Category: English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 1/90

LAYTIME – ASBATANKVOY – STATUTORY READINESS – NOR WITHOUT COC – NULLITY – ESTOPPEL REJECTED Owners claimed laytime began at 22:30 on 4 August after NOR was tendered and accepted, but charterers argued the NOR was invalid due to the vessel lacking a U.S. Coast Guard certificate of compliance (COC) at the time.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 19/18

DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – BROKER AS AGENT - ESTOPPEL – CONSEQUENTIAL DELAY – EQUIPMENT BREAKDOWN – ASBATANKVOY – WITHOUT PREJUDICE This arbitration concerned a contract of affreightment (COA) for a series of voyages performed by two vessels carrying fuel oil/bitumen mix, chartered on an amended Asbatankvoy form. The dispute arose over unpaid demurrage in relation to eight of 87 total voyages, with the charter containing two relevant time bar provisions—one in Part I requiring demurrage claims and supporting documents within 30 days of discharge, and Clause 40 stipulating a 21-day limit.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

O v C – EWHC 2838 – King’s Bench Division, Commercial Court (Sir Nigel Teare) – 8 November 2024

LONDON ARBITRATION - US SANCTIONS - OFAC LICENSE TO SELL CARGO - BREACH OF SANCTIONS – APPEAL TO ENGLISH HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 44 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996 Charterers entered into a charterparty for a vessel carrying naphtha, but were added to the US OFAC sanctions list the same day, causing the cargo to become subject to US sanctions. Owners, fearing prosecution due to their US connections, terminated the charterparty and obtained an OFAC license to sell the cargo and hold proceeds in a blocked US account. Arbitration was initiated in London, and both parties approached the English High Court for directions on how the sale proceeds should be handled.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Lord Marine Co SA v Vimeksim Srb DOO (The “Lord Hassan”) [2024] EWHC 3305 (Comm) – King’s Bench Division, Commercial Court (Bryan J) – 14 October 2024

SALE OF CARGO – EFFECT OF LIEN – ARBITRATION ACT OF 1996 – PARADIGM CASE – CHARTERER OWNED CARGO – RECEIVER AS OWNERS’ AGENT – FAILURE TO RECEIVE BILL OF LADING

Lord Marine (the Owners) and their vessel, Lord Hassan, entered into a voyage charterparty with Vimeksim (the Charterers) on or before April 12, 2024. By May 18, 11,000 mt of cargo had been loaded at Chornomorsk. Lord Marine issued the bill of lading on a standard Congenform 1994 form, which went on to name AAK, the consignee, as the “Receivers”, despite neither them, nor the Charterers ever receiving it. In error, the freight was categorized as “Prepaid”, despite not being paid at that time, or at all.

Sea Consortium Pte Ltd and Others v Bengal Tiger Line Pte Ltd and Others [2024] EWHC 3174 (Admlty) – Admiralty Division (Andrew Baker J) – 12 December 2024

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – DEFINITION OF CHARTERER – DEFINITION OF SHIPOWNER – SLOT CHARTERER – CONTAINERIZED CARGO – VESSEL AND CARGO CASUALTY/LOSS

Killiney Shipping and Sea Consortium (the Charterers) entered into a Bareboat and a Time Charter, respectively with EOS RO (the Owners). Multiple contract agreements existed between the Parties. When a vessel laden with cargo under these multiple contracts caught fire, a limitation ruling was publicized, resulting in subsequent claims. In question was who was considered the charterer and who the shipowner with regard to the losses and liability.

London Arbitration 11/24

DEMURRAGE – ADVERSE WEATHER DELAY – BILLS OF LADING DELAY – CARGO LOAD DISCREPANCY – ANVOY FORM – SYNACOMEX 90 FORM – PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATE – DESPATCH – WEEKENDS EXCLUDED FROM LAYTIME – TIME EXCLUDED CLAUSE – DOCUMENTS ALLOWANCE – CUSTOMS CLEARANCE DELAY – DELAYS DURING WEEKENDS
The vessel was chartered for a single voyage transporting wheat between Russia and Brazil. Owners claimed demurrage of US$48,093.75 for time spent awaiting customs clearance over the weekend. Charterers denied liability, claiming this time was exempt from laytime, and filed a counterclaim of US$40,208.33.

London Arbitration 12/24

TIME CHARTER – AMENDED NYPE FORM – UNDERPERFORMANCE – LSMGO DISCREPANCY – ROB FUEL DISCREPANCY – OFF-HIRE VS UNPAID HIRE – CRANE FAILURE – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION METHODOLOGY – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY REPORTS

A vessel was time chartered under an amended NYPE 1993 form for the transport of paddy rice from Rio Grande to Veracruz. A dispute arose regarding the final hire accounts. Owners claimed US$11,854.31 for unpaid hire. Charterers denied liability, arguing deductions made to the claim were valid, citing underperformance, off-hire for crane failure, and a discrepancy in the LSMGO figures.

London Arbitration 15/24

VOYAGE CANCELLATION – TERMINATION OF CHARTER – BREACH OF CONTRACT– IMPLIED OBLIGATION OF GOOD FAITH – DAMAGES AND MITIGATION – OBTAINING SUBSTITUTE FIXTURE AFTER CANCELLATION – AMENDED GENCON FORM – MISSED CANCELLING DATE – SHIPPER’S CANCELLATION OF VOYAGE – WHETHER CARGO WAS SPECIFIC TO SHIPPERS OR AN AGREED OBLIGATION
A vessel chartered under an amended GENCON form was to transport scrap metal from Venezuela to Turkey. No loading occurred, and the charter was canceled. The dispute centered on Owners’ claim for damages due to the fixture’s cancellation and Charterers’ counter that Owners did not act in good faith to secure substitute employment.

London Arbitration 1/24

NORGRAIN FORM – CHANGE OF PORTS – CHANGE IN FREIGHT DUE TO CHANGE OF PORTS – DESPATCH TERMS – DO LOCAL PUBLIC HOLIDAYS COUNT FOR LAYTIME PURPOSES

A vessel chartered under an amended Norgrain agreement was to transport dense grains from Paranagua, Brazil, to China. The discharge points were initially Zhoushan and Taixing but were later changed to Tianjin. Disputes arose over outstanding freight charges and despatch claims.

London Arbitration 2/24

TIME CHARTER – NYPE FORM – BUNKERS UPON REDELIVERY – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION CLAIM – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY – ALLEGED ADDITIONAL / UNAUTHORIZED PORT CALL

In a time charter dispute based on an amended NYPE 1946 form, Owners claimed a balance of hire for $79,103.27, while Charterers denied responsibility and counterclaimed for $100,000, alleging the vessel had traveled an extra 250 miles and did not meet speed and consumption warranties.