Author: Haugen Consulting

London Arbitration 27/19

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 26/19

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Alianca Navegacao e Logistica Ltda v Ameropa SA (The “Santa Isabella”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Andrew Henshaw QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court) [2019] EWHC 3152 (Comm) – 22 November 2019

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Bilgent Shipping Pte Ltd v ADM International Sarl (The “Alpha Harmony”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Teare J) [2019] EWHC 2522 (Comm) – 2 October 2019

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Seatrade Group NV v Hakan Agro DMCC (The “Aconcagua Bay”) QBD (Comm Ct) (Robin Knowles J) [2018] EWHC 654 (Comm) – 26 March 2018

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Ocean Prefect Shipping Ltd v Dampskibsselskabet Norden AS (The “Ocean Prefect”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Teare J) [2019] EWHC 3368 (Comm) – 6 December 2019

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 4/14

SALE CONTRACT -- FOB DEMURRAGE -- RIVER PORT -- NOR TENDERED PRIOR TO ARRIVAL -- VESSEL’S SUSPENSION OF LOADING DUE POSSIBLE CARGO CONTAMINATION -- APPROPRIATE DATE FOR CURRENCY EXHANGE RATE -- Buyer Award Under an FOB sale of ethanol ex Matadi, Democratic Republic of the Congo the Seller invoiced the Buyer for the contract price, which was paid by the Buyer. Subsequently the Seller claimed additional costs and supplemental freight, which the Buyer did not dispute, however Buyer presented a counterclaim for demurrage stating that it should be set off against Seller’s claim. Seller brought arbitration proceedings against the Buyer to dispute the demurrage and to recover the supplemental charges.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Flame SA v. Glory Wealth Shipping Pte. Ltd. (The “Glory Wealth”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 22 Oct 2013

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 1/14

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER TRIP -- SPEED AND BUNKER CONSUMPTION -- ONGOING PERFORMANCE WARRANTY -- Partial Charterer Award At issue is whether the seaworthiness of the Vessel as warranted in clause 1 "for the service and all time during the currency of this Charter" applies to the speed and consumption warranty as a continuing warranty throughout the duration of the charter (not just at the time of delivery).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.