Author: Ethan Fitzgerald

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 16/16

TIME CHARTERS NOVATED UPON NEW VESSEL OWNERSHIP – WHETHER NEW TIME CHARTERS ARE TO UPHOLD THE SAME SPEED AND PERFORMANCE WARRANTIES AS ORIGINAL CHARTERS – TRUE CONSTRUCTION OF CHARTERPARTIES

Time charters contained speed and consumption warranties. Upon new ownership these charters included a phrase which owner contended replaced the original warranties with a warranty that the vessels would perform as they were the minute the new charters were concluded. Charterer disagreed and the panel was tasked to determine which warranties were contained in the new charters.

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 15/16

TIME CHARTER – DEFINITION OF REDELIVERY – WHETHER REDELIVERY MUST STRICTLY ADHERE TO CHARTERPARTY TERMS – WHETHER VESSEL IN FACT REDELIVERED TO OWNER

Under a time-charter, Charterer and Owner disputed the redelivery of a vessel. An arbitration panel determined the legal test in respect of redelivery and applied the facts surrounding the case. Albeit not redelivered as stipulated within the charter, the panel majority concluded the ship had been properly redelivered but Owner applied for permission to appeal the ruling to the High Court.

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

Archive / Maritime Articles

Demurrage Exposure – Port Charters Converted to Berth Charters!

A golden rule when assessing a contract is to read the contract as a whole and give meaning to all clauses in conjunction with each other. A recent NY Arbitration, SMA 4272, combined with an older award, SMA 2477, shows how simple phrasing, reinforced via a lack of options and market constraints, can overwhelm other charter terms and convert a port charter to a berth charter.

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

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Narval Chartering and Trading v Ameropa North America (The “M/V Ida”) – SMA No. 4276, 22 Mar 2016

COMMENCEMENT OF LAYTIME – WHETHER SHINC TERM TRUMPS OFFICE HOURS – DESPATCH

After NOR was tendered and loading commenced on a Sunday, the Owner and Charterer disputed when laytime commenced. Owner noted the laytime allowance referenced “shinc” allowing for laytime to commence on Sunday whereas charterer noted NOR was only to be tendered Monday through Friday.

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

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

HPL Shipping Co. Ltd v Siderar, S.A.I.C. (The “MV Harvest Plains”) – SMA No. 4272 – 18 Feb 2016

PORT VS. BERTH CHARTER – RIVER PORT – WHEN VESSEL CONSIDERED ARRIVED – COAST GUARD RESTRICTING TRAFFIC – COLLISION – DEMURRAGE – LAYTIME

Upon arrival in Argentina the vessel could not proceed to charterer’s port due to wreckage salvage operations taking place on the Paraná River. Owner started counting laytime basis a notice of readiness tendered outside the commercial confines of charterer’s port; the sole disport named in the fixture. Contending that the charter party was a berth charter, Charterer disputed the time at which the vessel was to be considered an arrived ship.

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 10/16

TIME CHARTER – OWNER CLAIMING BALANCE OF HIRE – CHARTERER WITHHOLDING HIRE BASIS OFF-HIRE AND EQUITABLE SET-OFF – DATE OF ACCRUAL OF OWNER’S CLAIMS – WHETHER OWNER’S CLAIMS TIME-BARRED UNDER LIMITATION ACT Near the end of a time charter hire payments were withheld by Charterer to offset various claims against Owner. Just shy of 6...

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 8/16

MASTER’S VS AGENT’S SOF – BURDEN OF PROOF – RAIN PERIODS – CRANE BREAKDOWNS – OFFICIAL HOLIDAYS NOT TO COUNT – Owner Award

The agent’s statement of facts (SOF) included periods of rain which were not included in the Master’s SOF. The burden of proof lay on the charterer to prove any laytime exception. Also at controversy is how to properly prorate time when the vessel was under utilizing her available hatches and cranes as well as which holidays to consider as non-working days.

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 9/16

TIME CHARTER – CHARTERER’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE OR REFUND BUNKERS UPON REDELIVERY – WHETHER OWNER OBLIGATED TO MITIGATE LOSS – Owner Award

A vessel was time chartered with the provision that Charterer would supply bunkers before redelivery. When Charterer was unable to pay for bunkers upon redelivery and further failed to reimburse Owner for when Owner arranged and paid for the bunkers, Owner commenced arbitration. In turn, Charterer claimed Owner failed to mitigate losses when Owner allegedly wasted 2 days arranging the bunkers.

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

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

OOCL (USA) Corp. v. Transco Shipping Corp. – ET UNO AMC 903, 11 Mar 2015

SUMMARY JUDGMENT – CONSIGNEE’S LIABILITY TO CARRIER FOR DEMURRAGE/DETENTION  AS SIGNER OF BILLS OF LADING – NOTIFY PARTY – ENDORSEMENT – BREACH OF CONTRACT – UNJUST ENRICHMENT – ACCOUNT STATED – Plaintiff Award The consignee failed to unload cargo from the vessel as the third party buyer was no longer in business. The cargo remained...

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Ramburs Inc. v. Agrifert SA – QBD (Comm. Ct.) [2015] EWHC 3548 (Comm), 4 Dec 2015

FOB SALE – VALIDITY OF SUBSTITUTE VESSEL’S NOMINATION – PRE-ADVICE AND NOMINATION PROVISIONS – WHETHER BUYER IN REPUDIATORY BREACH OF CONTRACT – Seller Award

Buyer nominated a substitute vessel one day before the original vessel was to arrive and load her cargo. Seller rejected both vessel nominations and cancelled the contract basis Buyer’s repudiatory breach of the provisions laid out in the contract. A GAFTA tribunal ruled one way, a board in another, whilst in this instance the the High Court supported the GAFTA tribunal.

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