VOYAGE CHARTER - DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – VALID NOTICE OF READINESS – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO Charterer cancelled a voyage charter party after failing to provide cargo. Owner claimed demurrage and damages from the alleged repudiatory breach. Charterer countered that the claim was time barred, the Vessel’s NOR was invalid, and the damages if awarded, should be basis the C/P’s lowest freight option.
TIME CHARTER - VESSEL’S CONDITION UPON REDELIVERY - BREACH OF CHARTER When Charterer sat the Vessel at an equatorial port for 35 days, the Owner claimed underperformance damages incurred under a subsequent fixture and the cost to clean the hull.
DEMURRAGE - OIL SPILL - FORCE MAJEURE - PROCEED THERETO - REACHABLE ON ARRIVAL - ARREST OR RESTRAINT OF PRINCES - BPVOY3 Before the vessel’s arrival at port, a vessel at the vessel’s intended berth had an oil spill which delayed the vessel once she arrived at the port. Charterer argued to split the delay 50/50 wherein owner stated that BPVOY3’s “proceed thereto” was to be read as “reachable on arrival”, the spill was not an exception, and the prior vessel’s arrest was not an “arrest or restraint of princes, rulers or people”.
DEMURRAGE - TIME BAR - ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS - PRIMA FACIE - ASBATANKVOY When owner’s claim for demurrage did not include all supporting documents, charterer time barred it.
ENGINE BREAKDOWN - TYPHOON - SEAWORTHINESS - GENERAL AVERAGE - REASONABLE EXPENDITURES After suffering an engine breakdown, the shipowner employed a tug to avoid a typhoon and to bring the vessel to port. The owner then brought claim against the insurance company for general average contribution. The defendant argued that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage and that the casualty was caused by actionable fault of the Owner and thus no contribution was due. Further, the defendant argued that owner’s expenditure as claimed under general average was unreasonable.
NYPE - NON PAYMENT OF HIRE - PREMATURE WITHDRAWAL BY OWNER - REPUDIATORY BREACH - BALANCE OF HIRE - ADDITIONAL HIRE After charterer missed making hire payments, the owner informed charterer of its “rights” under the C/P. When no payments were made by the 3rd day after its notice, owner withdrew the vessel. Charterer pointed to a clause in the C/P requiring owner give “3 clear banking days notice” prior to withdrawal. Charterer claimed the balance of hire and owner claimed additional hire.
CARGO SHORTAGE - OWNER PROACTIVELY SETTLED WITH CHARTERER’S RECEIVER - CHARTERER INDEMNIFY OWNER - NON REVERSIBLE - DEMURRAGE After discharging, the receiver claimed a cargo shortage and detained the vessel. The shipowner settled the receiver’s claim in order to allow the vessel to depart the disport and in turn claimed reimbursement from the charterer. Owner also claimed demurrage incurred at the disport despite laytime being saved at load given that the laytime was non-reversible.
TIME CHARTER - SAFE PORT - CLAIM AGAINST DEMISE CHARTERERS - LIMITED LIABILITY When a ship sank upon departing a port in a storm, the court was tasked with answering 3 questions. 1) Was there a breach of the safe port warranty? 2) If so, did provisions for joint insurance preclude owner from the right to recover losses covered by hull insurers? 3) If there was a breach, are losses by a sub-charterer limited to the losses incurred by it’s owner to head owner’s insurance company.
TIME CHARTER – ANTICIPATORY BREACH – DAMAGES – VESSEL REDELIVERED EARLY – VALUE OF VESSEL SOLD AT REPUDIATION GREATER THAN VALUE OF VESSEL AT CONTRACTUAL DATE OF REDELIVERY Under a time charter, Charterer redelivered the Vessel to the Owner two years early. In doing so, Owner considered Charterer in anticipatory repudiatory breach of the contract and filed for damages. Charterer, however, pointed out that the early redelivery allowed Owner to sell the Vessel at a much higher price before the market collapsed. They argued that this windfall should be factored into the Owner’s damages claim. This is an appeal of...
ERS – BILL OF LADING – CARGO DISCHARGE TO WRONG RECEIVER After 69 uneventful deliveries, the 70th delivery was misappropriated when delivering against an electronic release system (ERS) rather than in exchange for a B/L or Delivery Order. fter 69 deliveries, discharge of the 70th shipment saw 2 of 3 containers misappropriated. Glencore claimed damages against MSC for breach of contract, bailment and conversion when MSC delivered the cargo without requiring the B/L or a Delivery Order in exchange for it. The B/L provided, “If this is a negotiable (To Order/of) Bill of Lading, one original Bill of Lading, duly...