Category: English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 22/18

TIME CHARTER – OFF-HIRE – HULL CLEANING – PERFORMANCE CLAIMS – OVERCONSUMPTION OF BUNKERS – GOOD WEATHER DAY – EXERCISE OF LIEN – DELAY Several disputes arose between Owner and Charterer under a time charter voyage with respect to off-hire, vessel performance, delays after discharging, and exercising liens. [dropcap]T[/dropcap]his arbitration covered several disputes arising from a voyage under a time charter on an amended NYPE form from Australia to India with a cargo of coal. The vessel made call in Singapore whilst on the way to the discharge port where the Charterer intended to bunker the vessel and the Owner...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 21/18

PERFORMANCE CLAIMS – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION – “ABOUT” TOLERANCES – CURRANT FACTORS – WEATHER ROUTING SERVICES – AIS – OFF-HIRE Charterer claimed against Owner for issues regarding vessel performance and off-hire. [dropcap]C[/dropcap]harterer claimed the vessel underperformed and overconsumed on a voyage, which was chartered under an amended NYPE form for a time charter. The Charterer supported their performance claim by supplying reports of the vessel’s performance from three weather routing companies. These three companies were referred to as X, Y, and Z throughout the arbitration. In the weather routing clause of the charter party the Charterer was warranted not to...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 19/18

DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – WHETHER BROKER IS AGENT OF OWNER OR CHARTERER – INTERMEDIATE BROKER – CONSEQUENTIAL DELAYS When Owner claimed demurrage with respect to eight voyages Charterer contended that seven of those were time-barred. The claim documents were sent to broker “D” who did not send them to the Charterer until after the time bar period. Owner contends that D was an agent of the Charterer, while Charterer contends D was an agent of the Owner.  Further, when engine troubles at the load port led to consequential delays at the disport which Charterer claimed...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 5/19

PARTIAL FINAL AWARD – LA 4/19 – HIRE DEDUCTIONS – WHETHER CHARTERER HAD REASONABLE GROUNDS TO DEDUCT FROM HIRE Owner claimed for hire amount deducted by Charterer stating the Charterer offered no reasonable grounds to make that deduction. [dropcap]T[/dropcap]his arbitration follows the award made in London Arbitration 4/19. The result of that arbitration was that the Owner would not be held liable to the cargo claim involving the Charterer, and therefore the Charterer’s deduction from hire would be dismissed. Owner pursued the issue further and claimed that the Charterer could not show reasonable grounds for the deduction from hire and...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 4/19

UNPAID HIRE – DEDUCTIONS TO HIRE – CHARTERER SETTLING WITH CARGO RECEIVER – CARGO CLAIM – INTER-CLUB NEW YORK PRODUCE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT – UNSEAWORTHINESS Owner claimed for unpaid hire from Charterer after Charterer had deducted it on the basis that the Charterer had to settle with the cargo receiver due to a delay in the vessel’s arrival at the discharge port caused by the vessel being unseaworthy. [dropcap]T[/dropcap]he subject of this arbitration is an unpaid hire sum amounting to $295,000.00 claimed by the Owner against the Charterer. Counterclaims were issued by the Charterer for the amount of $2,985.88 on the...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Gunvor SA v. CruGas Yemen Ltd and Another – QBD (Comm Ct), 23 July 2018

DEMURRAGE – SALES CONTRACT – TERM CONTRACT – TIME BAR – WHETHER DEMURRAGE IS INDEMNITY OR FREE-STANDING – CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – COA Seller claimed for demurrage and other sums against Buyer, which the Seller named incorrectly in the claim. Buyer contended that the demurrage claim was time-barred under the contract of affreightment provision to which the Buyer was not a party, the demurrage rate was not in line with market rate, and the Seller’s entitlement to demurrage was an indemnity under the contract of affreightment. [dropcap]G[/dropcap]unvor SA (hereinafter, “Seller”) entered into a written term contract for the sale of...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 26/17

CHARTER PARTY – REPUDIATORY BREACH – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFIT Owner claimed demurrage and damages from loss of profit after Charterer failed to provide cargo at loading port resulting in a repudiatory breach of the charter party. [dropcap]U[/dropcap]nder a fixture note using the Gencon 1994 form the Vessel was chartered to lift a shipment of coal ex Newcastle, Australia and discharging Kemen, China. Upon arrival at the loading port in Newcastle the Charterer failed to provide the cargo, and subsequently the Vessel accrued demurrage. Charterer then informed Owner that they would no...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 20/18

DEMURRAGE – SUBSTITUTE CHARTER PARTY – UNPAID FREIGHT – WHETHER OWNER CAN DELAY DISCHARGE OPERATIONS – POSSESSORY LIEN When Owner entered a substitute charter party upon the Original Charterer’s failure to pay freight the Substitute Charterer signed the fixture recap of the original charter. The question is whether the terms of the original charter pertain to the demurrage amount accrued by Substitute Charterer. [dropcap]T[/dropcap]he matter of this dispute arose following claims over the demurrage balance from a voyage under a substitute charter party. The Disponent Owner (hereinafter, “Owner”) entered into a charter party on the Gencon 4 form with the...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 16/18

DEMURRAGE – PORT CHARTER – NOTICE OF READINESS – WIPON PROVISION – GEOGRAPHICAL READINESS Owner claimed demurrage arising from delay where vessel was unable to proceed directly to berthing. The vessel tendered four notices of readiness, the third of which was argued as triggering laytime. [dropcap]T[/dropcap]he dispute of this arbitration concerns establishing the party responsible for the delay that occurred when the vessel attempted to berth at the discharge port of Saleef, Yemen. The vessel was chartered on an amended Gencon 94 form as a port charter. Owner claims for demurrage arising from the delay amounting to $86,088.02 plus interest...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 11/18

TIME CHARTER PARTY – OFF HIRE – SUB-CHARTER – OFF SPECIFICATION CARGO – WRONGFUL REDELIVERY When vessel was detained due to legal proceedings by the receiver against the charterer due to off spec cargo, charterer deducted the lost time from hire. [dropcap]T[/dropcap]his arbitration was consolidated from two that were held concurrently in accordance with para 14(b) of the LMAA Terms. Charterer under an amended Shelltime 4 form chartered the vessel from Owner for a time charter for a period of forty to seventy-five days with redelivery of the vessel in “med/black sea”. Subsequently the Charterer then sub-chartered the vessel under...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.