Chevron Marine Ltd. and Chevron Products Co. v. Stena Bulk AB (The “Stena Conquest”) – SMA No. 4075, 17 May 2010

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- DEMURRAGE CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO DELAYS -- Owner Award The first, second, and third foot samples of ULSD cargo were off-spec with respect to flashpoint (a key commercial criterion for this cargo) resulting in offloading and further Vessel cleaning. Although there was a dedicated line from the shore tank to the terminal manifold, an additive was injected at the terminal manifold (from bulk containers and drums) which could have affected the ULSD flashpoint. Thus, Charterer failed in proving by a preponderance of credible evidence that the Vessel’s tanks were the cause of the cargo damage. Furthermore, the burden is on the Charterer to prove that the Vessel did not exercise due diligence in tank preparation which he failed to do.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.