Author: John Calandrello

Cargill Incorporated, Ocean Transportation v. Triorient LLC (The “Josco Huizhou”) – SMA No. 4416, 11 Nov 2020


After awaiting Charterer’s cargo for ~2+ months and not receiving a satisfactory answer as to when it would be provided, Owner terminated the Charter, claiming that the Charterer was in breach and repudiation of the agreement. The Owner then brought a case to arbitration, once the Charterer did not respond to the claims that were submitted to them regarding the incident.

Star Tankers, Inc. v Citgo Petroleum Corporation (The “DS Promoter”) – SMA No. 4399, 7 Aug 2020


Owner submitted four undisputed invoices to the charterer, regarding a voyage from the U.S. to Venezuela. The Charterer refused to attempt payment of the invoices, contending that an OFAC License may be needed in order to allow the transfer of funds due to sanctions against Venezuela. Arbitrators were asked to determine if an OFAC License was needed, and if so, which party was responsible for acquiring the Licence.

Tenacity Marine Inc. v Ecopetrol, S.A. (The “Tenacity”) – SMA 4311, 20 April 2017

EXXONMOBILVOY2005 - DEMURRAGE - DELAY DUE TO FOG - WHETHER GALENA PARK A PORT OR IN THE PORT OF HOUSTON - WHETHER HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL A RIVERPORT - RIVERPORT CLAUSE - DISPUTE OVER BURDEN OF PROOF - Charterer Award When charterer deducted fifty percent of a delay due to fog basis an exceptions clause, owner countered that the Houston Ship Channel was a riverport and thus the “Riverport(s) Clause” applied with the weather delay subsequently counting in full.  In addressing this question, the Panel also advised as to where the burden of proof would lie and whether Galena Park was a port.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 11/17

TIME CHARTER - GULF OF ADEN TRANSIT, YEMEN DISCHARGE - PREMIUMS AND WAR RISKS - ARMED GUARDS - CREW BONUS - CHARTERER CLAIMED CULPABLE DELAY After discharging in Yemen, the shipowner claimed for additional premiums, armed guards, the armed guards’ meals, expenses related to a crew change, and crew bonuses. The charterer rejected these charges, claiming that the charges were due to a culpable delay on the owner's part.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Interoceanic Corporation v Helm Dungemittel GMBH and Helm Fertilizer Corp. – SMA 4305, March 3, 2017

FOB SALE - VESSEL ARRIVING LATE - SECOND VESSEL NOMINATED - CONTRACT AMENDED FOR NEW LAYCAN - PRODUCER’S MARKETER CLAIMED DAMAGES FOR ALLEGED EFFORTS TO AVOID PLANT SHUTDOWN - BUYER CLAIMED FOR DEMURRAGE AND DAMAGES DUE TO MISSED OPPORTUNITY A contract was fixed for the sale of ammonium sulfate to be loaded in Pasadena, Texas. After the originally nominated vessel was to miss the laycan, a replacement vessel was nominated. The contract was then re-negotiated with a new window and cargo quantity. Later, the producer’s marketer claimed for damages incurred when several barges were loaded to avoid a plant shutdown. The buyer claimed for demurrage and damages due to a missed opportunity.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Seatrade Group N.V. v Isabella Shipping Company Limited (The “Santa Catharina”) – SMA 4303, 21 February 2017

TIME CHARTER – VESSEL CRANE FAILURE – UNABLE TO USE 1 HOLD ON THE SHIP – CHARTERER WITHHELD A PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF HIRE – OWNER BELIEVED HIRE DUE IN FULL – CHARTERER GOING OUT OF BUSINESS – PARTIAL AWARD FOR SECURITY Although continuing to trade, due to a crane breakdown onboard a time chartered vessel cargo capacity was reduced for a month and a half for which the charterer withheld a pro rata share of hire. The owner countered that as no time was lost, hire is due in full. After the owner was informed that the charterer was going...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 3/17

CHARTER PARTY - SPECIFIC DISCHARGE PORT PROVISIONS - DEMURRAGE COP - DISPUTE OVER “ALWAYS ACCESSIBLE” PROVISION - DEMURRAGE AND DETENTION IN QUESTION After the vessel arrived at the disport, a port strike coupled with low berthing priority status caused extensive delays. The owners argued that charterers had not met their responsibility of providing a berth that was “always accessible” and sought to claim reimbursement for this delay as detention, or alternatively, demurrage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 25/16

GENCON – DEMURRAGE/DESPATCH – CAN USED LAYTIME BE PRO-RATED BASIS THE NUMBER OF HATCHES WORKED – DID A WEATHER DELAY OCCUR – DID CHARTER JUSTIFY DEDUCTIONS DURING NIGHTTIME Regarding demurrage incurred, the charterer believed that the used laytime needed to be pro-rated basis the amount of hatches being worked at any given time. Additionally, the charterer requested deductions for bad weather and the times the ship was not working during nighttime hours. The owner disagreed with these points, and took the case to arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 26/16

BALTIMORE FORM C BERTH GRAIN VOYAGE CHARTER – CARGO SHORT LOADED - BUYER DEMANDS DISCOUNT FROM CHARTERER AFFILIATED SELLER – CHARTERER CLAIMS DAMAGES IN THE FORM OF THE DISCOUNT FROM OWNER – WHETHER DISCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE OF DAMAGES - WHETHER CHARTERER EVEN LIABLE FOR LOSSES After a vessel was short loaded, the charterer affiliated seller had to sell the cargo at a discount due to buyer’s demands. The charterer then claimed damages from the owner in the form of the discount, arguing that the vessel was at fault for the short load. The owner rejected this, and the charterer brought the case to arbitration.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Buenamar Compania Naviera, SA v Panatlantic Bulk Carriers, Inc. – SMA 1339, 9 Jun 1979

BALTIMORE BERTH GRAIN FORM - DEVIATION - LATE LOAD PORT NOMINATION - DEADFREIGHT - LT ALLOWANCE - ALWAYS AFLOAT Several disputes arose between an owner and charterer concerning a cargo delivery that took place from Texas to Columbia. This included a deviation claim arising from a late port nomination and a short load due to draft at the public elevator. The owner had attempted to prevent the issue by requesting a change in load port rotation, but this never came to fruition. The owner contended that the charterer failed to provide a berth whereat the vessel could load always afloat, and charged deadfreight for the unloaded quantity. A dispute also arose over whether laytime allowance should be received were deadfreight to be paid.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.