Author: Tom Haugen

London Arbitration 5/15

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- VESSEL COLLISION WITH BERTH – DELAYED BERTHING AT NEXT PORT – WHEN IS VESSEL CONSIDERED OFF-HIRE – WHETHER COLLISION PREVENTED CHARTERERS FROM BRINGING CLAIMS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS -- Owner Award In this dispute the vessel had a collision with the berth at the first load port sustaining damage to one of its holds. At the following load port the points of contention were over the time period the vessel was considered off-hire, and what damages the charterers were owed due to the inability to bring claims against their sub-charterers.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Idemitsu Apollo Corp. v. Navig8 Chemical Pool Inc. (The “Atlantic Jupiter”) – SMA No. 4257, 23 Jun 2015

CHARTER PARTY – CANCELED – MAJOR ISSUES DURING LOADING – VESSEL BANNED FROM TERMINAL – VESSEL UNABLE TO FULLY LOAD CARGO – Charterer Award Because of multiple terminal compliance issues the vessel was banned from berthing to load its cargo at the terminal. The charterers then canceled the charter party. Owners contended that the cancellation was invalid.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Kassiopi Maritime Co Ltd v FAL Shipping Co Ltd (The “Adventure”) – QBD (Comm Ct.), 19 Feb 2015

BPVOY4 -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME BAR -- FREE PRATIQUE -- WHETHER ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PRESENTED WITH CLAIM -- Charterer Award This dispute concerns demurrage incurred due to delays at both ports of loading and discharge. Certain documents required by the charterparty, based on the BPVOY4 form, had not been submitted within the 90-day limit and Charterers were attempting a time bar defense.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Trafigura Beheer BV v Navigazione Montanarini SpA (The “Valle di Cordoba”) – English Court of Appeal, 18 Feb 2015

BPVOY3 -- PIRACY -- FORCED TRANSFER OF CARGO -- LIABILITY FOR IN-TRANSIT LOSS OF CARGO -- Owner Award While en route to the discharge port the Vessel was overtaken by pirates who transferred about 15% of the cargo to an unknown vessel. Charterer argued that Owner had accepted a strict “In-Transit Loss” clause in the charter party and are therefore liable in this matter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 1/15

CLERICAL ERROR -- DOCUMENTS WRONGLY IDENTIFIED IN NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT -- LIMITED JURISDICTION -- TIME BAR -- Respondent Award This dispute arose as a result of a clerical error made by the consignee’s lawyers. When appointing an arbitrator, they used incorrect references to the same bill of lading contracts on various correspondences / documents. This variation inadvertently made the correspondences / documents apply to a non-existing contract, and subsequently, the Respondent argued that the corresponding claims should be time barred.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Navig8 Inc v South Vigour Shipping Inc and Others – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 16 Jan 2015

CHARTERPARTY -- WHETHER THE AGENT/MANAGER ACTED ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTERED OWNERS -- WHETHER REGISTERED OWNERS WERE PARTY TO THE CHARTERPARTIES -- MEANING OF THE PHRASE “DISPONENT OWNER” -- Registered Owners Award The Charterer submitted a damages claim against the Registered Owners of four vessels after they were withdrawn from the Charterers service. The Registered Owners claimed that they were not bound to the charterparties because they were not party to them, but rather by a third party without the authority to act on their behalf.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd (The “Ocean Victory”) – Court of Appeal, 22 Jan 2015

BARECON 90 FORM -- SAFE PORT -- SEVERE WEATHER -- WHETHER HULL INSURERS ENTITLED TO FILE SUBROGATED CLAIM AGAINST DEMISE CHARTERER -- Charterer Award This dispute between the Claimant and Intermediate Charterer began over damages stemming from the loss of the Vessel when she went aground at the discharge port due to severe weather. However, the claim did not succeed as the demise charter contained an express stipulation to exclude the rights of subrogation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 14/14

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION JURISDICTION -- VALIDITY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT -- DEMURRAGE AND PORT COSTS -- Owner Award The Charterer denied liability for demurrage under several defenses. They argued that they never agreed to be liable for demurrage nor that there was a valid arbitration agreement. And if the Tribunal held that the charter party did provide for those considerations, then each party’s signature would be required for it to be a valid agreement.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 16/14

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- LATE DELIVERY AND CREW CHANGE -- FAILURE TO PAY HIRE -- RIGHT TO WITHDRAW VESSEL -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award Charterer failed to make several hire payments and failed to reimburse bunker costs causing the Owner to withdraw the Vessel on the basis of Charterer’s repudiatory breach. Conversely, Charterer claimed that Owner’s withdrawal was improper because it was not in compliance with the governing term and asserted that Owner was in repudiatory breach by not following their voyage orders. Charterer counterclaimed for damages owing to the Vessel’s late delivery causing a missed cargo opportunity and rejected liability for hire when Owner failed to follow their voyage orders.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 18/14

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- SPEED AND PERFORMANCE -- BOTTOM FOULING -- RISK UNDER DIRECT CONTINUATION -- STEVEDORE DAMAGE -- Partial Owner Award Under the first trip charter the Vessel was forced to remain at the loadport anchorage for 48 days before sailing to the discharge port. Due to the extended delay, the high temperature waters caused bottom fouling that impacted her performance under two separate charters that were in direct continuation. At issue is whether the Owner breached the performance warranty under both trip charters and who is responsible for the hull cleaning costs.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.