Author: Haugen Consulting

Profindo Pte. Ltd. v. Abani Trading Pte. Ltd. (The “Athens”) – High Court, 14 Jan 2013

CFR SALES CONTRACT -- DEMURRAGE -- SHORT-DELIVERY OF GOODS -- LOSS OF EARNINGS -- DAMAGES -- Partial Seller Award Demurrage resulted when the port authorities forced the Vessel to leave the berth during discharge operations in order to berth a tanker deemed to be a higher priority. The CFR Buyer denied responsibility for the demurrage and excess port charges; and, counterclaimed against the CFR Seller for short-delivery of goods totaling 4 M.T. and unsatisfactory product quality. The Seller also claimed for loss of earnings resulting from the Owner blacklisting them due to the late demurrage payment and their resultant inability to fulfill a subsequent sale contract.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Breffke & Hehnke GmbH & Co. KG and Ors v. Navire Shipping Co. Ltd. and Ors (The “Saga Explorer”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 7 Nov 2012

BILLS OF LADING PHRASING -- APPARENT GOOD ORDER -- CARGO QUALITY -- CONDITION OF GOODS -- RETLA CLAUSE -- COGSA -- CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION -- Consignee Award The Vessel was chartered to carry a cargo of steel pipes. At the loadport, the cargo was inspected and found to be in poor condition as stated in the Survey report and Mates Receipt, however, the Bills of Lading reflected "apparent good order". Consignee claimed for damages stemming from the misrepresented cargo condition in the Bills of Lading. Owner claimed that they were excused from liability under a protective “Retla clause” incorporated in the B/Ls.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Odfjell Tankers AS v. Colonial Oil Industries Inc. (The “Kiso”) – SMA No. 4187, 5 Oct 2012

ASBATANKVOY -- EXTENSION OF LAYDAYS -- DEMURRAGE -- NO RESPONSE FROM CHARTERER -- FAILURE TO NOMINATE ARBITRATOR -- Owner Award Charterer agreed to a laycan extension when it became clear that the Vessel would be unable to reach the loadport by the cancellation date. After the voyage, Owner submitted a claim for demurrage and Charterer disputed their calculation. Charterer did not respond to any further communication.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 5/12

SYNACOMEX -- "REACHABLE ON ARRIVAL" -- BREACH OWING TO ICE -- DETENTION -- WEATHER WORKING DAYS VS. LAYTIME EXCEPTIONS -- Partial Owner Award Upon arrival at anchorage the Vessel was delayed 11 days due to ice that prevented her from reaching berth. Owner submitted a claim for detention on the basis that Charterer breached the "always accessible" obligation. Within their decision, the Panel outlines what time counts when a Charterer breaches their “reachable upon arrival” obligation in a charter that defines laytime by weather working days. Furthermore, Owner exercised a lien on the cargo and seeks demurrage compensation for a three-day delay at the disport while awaiting Charterer’s payment of the load port detention claim.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 3/12

NYPE -- SPEED AND CONSUMPTION -- VESSEL UNDERPERFORMANCE -- FAIR WEATHER CLAUSE -- VOYAGES ASSESSED INDIVIDUALLY -- Charterer Award Charterer withheld hire due to Vessel underperformance in two out of the 17 voyages over the course of the time charter. Based upon the express performance warranty including the phrase "all sea passages" and The Didymi principle, the Vessel’s performance was to be measured for each individual voyage, not over the entire charter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

ED&F Man Sugar Ltd. v. Unicargo Transportgesellschaft mbH (The “Ladytramp”) – Court of Appeal, 19 Nov 2013

SUGAR CHARTER PARTY 1999 -- CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION -- FIRE CAUSING TERMINAL BREAKDOWN -- OBLIGATION TO NOMINATE ALTERNATE BERTH -- GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE DEFINED -- Owner Award Prior to the Vessel’s arrival at the load berth, a fire destroyed the terminal’s conveyor-belt system and the Vessel was forced to lie at anchorage and await Charterer’s instructions. Owner charged this delay as laytime, however Charterer argued that the inoperable conveyor-belt system should be considered a mechanical breakdown and therefore not count.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Great Elephant Corp. v. Trafigura Beheer BV (The “Crudesky”) – Court of Appeal, 25 Jul 2013

BPVOY 3 -- VESSEL DETAINED -- RESTRAINT OF PRINCES -- DEMURRAGE LIABILITY -- FORCE MAJEURE -- Partial Owner Award and FOB Seller Award Loading operations began without the presence of the required local government representative. The government subsequently revoked the Vessel’s clearance and refused to deliver the Vessel’s departure documents until the Terminal Operator paid a "fine" for her release. Owner claimed demurrage, costs for bunker and water consumption, and additional war insurance premiums. Charterer submitted a 3rd party demurrage liability claim against their FOB Seller.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 2/12

PRO-FORMA CHARTERPARTY -- DRAFT RESTRICTION OWING TO EARTHQUAKE -- DEADFREIGHT -- DESPATCH FOR EARLY LOADING -- Partial Charterer Award, Partial Owner Award An earthquake prior to the voyage changed the dimensions of the load port and the local port authority reduced the draft limit. In order to accommodate this change, the Vessel was forced to shortload her cargo and Owner filed a claim for deadfreight. Charterer counterclaimed for despatch for laytime saved by the Vessel in loading prior to laydays.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

BP Oil International Ltd v Target Shipping Ltd (The “Target”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 14 Jun 2012

BPVOY 4 -- REASONABLE OVERAGE FREIGHT -- EXCESS FREIGHT PAID -- RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT -- MISTAKE AT LAW -- Partial Charterer Award Charterer sought to recover a million dollars of excess freight paid on the Owner’s purportedly miscalculated invoice. At issue is whether freight overage applies for cargo carried in excess of the minimum volume stipulated when the additional port/region was not named in the Overage Section of the contract; and, whether the difference between the amount paid and the correct amount is recoverable at law as a payment made under a mistake.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 6/12

CHARTER CONSTRUCTION -- ADDITIONAL PORT NOMINATION -- NO LAYTIME ALLOWED TO OFFSET TIME COUNTING -- Owner Award While the Vessel was en route to disport, the parties entered into an agreement to call an additional port, allowed allowed within the fixture, wherein the laytime was to run between the Vessel’s arrival at pilot station until dropping outward pilot. Charterer argued that this Clause was to be calculated in conjunction with the laytime allowance provision. Owner contended that this clause was independent of the other charter party laytime clauses.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.