Category: Featured

Highlighted articles from each TANKVOYager issue.

Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd v Noble Chartering Inc (The “Tai Prize”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (HHJ Pelling QC) [2020] EWHC 127 (Comm) – 31 January 2020

BILL OF LADING – DAMAGED CARGO – LIABILITY FOR DAMAGED CARGO – INDEMNITY – DISPONENT OWNERS – TIME CHARTER – HAGUE RULES When a vessel commenced unloading in China, receivers discovered the soybean cargo had heat and mold damage. The Chinese courts upheld a claim by the receivers against the shipowner for US$ 1,086,564.70. The shipowner sought arbitration in London against Noble Chartering, the head charterer/disponent owner, for fifty percent of the amount paid to the receivers. Noble then requested London arbitration against its charterer, Priminds Shipping, claiming indemnity and legal fees. Priminds appealed the arbitration ruling to the High Court.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, SA. de C.V. v Alia Global Logistics, S.A. de C.V. (M/T “King Gregory”)  – SMA 4429, 1 November 2021

ASBATANKVOY – TERMINATION OF CHARTER – DAMAGES – NON-PAYMENT – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO Owner claimed Charterer failed to present a cargo to be loaded onto the vessel. Owner and Charterer agreed to cancel the charter; however, Owner claimed damages because of the cancellation. Charterer agreed to pay damages but did not remit payment.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

PCL (Shipping) Pte. Ltd., v Triorient LLC, (The M/V “Glorious Sawara”) – SMA 4401, 16 Sep 2020

FORCE MAJEURE – DEMURRAGE – DISPONENT OWNER – LOSS OF EARNINGS
After 46 days at load port awaiting cargo, the Claimant terminated the contract claiming breach of charterparty. The Respondent claimed force majeure due to supplier issues. Claimant sought damages plus fees, costs and interest.

Brujo Finance Company v Sea Energy Company (MT “Alkimos”) v ES Euro shipping AG (MT “Alkimos”) – SMA 4388, 3 Jul 2020

ASBATANKVOY – KOLMAR TERMS – VIOLATION OF US SANCTIONS – SANCTIONS CLAUSE – STS TRANSFER – ALTERNATIVE ORDERS – PARTIAL FINAL AWARD – SUBJECT MOTION – DISCERNABLE RISK – VENEZUELA
The consolidated arbitration between the Owner and Respondents centered on whether the owner validly invoked the Charter’s Sanctions Clause when demanding alternative orders (Subject Motion). The owner claimed a discernable risk that the ship-to-ship transfer of cargo could have violated US Sanctions against Venezuela. This partial final award is issued solely in response to the Subject Motion and does not address any other disputes between the Owner and Respondents.