze Goslar) v. Rensselaer Iron and Steel Inc. – SMA 4250 10 April 2015

VOYAGE CHARTER – BALTIC 99 INCORRECT IN REGARDS TO CRANE TYPE – REDUCED LOAD RATE – Owner Award

At the time of fixture, the type of crane listed on the Baltic 99 form was incorrect. Charterer claimed the decision to conduct the fixture was based on the listed crane and adjusted the load and discharge rate upon which the allowed laytime was calculated based on what they believed the actual crane could handle. Owner disagreed with this change and brought the case to arbitration.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Glencore Energy UK v Cirrus Oil Services – EWHC 87 – 24 Jan 2014

SALES CONTRACT – CRUDE OIL – EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE – FULL TRADING NAME NOT LISTED IN CORRESPONDENCE – IS CONTRACT BINDING – Claimant Award

When buyer’s buyer rejected 630K bbls of crude oil as it was blended rather than being from a sole well, buyer maintained no binding contract existed between seller and buyer. Seller subsequently pressed for damages under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Sections 50(2) and (3) basis buyer’s unlawful repudiation. In addition to maintaining no binding contract existed, buyer in turn rejected the claim for damages under the auspices of Clause 32.1 of BP 2007 GT&Cs for CFR Sales.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.