Category: English Maritime Cases
SHELLTIME 4 - EARLY REDELIVERY - RENUNCIATORY / REPUDIATORY BREACH - DAMAGES
Charterer’s daily hire payments were delayed or missed. Then, when Charterer told Owner via email that it would like to cancel the Charter Party, Owner accepted Charterer’s alleged repudiatory breach and claimed for damages. Charterer disputed damages were due.
TIME CHARTER – OFF-HIRE FOR CLEANING OF HOLDS AFTER DISCHARGE – PROLONGED PORT STAY – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION When charterer’s cargo got wet and was compacted during discharge, extensive cleaning of the holds was required. During the cleaning, 2 cleaning machines were damaged. Charterer disputed the time spent cleaning and the cost to repair the damaged machines. Further, charterer claimed underperformance which owner disputed on the basis that it resulted from the extensive stay in warm waters whilst cleaning. [dropcap]T[/dropcap]he following arbitral proceedings arose from the carriage of sulphur out of Ust-Luga, Russia under an amended NYPE form charter party...
STEMMOR 83 - VOYAGE CHARTER - ACCORD AND SATISFACTION - DETENTION - CUSTOMARY ANCHORAGE - NOR VALIDITY - MARKET RATE VS DEMURRAGE RATE - BUNKER COSTS
When charterer directed the vessel to cease loading, as she had originally been directed not to start loading until directed by charterer, additional expenses were incurred by owner which owner claimed from charterer. Then, at the disport the vessel was directed to wait outside the port and not tender NOR till directed. Owner subsequently claimed this delay as damages rather than as demurrage and at a rate higher than the demurrage rate.
SALES CONTRACT - RENUNCIATORY BREACH - FAILURE TO NOMINATE VESSEL - OBLIGATION TO DELIVER
When FOB seller indicated an inability to provide cargo, buyer did not nominate a vessel and later, formally accepted seller’s breach. Seller claimed the non-nomination was an oversight which alleviated it from having to provide the cargo. Damages claimed by Buyer were basis losses calculated by reference to hedging or alternatively, market value.
TIME CHARTER - FAILURE TO PAY HIRE - ORDER FOR SALE OF CARGO
When the vessel was sat by charterer for an extensive period of time with late or non-payment of hire, the Court was tasked with determining whether they had the power to implement an order for the sale of charterer’s cargo and whether they should.
TIME CHARTER - NYPE - DURATION - OPTION TO EXTEND
Basis verbiage in a pro forma recap, charterer argued for a 15 days extension of the time charter. Owner disagreed that an extension was due, pointing to the ultimate recap which did not reference the extension.
CLAIM FOR DETENTION - ASSESSMENT OF ACTUAL LOSS - WHETHER DEMURRAGE RATE USED FOR CALCULATION OF DAMAGES TO BE GROSS OR NET OF COMMISSION
After sitting at the agreed upon discharge port for an extended period charterer directed the vessel to a disport not included in the fixture recap. Upon the ultimate completion of discharge owner presented charterer with a claim for detention which utilized the agreed demurrage rate. The panel would be tasked at both determining the validity of the claim and the appropriate rate to be used.
NYPE – CRANE BREAKDOWN – OFF HIRE – LASHING MATERIALS – SHORE CRANE HIRE – BURDEN OF PROOF – PROVISION OF ORIGINAL INVOICES VERSUS PDF’s When one of the Vessel’s cranes couldn’t be used, charterer asserted the vessel was off hire and claimed for costs. Owner countered that as no time was lost the vessel was on hire and in response to charterer’s claim for costs, owner requested original invoices rather than .pdf’s. Owner also claimed for the cost of lashing material whilst charterer claimed for the cost of a shore crane hired due to vessel’s broken crane. [dropcap]A[/dropcap]long with...
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.
NYPE - INORDINATE AND INEXCUSABLE DELAY AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION - ARBITRATION ACT OF 1996 - APPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL DUE TO WANT OF PROSECUTION - LIMITATION PERIOD - APPLICATION TO APPEAL TO HIGH COURT
Damage claims arose after the collapse of a crane on board a vessel. Arbitration commenced two years later however no submissions were made until nearly 12 years after the incident. Charterer applied to have the claim dismissed for want of prosecution by owner. The panel agreed with charterer and owner applied to the High Court for a chance to appeal.
