Author: Erinn Miller

XCoal Energy v. Classic Maritime – SMA No. 4450, 16 August 2022

DAMAGES – COVID-19 – COA BREACH – BURDEN OF PROOF
A December 2, 2019 contract of affreightment between XCoal Energy and Classic Maritime stated XCoal was to provide cargos for 6 – 7 vessels during the year 2020. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, XCoal was only able to provide cargo for two vessels. Classic believed they should have been awarded damages of over US$ 4.4 million for the breach, however, XCoal asserted they owed far less, claiming Classic did not meet the burden of proof to warrant this higher claim.

Team Tankers Deep Sea v. Tauber Petrochemical (MT “TEAM TOCCATA”) – SMA No. 4441, 18 March 2022

DEMURRAGE – COVID-19 – FORCE MAJEURE – DUE DILIGENCE – PANDEMIC
On March 25, 2020, the Gujarat Maritime Board issued a declaration of a Force Majeure Event at Dighi Port where Team Toccata was due to berth after its discharge was completed at Kandla on April 19, 2020. Team Tankers Deep Sea claimed that the charterer, Tauber Petrochemical, owed demurrage for the entire 118.5 hours Team Toccata waited at Dighi before proceeding to the berth regardless of the force majeure event.

London Arbitration 31/32

DEMURRAGE – DETENTION – GENCON 94 – AWAITING ORDERS
The subject vessel was chartered to carry wheat from the Russian Federation to Turkey. The owners claimed damages for detention at the discharge port, calculated at the demurrage rate. However, the charterer denied the provisions of the charterparty entitled the owner to these damages, and asserted the owner was only entitled to demurrage.

SK Shipping Europe PLC v. Capital VLCC 3 Corporation and Others (The “C Challenger”) – Court of Appeal (Males, Phillips and Carr LJJ) [2022] EWCA Civ 231– 25 February 2022

OVER CONSUMPTION – REPUDIATORY BREACH – TIME CHARTER – SHELLTIME 4 FORM – FALSE REPRESENTATION
Capital Maritime and Trade Corporation negotiated a two-year time charter with SK Shipping on November 25, 2016. The speed and consumption data of the vessels’ last 3 voyages were set out in the charterparty and were guaranteed for future voyages by SK Shipping. Capital Maritime noticed far greater consumption than was guaranteed and ceased paying hire, eventually terminating the charter. Capital Maritime appealed the first court’s decision claiming the representation of consumption in the charter implied a guaranteed representation of future performance.

Sea Master Shipping Inc v. Arab Bank (Switzerland) Ltd and Another (The “Sea Master”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 28 July 2020

NORGRAIN 89 FORM – INSOLVENT CHARTERER – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES – COGSA 1992 – CARGO FINANCING – RECEIVERS
Seamaster Shipping, the registered owner of the subject vessel Sea Master, appealed an earlier court decision dismissing their claim for demurrage, or damages in lieu of demurrage, due to delays at the discharge port during a charter to Agribusiness United DMCC.

Poten & Partners, Inc. v. MTM Trading, LLC. (MTM “Gibralter”) – SMA No. 4445, 16 May 2022

DEMURRAGE – WAITING TIME – AMENDED BPVOY4 FORM – COMMISSION – CHARTER BROKER
The MTM Gibraltar was chartered to voyage from Houston to Tuxpan with an option of one or two consecutive voyages. During the second voyage after loading was completed, the vessel spent 117 days waiting for further orders by the charterer, Laurel Shipping LLC. The charter broker, Poten & Partners, claimed that this waiting period counted as demurrage and claimed they were owed commission for these 117 days.

Stolt Tankers BV v. Stryker Fuels LLC (MT “MONAX”) – SMA No. 4449, 4 August 2022

DAMAGES – UNSTABLE CARGO – TIME BAR CLAUSE
The MT Monax was chartered to make two voyages, one from Ontario to New York carrying Residual Fuel Oil (RFO), and the second from Ontario to Belgium carrying clean products. The voyages were completed between July 1 and September 3. On September 23, 2021, the owner, Stolt Tankers, submitted a claim for damages stating that the RFO was unstable, preventing complete discharge and requiring extensive tank cleaning. The charterer, Stryker Fuels, countered that the claim should be dismissed because it was made outside of the time bar period.

Eagle Bulk PTE. LTD. v. Salt Source, LLC, (M/V “Gladiator”) – SMA No. 4448, 29 July 2022

FORCE MAJEURE – ANTICIPATORY BREACH – COVID 19 – HURRICANE DAMAGE – CARGO CONTAMINATION – REPUDIATORY BREACH – DEMURRAGE
The MV Gladiator was chartered under a Contract of Affreightment to transport salt from Brazil to Alabama from March-December 2020. The disponent owner, Eagle Bulk, disputed load port demurrage from the first lifting, unpaid freight charges, and losses for a breach of contract due to the charterer, Salt Source, failing to nominate a second cargo. Salt Source counterclaimed for damages to a portion of their cargo which they claimed had been contaminated during the voyage and claimed force majeure due to Covid-19 and Hurricane Sally for the cancellation of the remaining contracted voyages.

London Arbitration 12/22

BERTHING CHARGES – LAYTIME – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES – AMENDED GENCON 94
Owner refused to let its vessel proceed to berth at the discharge port due to lack of space in its storage yard. Arbitration continued to decide whether the owner was entitled to refuse the orders of the charterer.

Astir Holdings, Inc. v. Xcoal Energy & Resources (The “Lacon”) – SMA No.4438, 25 February 2022

AMERICANIZED WELSH COAL CHARTER – DEMURRAGE – SECOND DISCHARGE BERTH – QUARANTINE INSPECTION – REPOSITIONING CREDIT
Xcoal Energy & Resources chartered Astir Holdings Inc. for carriage of coal from Mobile to one safe berth at Jingtang. En route, Xcoal changed its discharging port from Jingtang to Lanshan, and claimed a repositioning credit since Lanshan was closer to the vessel’s next port. Astir approved the request to unload at two discharging berths instead of the one that was contractually agreed upon, however exceptions to laytime and demurrage at the second berth were not discussed at the time. Arbitration was sought to determine if the charterer’s exceptions to time counting as demurrage should apply for the second discharging berth.