Category: Featured

Highlighted articles from each TANKVOYager issue.

Current / English Maritime Cases / Featured

18 Jan, 2021

Mur Shipping BV v Louis Dreyfus Company Suisse SA (The “Tiger Shanghai”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Cockerill J) [2019] EWHC 3240 (Comm) – 13 November 2019 [Updated 10 August 2020]

TIMEBAR – BREACH OF CHARTERPARTY – NULLIFYING DOCUMENTS – INCOMPLETE CLAIMS Arbitration proceedings were brought against the owner's alleged breach of charterparty by refusing vessel modifications per charterer’s request. However, charterer’s left out a supporting document from their claim. Ultimately, the court decided that the documentation was time-barred, causing the cause to be dismissed.

To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / Featured / U.S. Maritime Cases

27 Aug, 2020

Transunisa Shipping S.A. de. C.V., as voyage Charterer, and Searail de Mexico SA de CV as Supplier – SMA 4379

BOOKING CANCELLATION – DEADFREIGHT – WHETHER CHARTERER CAN PASS DEADFREIGHT COSTS TO SUPPLIER The supplier in question unilaterally canceled the booking agreement with their charterers whilst the vessel was already on approach to the load port. This cancellation was the direct cause of dead freight incurred by the Charterer – which was subsequently passed to the Supplier. The Charterer was later awarded the dead freight, interest, owner’s fees, and arbitration fees.

To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases / Featured

27 Aug, 2020

Quiana Navigation SA v Pacific Gulf Shipping (Singapore Pte Ltd (The “Caravos Liberty”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Cockerill J) [2019] EWHC 3171 (Comm) – 21 November 2019

NYPE - TIME CHARTER - HIRE - ANTI-TECHNICALITY NOTICE (ATN) - BIMCO NON-PAYMENT OF HIRE CLAUSE - REPUDIATORY BREACH The charterer and the owner of a vessel got into a dispute over the alleged overconsumption of fuel. The appeal of the owner was later dismissed.

To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases / Featured

27 Aug, 2020

London Arbitration 16/19

DEMURRAGE – LAYTIME – NOTICE OF READINESS – LACK OF ANCHORS – RIVER NAVIGATION – WHETHER NOTICE OF READINESS IS VALID – ESCORTING TUGS – DELAY TO BERTH After previously losing one of it’s anchors in a storm, the pilot refused to navigate the vessel up river unless the Owner also hired an escort tug. This option was refused by Owners, ultimately delaying the vessel to the discharge berth.

To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases / Featured

9 Dec, 2019

London Arbitration 13/19

DEMURRAGE – REPUDIATORY BREACH – ARRIVED AND ALL RESPECTS READY TO LOAD – WHETHER NOR WAS VALID – NOTICE OF READINESS – FORCE MAJEURE – LIABILITY FOR FAILED HOLD INSPECTION Upon vessel’s arrival at the Southwest Pass of the Mississippi River the Master tendered NOR to a port upriver. Charterer’s independent surveyor then found that the holds were not clean whereas after a second, this time successful, inspection loading was further delayed due to an oncoming hurricane which grounded the vessel. Owner claimed demurrage, damages for loss of profit, and compensation for lost bunkers. Charterer asserted that the NOR was...

To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Featured / U.S. Maritime Cases

9 Dec, 2019

Norstar Shipping and Trading Ltd., Disponent Owner, and Ravago LM Pte Ltd., Charterer, Under a Voyage Charter Party, dated, October 7, 2016, of the M/T UACC DOHA – SMA 4350

DEADFREIGHT – VOYAGE CHARTER – FORCE MAJEURE – WHETHER CHARTERER LIABLE FOR DEADFREIGHT AFTER FORCE MAJEURE EVENT Owner claimed deadfreight after Charterer was unable to load a complete quantity of cargo at the loading port due to a fire. Charterer contended that the fire at the loading port constituted a force majeure event, and as such they were not liable for deadfreight incurred as a result. Norstar Shipping and Trading Ltd. (hereinafter, “Owner”) claimed for deadfreight amounting to $102,640.28 against Ravago LM Pte Ltd. (hereinafter, “Charterer”). The Owner entered into a space voyage charter on the Asbatankvoy form using the...

To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Featured / U.S. Maritime Cases

9 Dec, 2019

Caribe Tankers, Ltd. as Disponent Owner of the CARIBE ROSA and Murex LLC, as Charterer – SMA 4370

DEMURRAGE – NO APPEARANCE – PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND ARBITRATION COSTS Owner sought payment of outstanding demurrage amount from Charterer and initiated arbitration proceedings. Charterer failed to participate in the proceedings, but it did submit payment of the outstanding demurrage amount following Owner’s submissions. Owner claimed for interest, attorney’s fees, and arbitration costs against Charterer. Caribe Tankers, Ltd (hereinafter, “Owner”) brought arbitration proceedings against Murex LLC (hereinafter, “Charterer”) over an unpaid demurrage amount totaling $31,119.08. The demurrage charges incurred under two charters, both fixed under Asbatankvoy, and two voyages of the CARIBE ROSA. Owner requested consolidation of the two demurrage...

To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Featured / U.S. Maritime Cases

9 Aug, 2017

Tenacity Marine Inc. v Ecopetrol, S.A. (The “Tenacity”) – SMA 4311, 20 April 2017

EXXONMOBILVOY2005 - DEMURRAGE - DELAY DUE TO FOG - WHETHER GALENA PARK A PORT OR IN THE PORT OF HOUSTON - WHETHER HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL A RIVERPORT - RIVERPORT CLAUSE - DISPUTE OVER BURDEN OF PROOF - Charterer Award When charterer deducted fifty percent of a delay due to fog basis an exceptions clause, owner countered that the Houston Ship Channel was a riverport and thus the “Riverport(s) Clause” applied with the weather delay subsequently counting in full. In addressing this question, the Panel also advised as to where the burden of proof would lie and whether Galena Park was a port.

To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases / Featured

16 May, 2017

London Arbitration 8/17

NYPE - INORDINATE AND INEXCUSABLE DELAY AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF ARBITRATION - ARBITRATION ACT OF 1996 - APPLICATION FOR DISMISSAL DUE TO WANT OF PROSECUTION - LIMITATION PERIOD - APPLICATION TO APPEAL TO HIGH COURT Damage claims arose after the collapse of a crane on board a vessel. Arbitration commenced two years later however no submissions were made until nearly 12 years after the incident. Charterer applied to have the claim dismissed for want of prosecution by owner. The panel agreed with charterer and owner applied to the High Court for a chance to appeal.

To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases / Featured

4 Apr, 2017

Navalmar UK Ltd v Kale Maden Hammaddeler Sanayi ve Ticaret AS (The “Arundel Castle”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Knowles J) [2017] EWHC 116 (Comm) – 31 January 2017

VESSEL ORDERED TO ANCHOR OUTSIDE “PORT LIMITS” BY PORT AUTHORITY - DEFINITION OF “PORT LIMITS” - WHETHER VESSEL CONSIDERED GEOGRAPHICALLY READY TO TENDER NOR WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF C/P - DEMURRAGE A vessel arrived off of the load port and was instructed by the port authority to anchor outside the port limits to await berth availability. The Court was tasked at determining whether the vessel was geographically ready for the purposes of tendering notice of readiness. The Court also looked at the definition of “port limits”.

To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.