Category: Maritime Articles

Commentary on the maritime industry, demurrage discussions, and industry professional interviews.

English Maritime Cases / Maritime Articles

London Arbitration 23/21

NYPE FORM 1946 – BREACH OF CHARTER – PERFORMANCE WARRANTY – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION CLAIM – WEATHER DISCREPANCY – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY
A single-deck geared bulk carrier was chartered on an NYPE 1946 form for a one-time charter trip to transport soya bean meal (SBM) from Argentina to Cuba. The voyage was estimated to take roughly 55 days. The charterer employed a weather routing company (WRC) to monitor the vessel for the contract period. Based on the WRC data, a performance dispute arose with the charterer claiming $ 78,489.47 off-hire and excessive bunker consumption. The owner asserted the WRC data was not collected nor calculated per charter party provisions.

English Maritime Cases / Maritime Articles

Tricon Energy Ltd v MTM Trading LLC (The “MTM Hong Kong”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Robin Knowles J) [2020] EWHC 700 (Comm) – 23 March 2020

DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – FAILURE TO PROVIDE ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WITHIN 90 DAYS OF DISCHARGE – AMENDED ASBATANKVOY

Tricon Energy contracted the “MTM HONG KONG” under an amended ASBATANKVOY charter to deliver cargo from Antwerp, Belgium, to Houston, Texas. As a result of delays at the load and discharge ports, the owners, MTM Trading, filed a $56K claim for demurrage. Charterer claimed the owner had failed to provide all documentation within the 90-day period, specifically the bills of lading, so the claim was time-barred. The owner took the case to arbitration, and the claim was upheld. Charterer appealed to the High Court.

English Maritime Cases / Maritime Articles

Palmali Shipping SA v Litasco SA– QBD (Comm Ct) (Foxton J) [2020] EWHC 2581 (Comm) – 1 October 2020

CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – FAILURE TO HONOR MINIMUM QUANTITY OF CARGO CONTRACT – LOSS OF PROFITS – TRANSFERRED LOSS PRINCIPLE
Palmali sought US$1.9 billion in damages from Litasco under a long-term contract of affreightment (COA). Palmali contended the COA gave it exclusive rights to carry oil products for Litasco between multiple ports in the Caspian Sea, Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Further, Palmali asserted the COA guaranteed Litasco would ship a minimum quantity of 400,000 MT (the Minimum Quantity Obligation), with a total monthly volume of 700,000 MT/month.

English Maritime Cases / Maritime Articles

Laysun Service Co Ltd v Del Monte International GmbH [2022] EWHC 699 (Comm) (Calver J) – 28 March 2022

CHARTERPARTY – CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – COA – FORCE MAJEURE – APPEAL AGAINST ARBITRATION AWARD – ARBITRATION ACT 1996, SECTION 69
In December 2017, Del Monte entered into a contract of affreightment (COA) with Laysun to transport refrigerated bananas from the Philippines to Iran. The agreement was for 36 voyages from January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2018. After 17 shipments, Del Monte stopped providing cargos. Layson sought arbitration for Del Monte’s failure to supply the remaining shipment. Del Monte claimed force majeure due to US Sanctions against Iran and the resulting import restrictions. Laysun appealed the arbitration citing error of law under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

English Maritime Cases / Maritime Articles

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.

English Maritime Cases / Maritime Articles

K-Line Pte Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd (The “Eternal Bliss”) – Court of Appeal (Sir Geoffrey Vos, MR, Newey and Males LJJ) [2021] EWCA Civ 1712 – 18 November 2021

NORGRAIN – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES – LIQUIDATED DAMAGES- APPEAL – IMPLIED INDEMNITY – LAYTIME
The Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s decision in K-Line Pte Limited v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Limited (the “ETERNAL BLISS”) [2021] EWCA Civ 1712, which acknowledged the long-standing question of whether a shipowner can recover damages in addition to demurrage when a charterer’s only breach is failure to load/discharge the ship within the contractually agreed time.
Please note this is a successful appeal of an award already recapped. Search in TANKVOYager via “Eternal Bliss” for the original award. K-Line Pte Ltd v Priminds Shipping (HK) Co Ltd (The “Eternal Bliss”) – QBD (Comm Ct) (Andrew Baker J)[2020] EWHC 2373 (Comm) – 7 September 2020

Archive / Maritime Articles

Demurrage Exposure – Port Charters Converted to Berth Charters!

A golden rule when assessing a contract is to read the contract as a whole and give meaning to all clauses in conjunction with each other. A recent NY Arbitration, SMA 4272, combined with an older award, SMA 2477, shows how simple phrasing, reinforced via a lack of options and market constraints, can overwhelm other charter terms and convert a port charter to a berth charter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Maritime Articles

BPVOY5 Has Arrived…

As of 21 March 2016, BP Shipping Ltd. has released BPVOY5; the long-awaited successor to the 1998 BPVOY4 charter party. There have been quite a few changes made to the 18-year-old boilerplate. Most of these changes, however, are essentially updates to outdated language and none seem to be especially onerous. Here are a few that stuck out to us (both inside demurrage and out).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Maritime Articles

Industry-Accepted NOR Procedure Tested by Oiltanking Texas City

Tendering a valid NOR for Oiltanking Texas City just got a little harder to do thanks to a recent change of policy for the 555,000 cbm storage facility. On Wednesday, 13-Jan-2016 an Oiltanking representative released a new “Oiltanking Texas City’s ‘NOR’ Acceptance Procedure” that is in direct opposition to the current NOR tender policy for the Houston / Texas City area.

Archive / Maritime Articles

What Exactly is “Detention”?

Detention accrues when a ship is delayed outside of the scope of laytime and demurrage, which is directly attributable to fault of the Charterer. Some examples of Charterer’s fault includes failure to have cargo ready when the Vessel arrives within laydays, failure to give voyage orders, delay in paying freight causing Owner to impose a cargo lien, and unreasonable departure delays in releasing the Vessel after laytime ceases to run.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.