MTM Mississippi Pte Ltd v. SeaRiver Maritime LLC (The “MTM Mississippi”) – SMA No. 4507 – 20 August 2025

MTM Mississippi Pte Ltd (“Owner”) brought a claim against SeaRiver Maritime LLC (“Charterer”) under a voyage charterparty dated October 30, 2023, on the EXXONMOBILVOY2012 form, as amended. The vessel MTM Mississippi was chartered for the carriage of clean petroleum products from the U.S. Gulf to Chile. Owner claimed a principal balance of $40,516.66 in unpaid demurrage, while Charterer denied liability and counterclaimed for an alleged $11,441.36 overpayment. Both parties sought costs and attorney’s fees.

The dispute centered on delays at the discharge port of Quintero, Chile, where the vessel waited over 12 days at anchorage before berthing at the El Bato terminal. During this period, berth availability was limited, and bad weather intermittently prevented ship movements. The vessel tendered NOR at 1218 on November 22, 2023, with laytime starting at 1818 that day. She ultimately berthed on December 4, 2023.

Charterer argued that several intervals during the waiting period qualified as “Delay” under Clause 14(b) of the charterparty and thus merited half-rate demurrage due to “Listed Conditions” – specifically, adverse weather (including swells) which intermittently prevented berthing. Relying on port authority weather bans and agent reports, Charterer claimed 37 hours and 37 minutes were subject to the half-rate. In contrast, Owner contended the delays were due to berth prioritization by the terminal—not weather—and that Clause 14(b) should not apply absent direct causation between the delay and bad weather.

Clause 14(b) of the charterparty was at the heart of the dispute. It provides for a half-time demurrage exclusion where delay is “due to” Listed Conditions, including bad weather. The clause also states that if Listed Conditions “co-existed” with other causes of delay (e.g., occupied berth), such conditions would be “conclusively deemed” to be the sole cause if they either independently caused the delay or could have caused it had the other conditions not existed.

Owner argued for a proximate cause standard, insisting that bad weather must have independently caused the delay to qualify. They further claimed that had the berth been immediately available, the vessel could have completed discharge without interruption, rendering weather irrelevant. Owner also attacked the reliability of the Port Authority weather reports.

Charterer countered that the clause was unambiguous and widely used in the industry. They argued that the plain language of Clause 14(b) established that any period where bad weather and berth unavailability co-existed should automatically be counted as half-time. They presented port bans, pilotage suspensions, and berth conditions to support their case, including one interval (December 4–5) where the berth was open, but the vessel was still barred from shifting due to weather.

The Panel rejected Owner’s arguments and affirmed the validity of Clause 14(b)’s half-time exclusion without requiring a strict causation analysis. Citing the clause’s commercial intent to avoid complex causation disputes, the Panel found that where bad weather co-existed with other delays (like terminal maintenance or berth occupancy), half-time properly applied. The clause was construed per the understanding of reasonable commercial actors, and no ambiguity existed warranting a contra proferentem interpretation.

Nonetheless, the Panel partially sided with Owner on one discrete interval. Specifically, it disallowed Charterer’s claimed half-time exclusion for the period between 2159 on November 22 and 1030 on November 23, after the port lifted a weather ban but before free pratique was granted. The Panel held that the Charter did not require free pratique for laytime to run, and accepted Owner’s argument that allowing a weather-related half-time exclusion during this window would improperly reintroduce causation arguments that Clause 14(b) seeks to avoid.

As a result, the total half-time demurrage exclusions allowed amounted to 31.22 hours (not the 37+ hours Charterer claimed), equating to a principal overpayment of $2,810.39 rather than $11,441.36. Charterer was thus awarded this amount as its counterclaim.

The Panel also awarded Charterer 75% of its fees ($29,715.71) as the prevailing party on the principal issue of the demurrage calculation.