Author: John Calandrello

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Five Navigation Co. LLC and Apex Bulk Carriers LLC v. Monjasa A/S and Monjasa Inc. (The “Quinn J”) – SMA No. 4271

BUNKER SUPPLY CONTRACT – INCORRECT SULPHUR CONTENT PROVIDED – VESSEL DETOURED TO ACQUIRE PROPER FUEL – WHETHER BUNKER SUPPLIER RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES – UCC VERSUS U.S. MARITIME LAW - WORKMANLIKE WARRANTY - Owner Award The owner negotiated a contract for low sulphur fuel oil to be loaded at an agreed upon location. However the incorrect bunker fuel was supplied, preventing the vessel from traveling to a port on the voyage route. An alternate location was then chosen and the appropriate fuel was loaded. After the operation was conducted, the owners submitted a claim for damages against the bunker supplier.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 4/16

BPVOY3 – FREIGHT RATE CALCULATION DISAGREEMENT – WHETHER RATE IS TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON COMPLETE VOYAGE – Owner Award A charterparty was negotiated for a voyage from a predetermined load port to one or two discharge ports with an addendum regarding the freight rate calculation. A disagreement ensued over the wording of addendum to how freight should be calculated; namely, whether the rate should be determined by taking into account the voyage in its entirety.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Lord & Taylor LLC v. Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. – 13 Civ. 3478, 10 Jun 2015

HURRICANE SANDY – WHETHER HURRICANE AN ACT OF GOD – WHETHER HURRICANE DAMAGE FORESEEABLE – Defendant Award A disagreement arose between two companies when cargo was damaged by Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge. The claimant hoped to recover damages for the lost cargo. The defendant refused, citing that the storm was an Act of God and that the damage was not foreseeable.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Navig8 Chemicals Asia Pte, Ltd. and Navig8 Chemicals Pool, Inc. v Crest Energy Partners LP (The “Songa Peace”) – SMA No. 4262, 11 Sep 2015

ASBATANKVOY - UNPAID DEMURRAGE - VESSEL IDLE FOR 20 DAYS - FORCE MAJEURE - REPUDIATED CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT (COA) - Owner Award The Charterer failed to pay demurrage on the first voyage of a two-voyage COA. On the second voyage, the Vessel sat for 20 days before the Charterer repudiated the contract by claiming force majeure because of “recent tropical storm activity” and the resulting high water content in the intended cargo.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Polaris Shipping Co Ltd v. Sinoriches Enterprises Co Ltd (The “Ocean Virgo”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 27 November 2015

NYPE TIME CHARTER – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION WARRANTY – HOW LONG MUST A PERIOD OF GOOD WEATHER BE – ERROR OF LAW – Charterer Award Under a time charter, an arbitration panel defined a “good weather day” as being 24 consecutive hours from noon to noon. As there were no noon to noon periods of good weather, the panel dismissed charterer’s claim for poor performance. The charterer appealed basis the panel having made errors of law.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 18/15

GENCON 94 – CHARTERER PAYS BUNKERS AND DISCHARGE PORT DISBURSEMENTS TO COMMENCE VOYAGE AFTER DISPONENT OWNER REFUSES TO PAY HEAD OWNER – CHARTERER CLAIMED DAMAGES FROM DISPONENT OWNER – Charterer Award The head owner of the vessel asked the disponent owner to render payment for bunkers and discharge port disbursements before the commencement of the voyage. After the disponent owner did not comply, the charterer made payment in order to avoid further delay. The charterer then claimed damages against the disponent owner after the completion of the voyage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

ST Shipping & Transport Inc v. Kriti Filoxenia Shipping Co SA (The “Kriti Filoxenia”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 14 May 2015

CHARTER PARTY – BPVOY3 – LOAD PORT CHANGED EN-ROUTE – VESSEL TO ARRIVE ONE DAY AFTER LAYCAN – CHARTERER CANCELS CHARTER PARTY – VALIDITY OF CANCELLATION – Owner award This is charterer’s appeal of an arbitration. The vessel was en-route to the nominated load port when the charterer nominated a different port for loading. Owner then advised the charterer that the vessel would arrive one day after the laycan and the charterer subsequently cancelled the charter party.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.