DEMURRAGE - TROPICAL STORM- FORCE MAJEURE - DUE DILIGENCE - BAD WEATHER CLAUSE - TERMINAL CLOSING - PORT CLOSING - HURRICANE A vessel chartered under a contract of affreightment was scheduled to load 60,000 mt of coal from a terminal on the Mississippi when the terminal ordered her to vacate the berth due to an impending hurricane. The owner claimed demurrage of US$330,495 for the time spent awaiting the vessel’s return to the berth, however, the charterer denied any liability for the demurrage incurred claiming bad weather, events outside of their control, and force majeure.
AMENDED NYPE - TIME CHARTER - DEDUCTIONS FROM HIRE- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION- GOOD WEATHER AND SMOOTH SEA- WEATHER CONDITIONS - WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY REPORT The subject vessel was chartered on an amended NYPE to transport steel from Brazil to Baltimore. After the voyage, the owners claimed a balance of hire which the charterers subsequently denied. Under dispute were speed and consumption, vessel weather reporting, and the weather routing company report.
NYPE - DEDUCTION FROM HIRE - SHORE CRANE CHARGES - SPEED - CONSUMPTION After Charterers had deducted hire based on shore crane charges as well as claimed underperformance and overconsumption from a chartered vessel, the Tribunal was left to determine if these charges were reasonable or if the shipowner’s evidence would disprove these actions.
CHARTER PARTY - SPEED AND CONSUMPTION CLAIM - WHETHER CHARTERER ENTITLED TO MAKE DEDUCTION FROM HIRE - WHETHER VESSEL UNDER PERFORMED After Charterer filed a claim against shipowner for speed and over consumption as well as deduction of hire based on a report made by an independent weather bureau, the Tribunal was left to determine if the claim was unreasonable or if the shipowner had failed to make correct claims about the performance of their vessel.
Charterer time barred Owner’s claim for demurrage when it failed to include documents required within the time bar clause. Owner contested Charterer’s position as the documents in question had been received by Charterer prior to receipt of the demurrage claim.
Upon arrival at the disport, cargo damage was discovered which delayed discharge. Charterers argued they are not liable for the delays or damage to the cargo on the account of owners failing to properly care for the cargo or choose the “usual and reasonable route”. The key issues addressed for a decision were: choice of route, vessel speed/reasonable despatch, ventilation, re-infestation, quarantine, and delays in discharging.
Sub-Charterer cancelled the Sub-Charter on the grounds that although the NOR was tendered prior to the end of the cancellation date, the NOR was not tendered within the permitted hours denoted in the Sub-Charter. The charterer subsequently cancelled the Head Charter basis the same grounds.
Owner claimed damages against the charterers for detention for the extensive delay leaving berth due to a damaged bridge and lock. Owners’ supported their argument by claiming charterers were in breach of the “always accessible” warranty found in the charterparty. The question for decision was if the warranty was to include both the arrival and departure to berth.
The “Ocean Prefect” ran aground upon entering the port of Umm Al Quwain. Owner claimed that the Charterer breached the safe port warranty and commenced arbitration proceedings. The question that arose is whether the MAIB report is admissible in the arbitration as evidence.
CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award A three-year contract of affreightment (COA) was fixed basis six liftings per year from 2009 to 2011. Charterer failed to declare laycans for the last two shipments of 2009 and for all shipments the following year. At arbitration the Disponent Owner was awarded damages in the form of lost revenues, being the difference between the COA and market rate. Charterer appealed claiming that the Tribunal erred at law and serious irregularity. Namely, that after the sudden collapse of the freight market in 2009 the Owner’s financial position had deteriorated to a point that would have prevented them from being able to provide the required vessels; the tribunal’s belated request for supporting documents from Owner; and, the tribunal’s failure to consider the issue of Owner’s dishonesty raised by Charterer.