Author: Erinn Miller

Teekay Tankers Chartering Pte. Ltd. v SeaRiver Maritime LLC. (The “ZENITH SPIRIT”) – SMA No. 4467, 22 September 2023

EMVOY SPECIAL CLAUSE 15 - EXXONMOBILE VOY2012 - CARGO STORAGE - DAMAGES - AUTHORITY OF BROKER TO REPRESENT BOTH PARTIES - MEETING OF THE MINDS The dispute between SeaRiver Maritime (Charterer) and Teekay Tankers Chartering (Owner) revolved around the terms of a charter party agreement for the vessel ZENITH SPIRIT. The key point of contention was the interpretation of Special Clause 15 from the contract written on an ExxonMobile VOY2012, with Owner claiming a guaranteed minimum of 90 days of storage, while Charterer contended that storage was at Charterer’s option.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Dorval SC Tankers Inc. v SeaRiver Maritime, LLC, (The “GOLDEN AUSTRALIS”) – SMA No. 4465, 7 September 2023

EMVOY 2012 - WITHHELD SAMPLES - SAMPLE CONTAMINATION - JOINT SAMPLE TESTING - ARBITRABILITY - CAUSE OF CONTAMINATION An Owner and Charterer entered into a Contract of Affreightment (COA) for the transportation of bulk chemical products from Singapore to Australia. Sampling at the discharge revealed water droplets and cloudiness in the cargo. The Charterer withheld samples from the discharge from joint testing that was requested by the Owner to determine the cause of contamination.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Naviera Transoceanica and Products Tankers Management Company v PetroChina International (America) Inc. – SMA No. 4464, 29 August 2023

VOYAGE SPEED - WEATHER - DEMURRAGE CLAIM - OWNERS GUARANTEE - SLOW STEAMING - ASBATANKVOY A voyage charter was made for the transport of clean petroleum product (CPP) from Cherry Point, Washington, to a Chilean port of the Charterer's choice. Owners initiated arbitration seeking a partial final award of outstanding demurrage, plus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Charterer disputed the claim, asserting that the vessel failed to meet the charterparty speed and failed to adhere to voyage orders, resulting in a missed discharge window.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Oslo Caribbean Carrier v Knowles Construction & Development Co. Ltd. (The “SEA CARRIER”), SMA No. 4463, 3 August 2023

PARTIAL PAYMENT - DAMAGES FOR DENTENTION - DEMURRAGE - FAILURE TO APPOINT ARBITRATOR - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEBT - FAILURE TO MAKE PAYMENT This arbitration involved a charterparty for the transport of bulk aggregate sand from Kingston, Jamaica, to Nassau, Bahamas. Oslo Caribbean Carrier AS, the owner of the M/V SEA CARRIER, claimed outstanding demurrage payment and interest from Knowles Construction & Development Co. Ltd., the charterer.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Singapore Arbitration 3/23

DEMURRAGE - FAILURE TO NOMINATE VESSEL - BREACH OF CONTRACT - MITIGATION OF LOSS - PRINCIPLE OF MINIMUM PERFORMANCE This case involves a dispute arising from a trip charter for the shipment of coal from Indonesia to Thailand. The charterparty specified two voyages. The Owner failed to nominate vessels for these shipments, leading to a breach of the charterparty.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Singapore Arbitration 2/23

DEMURRAGE - GENCON 1994 FORM - FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO - BREACH OF CONTRACT - NON-PARTICIPATING RESPONDENT - UNCITRAL MODEL LAW - COMPENSATORY DAMAGES - NO APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR The case involved a fixture recap that agreed cargo was to be loaded in Vietnam and delivered to a port in China. The charterers failed to provide the cargo despite repeated requests from the owners. The charterers refused to participate in arbitration and provided no defense.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Phibro Renewables AG v. Formosa Plastic Marine Corp. – SMA No. 4462, 25 July 2023

In this arbitration between Phibro Renewables AG (Charterer) and Formosa Plastic Marine Corporation (Owner), disputes arose from a charterparty agreement concerning the transportation of 5,000 metric tons of UCOME. Charterer claimed damages due to alleged breaches by Owner, including late delivery and vessel substitution, while Owner counterclaimed due to alleged cargo loss.

FIMBank plc v. KCH Shipping Co Ltd– Court of Appeal, 24 May 2023

FIMBank appealed a decision regarding the misdelivery of cargo, revolving around the application of the Hague-Visby Rules and the time bar provision. The Court of Appeal analyzed the evolution of the Hague-Visby rule’s wording and its implications. The court also examined the potential of an implied term within the bills of lading.

Seastar Maritime Ltd. v. AUM Scrap and Metal Waste Trading LLC. (MT “AMIAS”) – SMA No. 4455, 12 December 2022

The MT AMIAS was chartered by AUM from Seastar using the Asbatankvoy form with rider clauses to carry Methanol in bulk from Venezuela to 1-2 Safe Port/ 1 Safe Berth (Kandla to Chennai Range). The Vessel finished loading in Venezuela and submitted its invoice for 70% freight for payment within 10 days, per the charterparty. AUM did not pay, and the Vessel stayed in port until May 11. Seastar was forced to seek alternate employment to mitigate losses, which required calling another port. Both parties agreed upon an earlier settlement, but AUM did not pay it either.

London Arbitration 2/23

The subject vessel was chartered for a one-time charter trip with one leg via Indonesia to China. The vessel grounded while under pilotage in the port of Chaozhou. She suffered damage to her port side hull structure. The owner claimed that the port was unsafe and in breach of the charterparty. The charterer claimed the damage was due to negligence in navigation and unseaworthiness.