Category: English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 13/22

BREACH BY CHARTERER – EXCESS BUNKERS – REDELIVERY NOTICE – NYPE 1946 – QUANTIFICATION OF LOSS - FIXTURE RECAP A vessel was chartered by a fixture recap incorporating the terms of an amended NYPE 1946 form. Charterer delivered the vessel back to her owner with excess bunkers and insufficient redelivery notices. Arbitration began to quantify the loss due to the two admitted charter breaches. The charterer admitted to the breaches of the charter, but claimed that the term “ABT” in the contract should offer them extra allowances in terms of the excess bunkers. The owner claimed that with sufficient redelivery notice they could have found alternative employment for the vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 30/22

DEMURRAGE – AMENDED ASBATANKVOY FORM – NOTICE OF READINESS – NORT VIA EMAIL The subject vessel was chartered on an amended Asbatankvoy form. After completion of the voyage, the owner submitted a claim for demurrage, however the charterer argued the notice of readiness at the discharge port was invalid because it was tendered via email. Charterer held time should start counting when discharge commenced.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 19/22

NOTICE OF READINESS - NOR - DEMURRAGE – ALTERNATIVE ANCHORAGE The subject vessel was hired to transport aniline from China to Houston and tendered NOR while at the Shanghai shipyard. The owner claimed there was no waiting space at the loadport, the berth was occupied, and the anchorage at CJK was congested. Charterers denied demurrage costs incurred, asserting the NOR was invalid for it was not tendered at the customary anchorage per charterparty requirements. The owner asserted it was implied that if the vessel were not able to enter the loadport, NOR could be tendered at a location equidistant or nearer to the loadport than the customary anchorage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 29/22

SPEED AND CONSUMPTION METHODOLOGY – REDELIVERY - REDELIVERY OF BUNKERS - ARMED GUARDS – HULL FOULING – AMENDED NYPE 1946 FORM – TUG ASSISTANCE – OFF HIRE – BIMCO PIRACY CLAUSE A subject vessel was chartered for four to seven months. After redelivery, the owner issued a Final Hire Statement, and the charterer denied owing any balance to the owner. The issues under dispute in the proceedings were speed and consumption, redelivery, redelivery of bunkers, armed guards, hull fouling, damage, and tug assistance.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 23/21

NYPE FORM 1946 – BREACH OF CHARTER – PERFORMANCE WARRANTY – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION CLAIM – WEATHER DISCREPANCY – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY
A single-deck geared bulk carrier was chartered on an NYPE 1946 form for a one-time charter trip to transport soya bean meal (SBM) from Argentina to Cuba. The voyage was estimated to take roughly 55 days. The charterer employed a weather routing company (WRC) to monitor the vessel for the contract period. Based on the WRC data, a performance dispute arose with the charterer claiming $ 78,489.47 off-hire and excessive bunker consumption. The owner asserted the WRC data was not collected nor calculated per charter party provisions.

BP Oil International Ltd v Glencore Energy UK Ltd – Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2022] EWHC 499 (Comm) – Moulder J – 9 March 2022

CONTRACT OF SALE – FAILED NEGOTIATIONS – CONCLUSION OF CONTRACT – POOR QUALITY OF CRUDE OIL – DAMAGES – DEMURRAGE – SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979, SECTION 53
In an April 2019 contract of sale for Russian crude oil, Glencore agreed to sell 100,000 mt +/- ten percent to BPOI. Email correspondence between the two companies indicated the contract was confirmed; however, the parties disagreed on whether the governing terms included the Glencore Sales Contract, which specifically required the loading terminal certificate of quality to be conclusive. The cargo was sold and resold multiple times between BPOI and its affiliated companies, and upon final discharge, BPOI sample tests indicated organic chlorides contaminated the cargo. BPOI claimed damages for the loss of cargo value, storage and transportation costs of the contaminated oil, cargo volume losses, and demurrage paid on other vessels due to the delay.

Tricon Energy Ltd v MTM Trading LLC (The “MTM Hong Kong”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Robin Knowles J) [2020] EWHC 700 (Comm) – 23 March 2020

DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – FAILURE TO PROVIDE ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WITHIN 90 DAYS OF DISCHARGE – AMENDED ASBATANKVOY

Tricon Energy contracted the “MTM HONG KONG” under an amended ASBATANKVOY charter to deliver cargo from Antwerp, Belgium, to Houston, Texas. As a result of delays at the load and discharge ports, the owners, MTM Trading, filed a $56K claim for demurrage. Charterer claimed the owner had failed to provide all documentation within the 90-day period, specifically the bills of lading, so the claim was time-barred. The owner took the case to arbitration, and the claim was upheld. Charterer appealed to the High Court.

Palmali Shipping SA v Litasco SA– QBD (Comm Ct) (Foxton J) [2020] EWHC 2581 (Comm) – 1 October 2020

CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – FAILURE TO HONOR MINIMUM QUANTITY OF CARGO CONTRACT – LOSS OF PROFITS – TRANSFERRED LOSS PRINCIPLE
Palmali sought US$1.9 billion in damages from Litasco under a long-term contract of affreightment (COA). Palmali contended the COA gave it exclusive rights to carry oil products for Litasco between multiple ports in the Caspian Sea, Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Further, Palmali asserted the COA guaranteed Litasco would ship a minimum quantity of 400,000 MT (the Minimum Quantity Obligation), with a total monthly volume of 700,000 MT/month.

Laysun Service Co Ltd v Del Monte International GmbH [2022] EWHC 699 (Comm) (Calver J) – 28 March 2022

CHARTERPARTY – CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – COA – FORCE MAJEURE – APPEAL AGAINST ARBITRATION AWARD – ARBITRATION ACT 1996, SECTION 69
In December 2017, Del Monte entered into a contract of affreightment (COA) with Laysun to transport refrigerated bananas from the Philippines to Iran. The agreement was for 36 voyages from January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2018. After 17 shipments, Del Monte stopped providing cargos. Layson sought arbitration for Del Monte’s failure to supply the remaining shipment. Del Monte claimed force majeure due to US Sanctions against Iran and the resulting import restrictions. Laysun appealed the arbitration citing error of law under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Nautica Marine Ltd v Trafigura Trading LLC (The “Leonidas”) – English Commercial Court: Foxton J: [2020] EWHC 1986 (Comm): 28 July 2020

VOYAGE CHARTER - APPROVAL OF A VESSEL - DAMAGES FROM BREACH OF CHARTER - PRE-CONDITION OF CHARTER - PERFORMANCE CONDITION OF CONTRACT - IMPLIED OBLIGATIONS OF CHARTERER - PUTATIVE LOSS OF PROFITS – BREACH OF CHARTER Nautica (Owner) negotiated a prospective voyage charter of the tanker "Leonidas" with Trafigura (Charterer) for a laden voyage carrying oil cargoes. The charter was subject to obtaining suppliers' approval of the vessel within a four-day deadline. When the deadline passed without Trafigura obtaining suppliers' approval, the charter was abandoned. Nautica claimed damages for the charterer's alleged breach of charter of the difference between the profit it would have gained on the prospective charter and the (lesser) profit made on the fixture entered.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.