Category: U.S. Maritime Cases

Tricon Dry Chemicals LLC v Global Petro Converge – SMA 4391, 17 Jul 2020

PURCHASE CONTRACTS – FORCE MAJEURE – TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE CLAUSE – LOSS OF PROFITS – CALCULATION OF DAMAGES
When Respondent failed to ship purchased cargoes in a timely manner, Claimant charged the Respondent failed to perform its obligations under two separate purchase contracts and sought damages, interest, legal, and arbitration fees. Respondent claimed force majeure for changes in Saudi Arabian export laws and delays due to the holy month of Ramadan and Eid holiday.

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.

Seacape Shipping and Trading, LLC v Metalex 2000 S.A. (The “MV Livadi”) – SMA 4390, 15 Jul 2020

MEDITERRANEAN IRON ORE VOYAGE CHARTER – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO – DAMAGES – CALCULATION OF DAMAGES – DEMURRAGE – FORCE MAJEURE – GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE
Seacape Shipping and Trading (Claimant) alleged Metalex 2000 (Respondent) breached the voyage charter for failing to provide cargo and subsequently claimed for damages and demurrage. The Respondent claimed government interference and force majeure but participated only minimally in the arbitration.

Prax Petroleum Ltd. and Harvest Energy Ltd., v. Tricon Energy Ltd, (The “Stena Conquest” & “Silver Gwen”) – SMA 4417, 8 Feb 2021

SALES CONTRACT – DEMURRAGE – PUBLIC DOCK CLAUSE – COMMENCEMENT OF LAYTIME
Two vessels encountered delays whilst awaiting berth, resulting in delivered Seller claiming demurrage. Relying upon a public dock clause in the marine provisions, Buyer insisted time waiting for berths did not count and that rather time only starts after the vessels’ gangways were secured. Owner claimed contract confirmations, which included a laytime commencing clause, superseded Marine Provisions, and that laytime began after the tender of NOR

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.

Ace Quantum Chemical Tankers CV v Nordic Tankers Trading. (MN “Chem Sirius”) – SMA No.4392, 26 July 2020

SPOT CHARTER – PRORATED WAITING TIME – SUSPENDED LAYTIME – DROPPED TENDER
Vessel tendered NOR whilst charterer’s berth was available and after awaiting a short period of time, went to another berth. Thereafter, charterer’s berth was occupied and vessel periodically waited for charterer’s berth and worked berths for other charterers’ accounts. Owner claimed as demurrage those periods of time whilst vessel was awaiting charterer’s berth whilst it was charterer’s position that the root cause of the overall delay in berthing was vessel’s decision to not work charterer’s berth when given the opportunity.

Phoenix Bulk Carriers BVD Ltd v Triorient LLC (The “MV Pretty Lady”) – SMA 4373, 27 Sep 2019

DETENTION – FORCE MAJEURE – DAMAGES – MITIGATION – CANCELLED C/P

When Charterer’s supplier failed to provide its cargo due to Charterer’s attempt to re-negotiate the sale, Charterer was forced to cancel its C/P with the lifting vessel’s owner. Owner then endeavored to mitigate the damages via an internal fixture amongst a rising freight market.

Ardmore MR Pool LLC (Ardmore Shipping) v Orient Source (HK) Ltd. (The “Ardmore Sealancer”) – SMA No. 4372, 22 Jul 2019

ASBATANKVOY – NAMED PORT – NAMED BERTH – Q88 – FOREIGN FLAG RESTRICTION – INVALID NOR – CARGO AVAILABILITY – DEADFREIGHT – DEMURRAGE – ADDRESS COMMISSION

When Charterer was either unable to provide a cargo or Vessel was not allowed admittance to the load port due to its flag, Owner cancelled the charter party and claimed for deadfreight and demurrage. It was also noted that the Vessel may have tendered a premature NOR from just outside the load port.

MUR Shipping BV v Cathagrow International Ltd. (The “African Jay”) – SMA No. 4371, 15 Jul 2019

BEIZAI 1991 – EQUIPMENT FAILURE – UNION SAFETY INSPECTION FAILURE – DEMURRAGE – DAMAGES

When the crane sheaves on the vessel failed the longshoremen’s inspection, time was lost when attempting to resolve the issue with the Owner ultimately choosing to have the sheaves machined.  Owner claimed demurrage and the cost of the machining from Charterer.

Cargill Incorporated, Ocean Transportation v. Triorient LLC (The “Josco Huizhou”) – SMA No. 4416, 11 Nov 2020

OWNER/CHARTERER – POTENTIAL FORCE MAJEURE – CARGO NOT SUPPLIED – OWNER TERMINATED CHARTER – OWNER CLAIMED BREACH AND REPUDIATION – OWNER AWARD

After awaiting Charterer’s cargo for ~2+ months and not receiving a satisfactory answer as to when it would be provided, Owner terminated the Charter, claiming that the Charterer was in breach and repudiation of the agreement. The Owner then brought a case to arbitration, once the Charterer did not respond to the claims that were submitted to them regarding the incident.