Category: English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 15/10

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- HOLDS REJECTED UPON DELIVERY -- COST OF CLEANING -- CAUSATION OF WAITING TIME -- Part Owner Award, Part Charterer Award Upon delivery the Vessel’s holds were rejected which subsequently took 6 days for cleaning and approval, followed by 4 days spent waiting to berth. The Panel ruled that Charterer was to be reimbursed by Owner for the cost of the cleaning and that only the delay specifically related to the holds failing inspection was to be for Owner’s account. Charterer was responsible for the berth occupancy upon the Vessel’s arrival and the berth occupancy once the Vessel’s holds were approved yet another vessel was brought in.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

AET Inc. Ltd. v. Arcadia Petroleum Ltd. (The “Eagle Valencia”) – Court of Appeal, 23 Jun 2010

SHELLVOY 5 -- NOTICE OF READINESS -- FAILURE TO OBTAIN FREE PRATIQUE WITHIN 6 HOURS -- TIME-BAR -- Charterer Award In overturning the High Court judgment, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Vessel’s original NOR was invalid since free pratique was not granted within 6 hours as stipulated in the amended Shellvoy 5. The Vessel’s subsequent NOR tendered via email (after receipt of free pratique) was deemed valid, however, Owner’s alternative demurrage was barred since the valid NOR document, considered "an essential document of every demurrage claim", was not submitted timely with the claim.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

ENE Kos v Petroleo Brasileiro SA (The “Kos”) – English Court of Appeal, 6 Jul 2010

SHELLTIME 3 -- TIME CHARTER -- UNPAID HIRE -- WITHDRAWAL OF VESSEL FOR UNPAID HIRE -- DETENTION OF VESSEL -- CONSUMPTION OF BUNKERS -- SECURITY -- Partial Charterer Award Partially overturning the High Court’s ruling, the Court of Appeal held that absent an express or implied agreement, Owner is not due remuneration during the period that the Vessel was withdrawn from Charterer’s service for failure to pay hire. Then, having been directed by Charterer to discharge the cargo, Owner was reimbursed for cost of bunkers used for the cargo operations as that fell within the scope of care of the cargo; however, bunkers consumed during the Vessel’s withdrawal period were not recoverable. The Court of Appeal agreed with the judge that the Owner was entitled to costs for the security guarantee.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 4/10

NYPE -- OFF-HIRE -- SEAWORTHINESS -- WAITING TIME -- Owner Award After waiting eight days at the loadport to berth, cracks were found in the Vessel's hull necessitating repairs. Charterer argues that the deficiency invalidates the waiting time and that the Vessel was off-hire or, alternatively, presents a claim for damages due to demurrage lost under a sub-charter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

London Arbitration 7/10

NYPE -- CLEANLINESS OF HOLDS -- VESSEL FIT FOR SERVICE -- OFF-HIRE -- Owner Award The Vessel was approved for the first voyage under a time charter and carried out the first voyage without incident. Prior to the second voyage, the holds were rejected due to stains from a cargo carried just prior to the commencement of the time charter. After five days of cleaning, the holds were approved. In dispute is Charterer's claim for off-hire and expenses during the cleaning.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Cosco Bulk Carrier Co. Ltd. v. Team-Up Owning Co. Ltd. (The “Saldanha”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 11 June 2010

NYPE -- PIRACY -- CHARTERPARTY LANGUAGE -- WHETHER VESSEL CAN BE CONSIDERED OFF-HIRE -- Owner Award Charterer appealed to have all time that the Vessel was held by pirates count as off-hire. The High Court examined whether the Vessel was prevented from working due to any of the three causes listed in the charter party: a) detention by average accidents to ship or cargo; b) default and/or deficiency of men; c) any other cause.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Emeraldian Ltd. Partnership v. Wellmix Shipping Ltd. and Anr (The “Vine”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.),17 June 2010

BREACH OF SAFE PORT WARRANTY -- BEYOND CHARTERER'S CONTROL -- WHETHER DELAY COUNTED AS LAYTIME -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award After nominating the loadberth an accident occurred forcing its closure for repairs. Owner claimed demurrage for the time spent by the Vessel awaiting the repair of the berth, but Charterer refuted the claim basis the notion that the accident was beyond Charterer’s control. In addition, the Court was asked to determine whether the berth was safe at the time it was nominated due to the complex mooring maneuvers required in order for vessels to safely berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

SK Shipping (S) Pte. Ltd. v. Petroexport Ltd. (The “Pro Victor”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 24 Nov 2009

ASBATANKVOY -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- ANTICIPATORY BREACH -- Owner Award On the first day of laydays, without expressly saying so, Charterer is alleged to have cancelled the fixture after the Buyer pulled out of the deal. At issue was whether Owner acted properly in terminating the charter party and claiming damages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Dalwood Marine Co v. Nordana Line AS (The “Elbrus”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 21 Dec 2009

NYPE 1993 -- TIME CHARTER -- EARLY REDELIVERY -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- CALCULATION OF DAMAGES -- Charterer Award After Charterer prematurely cancelled a time charter, Owner secured a lucrative replacement contract. In determining Owner's damages, Charterer argued that the profits from the replacement contract should be weighed as a whole against the lost revenue from the early redelivery.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Sylvia Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Progress Bulk Carriers Ltd. (The “Sylvia”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 18 Mar 2010

NYPE -- FAILED PORT STATE INSPECTION -- MISSED LAYDAY WINDOW -- FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGES -- REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES -- Charterer Award Because the Vessel failed a Port State Inspection due to structural deficiencies and was detained until Owner could affect repairs, Charterer missed a layday window with a sub-charterer. Charterer sought to recover lost profits in arbitration and won. Owner appealed and the Judge considered whether the Charterer’s damages were unforeseeable, too remote, or erroneously derived.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.