London Arbitration 30/22

The subject vessel was chartered on an amended Asbatankvoy form. After the completion of the voyage, the owner submitted a claim for demurrage.

The charterer argued that the notice of readiness (NOR) presented at the discharge port was invalid because it was sent via email, so time did not start running until discharge started.

Clause 6 of the charterparty provided that NOR was to be given “by letter, telegraph, wireless or telephone”.

The charterer cited Trafigura Beheer BV v Ravennavi SpA (The Port Russel) [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 57, in which it was held that tender of NOR by email was not permitted in relation to a BPVOY 3 charter. They said that “wireless” in clause 6 of the charterparty was a reference to VHF/radio transmission and that the Asbatankvoy form was created before emails.

The charterer argued that the notice of readiness (NOR) presented at the discharge port was invalid because it was sent via email…

The owner argued that the methods for giving NOR in the Asbatankvoy form were different from the Port Russel case. Specifically, “wireless” transmission was not a valid method in that case, but it was valid under the terms in the amended Asbatankvoy form.

The email which tendered the NOR was proven to be sent by the vessel’s wireless communication system.

The owner also claimed that email did not exist in 1977, the year of the Asbatankvoy form. Charterer referred to Wikipedia which stated that email was around in the 1960s and early 1970s.

It was held that the tender of NOR by email was permitted by the agreed charterparty. It was found that the owner was entitled to demurrage for this time.

The owners were awarded US$12,983.12 together with interests and costs.