Category: Archive

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Castleton Commodities Shipping Co. Pte. v Vulica Shipping Ltd. – SMA 4287, 16 Sep 2016

BIMCO OREVOY VOYAGE CHARTER - VESSEL UNABLE TO LIFT MINIMUM QUANTITY - OWNER CLAIMS FORCE MAJEURE - CHARTERER REPUDIATES CHARTER AND CHARTERS SUBSTITUTE VESSEL A vessel arrived at the load port with a portion of her previous cargo frozen to the inside of her hold. After owner failed to secure a substitute vessel charterer terminated the charter and fixed its own sub. Charterer’s claim for damages was denied by owner who presented a counterclaim basis what owner believed to be charterer’s wrongful repudiation of the charter party.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co Ltd – Court of Appeal, 7 Oct 2016

NYPE 1993 TIME CHARTERS - FAILURE TO PAY HIRE - WITHDRAWAL OF VESSEL FROM LONG TERM TIME CHARTER - WHETHER PUNCTUAL HIRE PAYMENTS A CONDITION OF THE CHARTER - WHETHER CHARTERER IN RENUNCIATORY BREACH While on separate time charters owner withdrew three vessels from service due to charterer’s failure to pay hire in accordance with the contracts. Owner brought arbitration against the charterer. However, shortly before the hearing the charterer was liquified and the proceedings stayed. The present case involves the charterer’s parent company, as guarantor.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

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.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

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.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

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.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

ADM International SARL v Colbun S.A (The “MN Bulk Orion”) – SMA 4281, 30 Jun 2016

VALIDITY OF NOR TENDERED PRIOR TO FREE PRATIQUE AND CUSTOMS CLEARANCE AND WITH STOWAWAYS ONBOARD - OWNER’S OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE PRESENCE OF STOWAWAYS - WHETHER PANAMA CANAL EXPENSES DUE TO OVERLOADING FOR OWNER’S OR CHARTERER’S ACCOUNT Under a COA a vessel was nominated to carry coal from Colombia to Chile. Due to not yet having obtained free pratique and customs clearance, and whilst having stowaways onboard, Charterer argued that the NOR tendered at load was invalid. During transit to the disport the vessel was found in breach of Panama Canal draft restrictions and incurred unexpected expenses due to overloading which each party believes to be for the other party’s account.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 24/16

TIME CHARTER – HOLD INSPECTION FAILED – WHETHER DELAY IN RE-BERTHING AFTER HOLDS CLEANED AND PASSED INSPECTION OFF HIRE Upon arrival at the load port, the vessel’s holds failed inspection. After the holds were cleaned, the vessel was re-entered into the berthing queue. Charterer claimed the second delay in berthing was due to the holds failing inspection whereas owner claimed it was due to berth congestion.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Imperator I Maritime Co v. Bunge SA (The “Coral Seas”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 24 June 2016

TIME CHARTER - VESSEL FAILED SPEED WARRANTY DUE TO FOULING, ITSELF RESULTING FROM A PROLONGED WAIT IN TROPICAL WATERS - WHETHER FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SPEED THE RESULT OF COMPLIANCE WITH CHARTERER'S ORDERS Due to an underperformance caused by fouling on the Vessel, itself caused by extended stay in tropical waters as ordered by charterer, charterer claimed off hire. Owner countered stating the underperformance resulted from compliance with the charterer’s orders.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 22/16

TIME CHARTER – PIRACY CLAUSE – OWNER TAKES SHORTEST ROUTE THROUGH DANGEROUS WATERS - ADDED SECURITY AND INSURANCE OBTAINED – CHARTERER CLAIMS THEIR PROVIDED ROUTE WAS SAFE – OWNER REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS A vessel was chartered to conduct a voyage from New Orleans to India. The Owner of the vessel traveled the shortest route possible, through a high piracy risk area, ignoring the Charterer’s order to proceed via a safer route. The Owner supported their decision by saying that it saved on steaming and bunker costs, and claimed reimbursement for insurance and the extra security obtained.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.