Category: English Maritime Cases
TRIP CHARTER – BERTHING DELAY – VESSEL GROUNDING – SAFE BERTH — BUNKER CONSUMPTION – CHARTERER’S RIGHT TO ACCESS SHIP’S GENERATORS — Partial Owner Award
In this dispute, Owner claimed damages for survey costs and delay in discharge due to an insufficient draft at the berth causing the vessel to touch bottom. Charterers counterclaimed for overpaid bunkers and wanted compensation for denied access to the vessel’s generators to power shore grabs.
DEMURRAGE — MISSING DOCUMENTS – OWNER’S CLAIM NOT PROVIDED – TIME BAR — Buyer Award
This dispute centers on determining the documents considered necessary to file a valid claim in order to avoid a time bar. In this case the seller was requesting demurrage payment while the buyer refused believing the claim had received a time bar.
NYPE — TIME CHARTER — VESSEL COLLISION WITH BERTH – DELAYED BERTHING AT NEXT PORT – WHEN IS VESSEL CONSIDERED OFF-HIRE – WHETHER COLLISION PREVENTED CHARTERERS FROM BRINGING CLAIMS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS — Owner Award
In this dispute the vessel had a collision with the berth at the first load port sustaining damage to one of its holds. At the following load port the points of contention were over the time period the vessel was considered off-hire, and what damages the charterers were owed due to the inability to bring claims against their sub-charterers.
BPVOY4 — DEMURRAGE — TIME BAR — FREE PRATIQUE — WHETHER ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PRESENTED WITH CLAIM — Charterer Award
This dispute concerns demurrage incurred due to delays at both ports of loading and discharge. Certain documents required by the charterparty, based on the BPVOY4 form, had not been submitted within the 90-day limit and Charterers were attempting a time bar defense.
FORCE MAJEURE — LOADING OF BAUXITE CAUSING UNAVOIDABLE DUST — SUSPENSION OF LOADING ORDERED BY PORT AUTHORITY — WHETHER CHARTERERS LIABLE FOR DELAY — Owner Award
This dispute arose under a contract of carriage of a sepiolite cargo from “1-2 load berth chop always afloat Santander” to a UK port. Charterer asserted that the force majeure clause in the governing contract denied any Owner’s claim in the form of demurrage, or alternatively, damages, as a result of delays caused by the port authority’s suspension of loading operations.
CLERICAL ERROR — DOCUMENTS WRONGLY IDENTIFIED IN NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT — LIMITED JURISDICTION — TIME BAR — Respondent Award
This dispute arose as a result of a clerical error made by the consignee’s lawyers. When appointing an arbitrator, they used incorrect references to the same bill of lading contracts on various correspondences / documents. This variation inadvertently made the correspondences / documents apply to a non-existing contract, and subsequently, the Respondent argued that the corresponding claims should be time barred.
BPVOY3 — PIRACY — FORCED TRANSFER OF CARGO — LIABILITY FOR IN-TRANSIT LOSS OF CARGO — Owner Award
While en route to the discharge port the Vessel was overtaken by pirates who transferred about 15% of the cargo to an unknown vessel. Charterer argued that Owner had accepted a strict “In-Transit Loss” clause in the charter party and are therefore liable in this matter.
CHARTERPARTY — WHETHER THE AGENT/MANAGER ACTED ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTERED OWNERS — WHETHER REGISTERED OWNERS WERE PARTY TO THE CHARTERPARTIES — MEANING OF THE PHRASE “DISPONENT OWNER” — Registered Owners Award
The Charterer submitted a damages claim against the Registered Owners of four vessels after they were withdrawn from the Charterers service. The Registered Owners claimed that they were not bound to the charterparties because they were not party to them, but rather by a third party without the authority to act on their behalf.
BARECON 90 FORM — SAFE PORT — SEVERE WEATHER — WHETHER HULL INSURERS ENTITLED TO FILE SUBROGATED CLAIM AGAINST DEMISE CHARTERER — Charterer Award
This dispute between the Claimant and Intermediate Charterer began over damages stemming from the loss of the Vessel when she went aground at the discharge port due to severe weather. However, the claim did not succeed as the demise charter contained an express stipulation to exclude the rights of subrogation.
ASBATANKVOY — ARBITRATION JURISDICTION — VALIDITY OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT — DEMURRAGE AND PORT COSTS — Owner Award
The Charterer denied liability for demurrage under several defenses. They argued that they never agreed to be liable for demurrage nor that there was a valid arbitration agreement. And if the Tribunal held that the charter party did provide for those considerations, then each party’s signature would be required for it to be a valid agreement.
