Category: Featured

Highlighted articles from each TANKVOYager issue.

Current / English Maritime Cases / Featured / Industry News / Maritime Articles / Singapore Maritime Cases / U.S. Maritime Cases

ASBATANKVOY 2025: Modernizing a Maritime Standard and Reframing “Once on Demurrage, Always on Demurrage”

ASBATANKVOY - CHARTERPARTY - ONCE ON DEMURRAGE - TIME BAR - DEMURRAGE - LAYTIME We have carefully evaluated the key laytime and demurrage implications as the market shifts from the original ASBATANKVOY to this new version.  Find yourself with more detailed questions?  Shoot us an email at info@haugenconsulting.com. We will be happy to discuss the changes with you and their specific implications for your business.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / Featured / U.S. Maritime Cases

Maritima del Pacifico SAP.I. de C.V. v. Aerovolte SA de C.V. and Cal-lxa Aggregates LLC, (The “PATAGONMAN”) – SMA No. 4498 – 3 February 2025

GENCON - COA – DEMURRAGE – DETENTION - MITIGATION This arbitration involved claims by Linea Maritima del Pacifico against Aerovolte and its guarantor, Cal-lxa, under a Contract of Affreightment for transporting aggregate between Mexican ports. The dispute arose when Aerovolte failed to provide cargo, leaving the chartered vessel MV Patagonman idle at Veracruz; Claimant later re-delivered the vessel and sought $672,388 in damages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases / Featured

O v C – EWHC 2838 – King’s Bench Division, Commercial Court (Sir Nigel Teare) – 8 November 2024

LONDON ARBITRATION - US SANCTIONS - OFAC LICENSE TO SELL CARGO - BREACH OF SANCTIONS – APPEAL TO ENGLISH HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 44 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996 Charterers entered into a charterparty for a vessel carrying naphtha, but were added to the US OFAC sanctions list the same day, causing the cargo to become subject to US sanctions. Owners, fearing prosecution due to their US connections, terminated the charterparty and obtained an OFAC license to sell the cargo and hold proceeds in a blocked US account. Arbitration was initiated in London, and both parties approached the English High Court for directions on how the sale proceeds should be handled.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Featured / U.S. Maritime Cases

CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. (The “Athos I”) – Supreme Court of the United States, No. 18-565 – 30 March 2020

OIL SPILL – SAFE-BERTH CLAUSE – LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – UNQUALIFIED CLAUSE – STRICT LIABILITY – SAFE VS. UNSAFE BERTH SELECTION – EXPRESS CLAUSE – EXPRESS LIABILITY

In 2004, Frescati Shipping Co. (the Owners) allowed CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. (CARCO) to charter their vessel Athos I. While attempting to dock in Port of Paulsboro, New Jersey, the vessel collided with an abandoned anchor, resulting in a major oil spill in the Delaware River. The arbitration primarily focused on the Charterers’ (CARCO) liability for the spill per the charterparty’s Safe-Berth Clause.

Featured / U.S. Maritime Cases

Bulk & Metal Transport Pte Ltd v Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. dba Consolidated Terminals and Logistics Company (The “Bi Jia Shan”) – SMA 4478  – 22 May 2024

AMENDED GENCON – HOLD-IN TUGS AND STANDBY PILOTS – DECREASE OF TRANSIT DRAFT – MISSISSIPPI RIVER – RIVER DRAFT RESTRICTIONS – HIGH RIVER ADVISORIES – SAFE NAVIGATION COMMITTEE – MISSISSIPPI RIVER PILOTS – NOBRA – CARROLTON GAUGE – DISPONENT OWNERS – LIEN ON VESSEL
In a dispute between Bulk & Metal Transport Pte. Ltd (Disponent Owners) and Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. d/b/a Consolidated Terminals and Logistics Company (Charterers) Bulk & Metal Transport sought to recover $89,427.58 paid for hold-in tugs and standby pilots during discharge of rock salt at anchorage at Belle Chasse, Louisiana.

English Maritime Cases / Featured

London Arbitration 13/23 

TIME CHARTER – DEATH OF MASTER – COVID-19 – QUARANTINE REQUIREMENTS – PANAMA CANAL – OFF-HIRE – CANAL TRANSIT AUTHORITIES – DELAY DUE TO COVID TESTING – HEALTH AUTHORITY HOLD – DETENTION – AMENDED NYPE FORM

Shortly before its arrival at the Panama Canal in May 2021, complications arose on a time charter due to the unfortunate death of the vessel’s master. The vessel was placed on hold until PCR test results were available, delaying transit through the Panama Canal and prompting claims by Charterers of off-hire and detention.

English Maritime Cases / Featured

London Arbitration 6/23

DEMURRAGE – ENGINE BREAKDOWN – SIX MONTH DELAY – CHANGES TO PORT REGULATIONS – CHANGE TO DISCHARGING PORT – DELAY TO DISCHARGE – SEAWORTHINESS OF VESSEL – ENGINE REPAIRS DELAYED DUE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC CONDITIONS

A vessel was chartered to carry part cargo of steel pipes from Turkey to Futuna Island in the French Pacific Ocean Islands. An engine breakdown off Mauritius required lengthy repairs and was complicated by shortages due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nearly a year later, the vessel arrived at the intended discharge port but was turned away due to new port entry requirements. The vessel was quickly rerouted to Fiji and incurred demurrage of US$37,317.71 while awaiting discharging operations to begin. Charterers refused to pay, claiming the delay was the owners’ fault, and arbitration proceedings commenced.

English Maritime Cases / Featured

UniCredit Bank AG v Euronav NV – Court of Appeal, 4 May 2023

SHIPPER AS CHARTERER – CARGO DISCHARGE WITHOUT BILL OF LADING – NOVATION OF CHARTERPARTY – CAUSATION – CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT OF 1992 – BILL OF LADING AS CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE – MISDELIVERY – BANK AS CLAIMANT
The case was brought to the Court of Appeal to review a lower court’s decision on whether a bill of lading formed a contract of carriage after a novation of charterparty. BP chartered the vessel SIENNA from Euronav to transport low-sulphur fuel oil for sale to Gulf. UniCredit Bank AG provided financing to Gulf, secured by a bill of lading, and a novation was completed shifting the charterers from BP to Gulf. Euronav delivered the cargo without requiring the bill of lading and the Bank brought a claim against Euronav for breach of contract. The Court of Appeal reviewed whether the bill of lading constituted a contract and examined the impact of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.

English Maritime Cases / Featured

Leeds Shipping Co Ltd v. Societe Francaise Bunge (The “EASTERN CITY”) – COURT OF APPEAL (Hodson, Romer, and Sellers LJJ) – 30 July 1958

UNSAFE PORT – MOROCCO – UNPREDICTABLE WEATHER CONDITIONS -GROUNDING OF VESSEL – ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF MASTER
Editor’s Note: This 1958 case set the industry standard for determining a safe berth and is referenced in two new recaps: London Arbitration 2/23 and SMA No. 4457 “PRESINGE.”
Leeds Shipping and Societe Francaise were parties to a voyage charterparty with the vessel discharging in “…One or two safe ports in Morocco…” This appeal challenged a previous decision in favor of Leeds Shipping, which claimed Charterers ordered the vessel to an unsafe port, Mogador, where she ran aground and sustained damage. Societe Francaise denied that Mogador was an unsafe port and asserted by accepting the voyage, Owners had consented to the vessel going to Mogador. Charterers also claimed the negligence of· the Master caused the vessel’s grounding.

Featured / U.S. Maritime Cases

SwissMarine Pte Asia v. Mosaic Fertilizer (MN “PRESINGE”) – SMA No. 4457, 10 March 2023

BREACH OF COA – FAILURE TO PROVIDE SAFE BERTH – FAILURE TO NOMINATE SAFE VESSEL – DEMURRAGE – FORCE MAJEURE – WEATHER – HURRICANE – LOST TIME

SwissMarine and Mosaic Fertilizer had a COA for the carriage of phosphate rock from Peru to the US Gulf for discharge at either New Orleans Triport and/or Tampa – Port Manatee. On the way to discharge at Tampa, concerns were raised by the Port that the Vessel could not safely berth, so the vessel was diverted to New Orleans. Shortly after arrival at anchorage on the Mississippi River, the US Coast Guard limited marine traffic due to the impending arrival of Hurricane Ida. Mosaic declared force majeure, and the PRESINGE did not complete cargo operations until 38 days later. Owners alleged demurrage was due and that Charterers were in breach of COA for failing to provide a safe berth. Charterers countered that no demurrage was due because of the force majeure event, and Owners were in breach of COA for failing to nominate a safe vessel.