London Arbitration 6/25

by · Published · Updated

A dispute arose under a time charter trip on an amended NYPE 1993 form for a voyage from Terneuzen, Netherlands to Jacksonville, Florida. The charter included a laycan of 4 to 8 February and an expected duration of about 25 days WOG. Following redelivery on 6 March, the owners claimed a balance of US$119,557.65 primarily for hire and bunkers, while the charterers denied liability, arguing the master unjustifiably deviated from their routing instructions, causing delays and additional costs.

The charterparty included several relevant clauses:

  • Clause 8 – Performance of Voyages – The Master shall perform the voyages with due despatch… although appointed by the Owners, shall be under the orders and directions of the Charterers as regards employment and agency.
  • Clause 15 – Sailing Orders and Logs – The Charterers shall furnish the Master from time to time with all requisite instructions and sailing directions in writing, in the English language.
  • Clause 17 – Off-Hire – Should the Vessel deviate or put back during a voyage contrary to the orders or directions of the Charterers, for any reason other than accident to the cargo… the hire is to be suspended from the time of her deviating or putting back until she is again in the same or equidistant position from the destination and the voyage resumed therefrom.
  • Clause 26 – Navigation – The Owners shall remain responsible for the navigation of the Vessel… and all other matters, same as when trading for their own account.
  • Clause 57 – Deviation/Put Back – Should the vessel put back… or deviate… due to any Owners’ matters, the payment of hire shall be suspended… Bunkers consumed while vessel is off-hire and all extra expenses incurred during such period shall be for Owners’ account.
  • Clause 77 – Weather Routing – The Charterers may… engage an independent weather routing service… The Master will comply… and endeavour to follow Charterer’s (or their routing service’s) recommended routing. However, the final choice of selecting the safest route will be the Master’s decision, providing it is justified…

The voyage was initially planned via the English Channel (“Southern Route”), but after receiving routing advice from the charterers’ weather routing company (WRC), the vessel proceeded north via the Pentland Firth (“Northern Route”). However, worsening weather forecasts led the master to reverse course and proceed via the English Channel. The master advised that continuing on the Northern Route would expose the vessel to wave heights of 9–10+ meters with dangerous rolling conditions. He notified all parties and justified his decision on safety grounds.

The owners argued the master was entitled to change course under Clause 77 of the charter, which empowered him to select the safest route, provided the decision was justified. The charterers claimed the master’s decision to change course was in breach of Clause 8 (employment orders) and Clause 17 (off-hire for deviation against orders), resulting in voyage delays and fuel wastage for which they sought counterclaims totaling up to US$70,000.

The tribunal held that the master was entitled to turn back on grounds of safety. Clause 77 required the master to “endeavour to follow” the charterers’ recommended routing but left final decisions to his judgment if justified. Clause 26 confirmed owners retained responsibility for navigation. Both parties’ experts agreed it was reasonable for the master to reject routing that forecasted wave heights over 9 meters. The tribunal found the master’s decision was clearly based on safety and was justified.

As to Clause 8 (due despatch), the tribunal found the master failed in his obligation to assess routing safety before departure. While it was reasonable for him to initially follow the WRC’s advice, he should have more critically evaluated the Northern Route prior to sailing. His delay in reconsidering the routing, only after encountering forecasts of severe weather, amounted to a breach of due despatch. As a result, the tribunal found the voyage was extended unnecessarily by 3.5 days, leading to time loss and fuel consumption valued at US$86,838.50, which reduced the owners’ claim.

The tribunal rejected the charterers’ primary and alternative counterclaims. The WRC’s recommendation was not an “order” within the meaning of the charter, and the master’s response to evolving weather conditions could not give rise to an off-hire event or liability. The tribunal awarded the owners US$32,719.15 with interest at 6.5% per annum compounded quarterly from 18 days post-redelivery. Costs were reserved.