2025 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 6/25 

NYPE 1993 FORM – BREACH OF CLAUSE 8 – DEVIATION FROM PLANNED ROUTE – TURN BACK PROVISIONS – DANGEROUS WEATHER – OFF-HIRE DURING ROUTE DEVIATION The vessel was chartered from Terneuzen, Netherlands to Jacksonville, FL, under NYPE 1993 terms from a prior charterparty. After redelivery Owners claimed US$119,557.65 for hire and bunker costs. Charterers denied liability, citing the master’s decision to reroute the vessel due to dangerous weather. lengthening the voyage. The tribunal based the final decision solely on documentary evidence.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 3/25 

AMENDED GENCON FORM – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO – EXPERT EVIDENCE – QUANTUM OF DAMAGES – VOYAGE CALCULATION ERROR  A continuation of LA 1/25 and LA 2/25, this award concludes the proceedings for Charterer's failure to deliver cargo under an amended Gencon form.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 2/25 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO – REPUDIATORY BREACH – FREIGHT ENTITLEMENT – DAMAGES FOR HIRE – DEFERRED AWARD AMOUNT – MULTIPLE HEARINGS  This arbitration is the second in a series of proceedings involving the disponent Owners’ claims against the Charterers, who denied liability and counterclaimed for US$544,290.46 or an equal credit against damages awarded to the Owners. This sum comprised US$454,059.38 for unearned advance freight, US$57,208.59 for demurrage, and US$33,022.50 in commission. The claim was in response to the Owners’ claim of repudiatory breach.  See LA 1/25 and LA 3/25
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 1/25 

AMENDED GENCON FORM – FAILURE TO DELIVER CARGO – DEMURRAGE - DAMAGES FOR HIRE – SUB-CHARTER COLLATERAL The Parties agreed to a voyage charterparty for transporting bulk petcoke using a Gencon 1994 Form. On the same day, the Charterers made a sub-voyage charter with Sub-Charterers. When the vessel tendered Notice of Readiness (NOR), Owners were told the intended 53,000 mt of cargo was not ready for loading.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 19/18

DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – BROKER AS AGENT - ESTOPPEL – CONSEQUENTIAL DELAY – EQUIPMENT BREAKDOWN – ASBATANKVOY – WITHOUT PREJUDICE This arbitration concerned a contract of affreightment (COA) for a series of voyages performed by two vessels carrying fuel oil/bitumen mix, chartered on an amended Asbatankvoy form. The dispute arose over unpaid demurrage in relation to eight of 87 total voyages, with the charter containing two relevant time bar provisions—one in Part I requiring demurrage claims and supporting documents within 30 days of discharge, and Clause 40 stipulating a 21-day limit.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 1/90

LAYTIME – ASBATANKVOY – STATUTORY READINESS – NOR WITHOUT COC – NULLITY – ESTOPPEL REJECTED Owners claimed laytime began at 22:30 on 4 August after NOR was tendered and accepted, but charterers argued the NOR was invalid due to the vessel lacking a U.S. Coast Guard certificate of compliance (COC) at the time.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Current / English Maritime Cases / Featured

O v C – EWHC 2838 – King’s Bench Division, Commercial Court (Sir Nigel Teare) – 8 November 2024

LONDON ARBITRATION - US SANCTIONS - OFAC LICENSE TO SELL CARGO - BREACH OF SANCTIONS – APPEAL TO ENGLISH HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 44 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996 Charterers entered into a charterparty for a vessel carrying naphtha, but were added to the US OFAC sanctions list the same day, causing the cargo to become subject to US sanctions. Owners, fearing prosecution due to their US connections, terminated the charterparty and obtained an OFAC license to sell the cargo and hold proceeds in a blocked US account. Arbitration was initiated in London, and both parties approached the English High Court for directions on how the sale proceeds should be handled.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Featured / U.S. Maritime Cases

CITGO Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. (The “Athos I”) – Supreme Court of the United States, No. 18-565 – 30 March 2020

OIL SPILL – SAFE-BERTH CLAUSE – LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – UNQUALIFIED CLAUSE – STRICT LIABILITY – SAFE VS. UNSAFE BERTH SELECTION – EXPRESS CLAUSE – EXPRESS LIABILITY

In 2004, Frescati Shipping Co. (the Owners) allowed CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. (CARCO) to charter their vessel Athos I. While attempting to dock in Port of Paulsboro, New Jersey, the vessel collided with an abandoned anchor, resulting in a major oil spill in the Delaware River. The arbitration primarily focused on the Charterers’ (CARCO) liability for the spill per the charterparty’s Safe-Berth Clause.

English Maritime Cases

Sea Consortium Pte Ltd and Others v Bengal Tiger Line Pte Ltd and Others [2024] EWHC 3174 (Admlty) – Admiralty Division (Andrew Baker J) – 12 December 2024

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY – DEFINITION OF CHARTERER – DEFINITION OF SHIPOWNER – SLOT CHARTERER – CONTAINERIZED CARGO – VESSEL AND CARGO CASUALTY/LOSS

Killiney Shipping and Sea Consortium (the Charterers) entered into a Bareboat and a Time Charter, respectively with EOS RO (the Owners). Multiple contract agreements existed between the Parties. When a vessel laden with cargo under these multiple contracts caught fire, a limitation ruling was publicized, resulting in subsequent claims. In question was who was considered the charterer and who the shipowner with regard to the losses and liability.

English Maritime Cases

Lord Marine Co SA v Vimeksim Srb DOO (The “Lord Hassan”) [2024] EWHC 3305 (Comm) – King’s Bench Division, Commercial Court (Bryan J) – 14 October 2024

SALE OF CARGO – EFFECT OF LIEN – ARBITRATION ACT OF 1996 – PARADIGM CASE – CHARTERER OWNED CARGO – RECEIVER AS OWNERS’ AGENT – FAILURE TO RECEIVE BILL OF LADING

Lord Marine (the Owners) and their vessel, Lord Hassan, entered into a voyage charterparty with Vimeksim (the Charterers) on or before April 12, 2024. By May 18, 11,000 mt of cargo had been loaded at Chornomorsk. Lord Marine issued the bill of lading on a standard Congenform 1994 form, which went on to name AAK, the consignee, as the “Receivers”, despite neither them, nor the Charterers ever receiving it. In error, the freight was categorized as “Prepaid”, despite not being paid at that time, or at all.