Category: English Maritime Cases
NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- UNPAID HIRE -- WHETHER WITHDRAWAL OF VESSEL WRONGFUL -- INTENTION -- Charterer Award
Charterer’s failure to pay timely hire per the terms of the contract led Owner to withdraw the Vessel from Charterer’s service. The tribunal majority held that the late payments were a matter of poor management rather than acting in bad faith and, as such, warranted an anti-technicality notice rather than withdrawal of the ship.
CONTRACT OF SALE -- IMPLIED TERM REGARDING QUALITY AFTER DELIVERY -- CONDITION OF CARGO -- Seller Award
Reversing the Commercial Court’s ruling, this appeal succeeded in stating that express contract terms could supersede statutory and common law’s implication that the condition of goods sold in an FOB contract must be a satisfactory quality at delivery and for a reasonable time thereafter.
TIME CHARTER -- HOLDS REJECTED -- "NET LOSS OF TIME" CLAUSE OR “PERIOD OFF-HIRE” CLAUSE -- EXPEDITE RE-INSPECTION -- Charterer Award
Upon having its holds rejected the Vessel cleaned them within three hours and presented for re-inspection that evening. The surveyor had already departed and only returned mid-morning of the next day with approval following in the late afternoon. Charterer argued that the applicable clause was a "period off-hire" clause and that all time up until re-inspection and approval to be deemed off-hire. The Panel agreed for the most part except felt that after re-boarding there was an excessive delay in approval and as such, the off-hire period ended shortly after the surveyor re-boarded which is when the Panel felt the surveyor should have approved the Vessel.
VEGOILVOY -- PREMATURE NOTICE OF READINESS -- RIVER PORT -- ARRIVED SHIP -- Charterer Award
Upon arrival at the Pilot Station the Vessel tendered Notice of Readiness (NOR) to Charterer’s berth 60 miles upriver and then shifted to an inner anchorage. The Panel determined the NOR tendered at the Pilot Station was premature and subsequently invalid and as no other NOR had been tendered, deemed laytime to only commence upon the Vessel being all fast in berth.
ASBATANKVOY -- GENERAL EXCEPTIONS CLAUSE -- RESTRAINT OF PRINCES -- DETENTION -- IMPLIED INDEMNITY -- Partial Owner and Charterer Award
The Vessel was detained for over 30 days by the Indonesian Navy for an apparently erroneous reason and upon release directed to deviate to Singapore for an additional 24 days whilst commercial considerations, themselves resulting from the aforementioned delay, were handled. The Panel ruled the arrest constituted Restraint of Princes with Charterer subsequently not being responsible for the lost time. However, the Panel ruled that the detention in Singapore was to count as demurrage with the deviation costs likewise for Charterer's account.
NYPE -- SEAWORTHINESS -- CAUSATION -- OFF-HIRE -- Owner Award
Due to defects in the hatch covers, 0.1% of a cargo of grain was water damaged en-route to the discharge port leading to a 24-day delay when the authorities refused to allow any of the grain to be discharged even though the wet grain could have been segregated. The Panel ruled that although the Vessel was unseaworthy, the root cause of the delay lay not with the Shipowner but rather with the conduct and actions of the authorities with the authorities’ actions and resultant delay being deemed unforeseeable.
NYPE -- SAILING ORDERS -- OFF-HIRE -- Owner Award
Charterer's choice of language in giving a Vessel orders to sail must be clear.
GENCON -- LAYTIME DURING PERIODS OF HEAVY SWELL -- WEATHER WORKING DAYS -- RESULTING SHIFTING EXPENSES -- SAFE BERTH -- Charterer Award
Basis a charter party stipulating cargo to be discharged at an average rate "per weather working day" the Panel determined laytime was not to count during a period of port closure due to Ressac swells. The Owner was responsible for the cost of unberthing and reberthing during the port closure as Charterer had not breached their safe berth warranty as the port closure was at the direction of the harbormaster and the Vessel was able to unberth and reberth safely.
TIME CHARTER -- TIME CHARTER PREMATURELY ENDED -- WHETHER TERMINATION JUSTIFIED -- Owner Award
The Panel ruled that Charterer had prematurely ended a time charter when Charterer relied upon a dispute regarding another vessel in the same management.
NYPE 1946 -- VESSEL REJECTED DUE TO LACK OF COFR (CERTIFICATE OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY) -- CALCULATION OF DAMAGES -- Owner and Disponent Owner Award
When Owner failed to provide the COFR, Sub-Charterer and subsequently Charterer cancelled the Time Charter (hereinafter, "Charter"). Given that the applicable clause in the Charter and Sub-Charter provides a remedy for delay due to not having the COFR and said remedy does not include cancelling the Charter (or Sub-Charter as the case may be), Panel rules in favor of Owner and subsequently Charterer (also referred as “Disponent Owner”) with the party wronged to be put into the position they would have been in had the Charter and Sub-Charter been fulfilled. The damages to be awarded are basis the market rate versus the Charter and Sub-Charter rates, respectively.
