Category: U.S. Maritime Cases
GENCON -- NO RESPONSE TO DEMURRAGE CLAIM OR ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS -- RULES OF ARBITRATION -- Owner Award
The Panel makes several attempts to contact the Charterer for participation in the proceedings, but received no response whatsoever. The Panel examines the demurrage claim at the heart of the award.
ASBATANKVOY -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- CONFIDENTIALITY -- IMPROPER CANCELLATION -- Owner Award
While the Vessel was in port awaiting cargo for another charterer, Owner was approached with the opportunity to load another cargo in the interim. The second fixture was quickly made, and Owner re-negotiated their laydays with the first charterer. The second charterer then promptly cancelled the fixture. Owner submitted a claim for lost profits, which the second charterer refuted due to the brevity of the fixture.
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- PRIMA FACIE -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award
On arrival at the discharge port, the cargo was found to be contaminated and the Receivers refused delivery. Charterer presented a prima facie claim showing that there was no apparent contamination in the cargo as it was delivered to the Vessel. The Panel sorted through a wealth of information to ascertain the source of cargo contamination, and explains the process of discovery.
GENCON -- NO RESPONSE TO DEMURRAGE CLAIM -- AWAIT CARGO DOCUMENTS -- SHIFT OFF BERTH -- BROKERAGE COMMISSION -- Owner Award
Even though the Charterer doesn't repond to the arbitrator's request to participate in the arbitration, the arbitrator looks critically at Owner's demurrage claim and makes revisions to reduce the demurrage amount. A key question in this award is what time counts as used laytime when the Vessel shifts off the berth to await documents at the anchorage prior to departure.
ASBATANKVOY -- WITHHELD FREIGHT -- SECURITY -- CONDITION OF TANKS -- Partial Final Owner Award
On arrival at the third loading port, the inspectors found the Vessel's remaining tanks unsuitable to load, calling the epoxy coating too badly deteriorated. The Vessel sailed to the discharge port without loading the balance cargo. The Charterer withheld freight, citing the Vessel's condition and the cost of acquiring alternate carriage for the unloaded cargo.
ASBATANKVOY -- DISCHARGING PREWASH SLOPS -- DEMURRAGE -- Partial Owner Award
Although Charterer didn't respond to Owner's initiation of arbitration proceedings, the Panel took matters into their own hands and edited the demurrage claim for time spent discharging slops. This award explains why.
ASBATANKVOY --ONE SAFE BERTH -- ADDITIONAL BERTH COSTS -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
Although the Vessel was fixed basis "one safe berth" for discharging, an agreement was made after the fixture adding a second berth. Owner commenced arbitration to recover the additional costs and demurrage incurred during the voyage.
ASBATANKVOY -- TIME-BAR -- CHARTERPARTY CONSTRUCTION -- HEATING AND PURGING -- Owner Award
Owners submitted a claim for additional heating and purging costs beyond the scope of the requirements in the charter party, but Charterers rejected the claim as time-barred. The Panel was called on to settle the dispute and explained how specific modifications to the charter party terms affected their ruling.
ASBATANKVOY -- INTERPRETATION OF RELOAD CLAUSE -- FREIGHT ASSESSMENT -- NUMBER OF CARGO GRADES CARRIED -- Charterer Award
During the discharge at Freeport, Charterers informed Owners that they planned on loading additional cargo after discharge operations completed. Owners commenced arbitration to recover this freight payment from Charterers. Charterers disagreed, claiming that they were within their rights to reload cargo at any discharge port within the scope of the charter party. This award describes how the Panel interpreted the special provisions clauses and applied them to the dispute.
NYPE -- SUBCHARTER -- SUBPOENAS -- REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS -- CONSOLIDATION OF DISPUTES -- Partial Owner Award
The Vessel suffered severe damage allegedly caused by stevedore negligence, and Owners commenced arbitration to recover damages. Charterers contended that they had no first-hand knowledge of the incident, as the Vessel was under sub-charter at the time. Charterers subsequently requested arbitration against their sub-charterer and requested that the Panel consolidate all parties into one proceeding.
