Category: English Maritime Cases
SYNACOMEX -- "REACHABLE ON ARRIVAL" -- BREACH OWING TO ICE -- DETENTION -- WEATHER WORKING DAYS VS. LAYTIME EXCEPTIONS -- Partial Owner Award
Upon arrival at anchorage the Vessel was delayed 11 days due to ice that prevented her from reaching berth. Owner submitted a claim for detention on the basis that Charterer breached the "always accessible" obligation. Within their decision, the Panel outlines what time counts when a Charterer breaches their “reachable upon arrival” obligation in a charter that defines laytime by weather working days. Furthermore, Owner exercised a lien on the cargo and seeks demurrage compensation for a three-day delay at the disport while awaiting Charterer’s payment of the load port detention claim.
CHARTER CONSTRUCTION -- ADDITIONAL PORT NOMINATION -- NO LAYTIME ALLOWED TO OFFSET TIME COUNTING -- Owner Award
While the Vessel was en route to disport, the parties entered into an agreement to call an additional port, allowed allowed within the fixture, wherein the laytime was to run between the Vessel’s arrival at pilot station until dropping outward pilot. Charterer argued that this Clause was to be calculated in conjunction with the laytime allowance provision. Owner contended that this clause was independent of the other charter party laytime clauses.
COA -- CARBOEX SA -- LOUIS DREYFUS COMMODITIES SUISSE SA -- DEMURRAGE -- AMWELSH -- PORT CONGESTION -- STRIKE -- PUERTO DE FERROL -- SPAIN -- SPANISH -- HAULAGE STRIKE -- INDONESIA -- NOTICE OF READINESS -- Charterer Award
Four vessels under a Contract of Affreightment (COA) experienced delays because of port congestion resulting from a strike that had ended prior to arrival. Charterer claimed that this time should be exempted as delays stemming from a strike, while the Owner argued that this exemption was only applicable if the strike had delayed operations after a given vessel had berthed.
SHELLTIME 4 -- BUNKERS ON REDELIVERY -- MEANING OF “PRICE ACTUALLY PAID” -- CHARTER CONSTRUCTION -- Owner Award
The Vessel was sub-chartered by the Charterer back to the Head Owner for a time period constituting the remainder of the head charter. Vessel redelivery would thereby take place simultaneously under the sub-charter and head charter, however, the proper bunker prices that each party was liable for at redelivery was up for contention.
LETTER OF INDEMNITY – WRONGFUL DELIVERY – Owner Award
In upholding the Commercial Court’s ruling of 27 May 2011 (background details previously recapped in The TANKVOYager, Vol. 18, No. 1), the Court of Appeal held that the Owners are protected under an LOI issued by the Receivers to the Charterers. Despite the Owner being unaware of the LOI, the Owner was protected by it on the basis that the Owner was acting as the Charterer’s agents when delivering the cargo. The Appellate Court held that "delivery" is a legal concept that does not mean “discharge” and that the Owner need not physically hand over the cargo to the Receiver; rather Owner’s obligation was fulfilled by surrendering possession and power relating to the cargo when delivering to the port authority. With regard to the public policy argument in the Receiver’s attempt to preclude Owner’s protection under the LOI, the court held that the Owner was incapable of a deliberate wrongdoing as the Owner was unaware of a dispute between the sellers and the intermediate buyer; furthermore, this was deemed a commercial dispute (not a public policy issue).
NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- PREMATURE REDELIVERY -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- Owner Award
Under a time charter contract, the Charterer redelivered the Vessel early and the Owner refused to accept the repudiatory breach in an attempt to affirm the charter party rather than the usual course of action in re-fixing and then claiming damages.
SHELLTIME 3 -- TIME CHARTER -- UNPAID HIRE -- WITHDRAWAL OF VESSEL -- SECURITY -- BUNKERS -- Owner Award
In partially overturning the Appellate Court ruling of 6 July 2010 (recapped in The TANKVOYager Vol. 12, No. 4), which in turn had overturned the Commercial Court ruling of 23 July 2009 (recapped in The TANKVOYager Vol. 15, No. 4) the Supreme Court addressed the issue of time lost discharging Charterer’s cargo after Owner’s termination of the contract necessitated by Charterer’s non-payment of hire. The Supreme Court discussed the concepts of bailment and indemnity.
SHELLTIME 4 -- TIME CHARTER -- CHARTER BREACH -- CANCELLATION -- CARGO TANK DEFINITION -- Owner Award
Charterer deducted hire basis a crack in the slop tank necessitating repairs and causing their sub-charterer to cancel a voyage charter. Owner contends that the time charter clause governing tank suitability is restricted to cargo tanks, pumps, and lines, and therefore, does not include the Vessel’s slop tanks.
EXXONVOY 84 -- CONTRACT OF SALE -- DEMURRAGE -- INDEMNITY -- CAUSE OF ACTION -- TIME BAR -- Buyer Award
The relationship between demurrage clauses in the sale contract, underlying charter party, and the relevant commercial background determines what constitutes the accrual of the cause of action for Seller’s claim against the Buyer. The issue that the contract was finalized after the completion of discharge is broached.
NYPE -- TIME-CHARTER -- RISK OF PIRACY -- CONWARTIME 1993 --GULF OF ADEN -- ALLEGED DEVIATION AROUND CAPE OF GOOD HOPE -- Charterer Award
Due to the inherent risk of piracy along the contracted route, the Owner instructed the Vessel to change course incurring additional costs for Charterer’s account. The arbitrators held that the Owner acted appropriately. On appeal the Court ruled that the arbitration panel had deconstructed the CONWARTIME 1993 clause improperly and, as such, remanded the case back to the arbitrators for reconsideration on findings of fact.
