2026 Maritime Digest of Arbitration Awards and Court Rulings

London Arbitration 3/18

VOYAGE CHARTER – DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – VALID NOTICE OF READINESS – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO

Charterer cancelled a voyage charter party after failing to provide cargo. Owner claimed demurrage and damages from the alleged repudiatory breach.  Charterer countered that the claim was time barred, the Vessel’s NOR was invalid, and the damages if awarded, should be basis the C/P’s lowest freight option.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Macsteel International USA Corp. v. Inter Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. – SMA 4322, 14 Aug 2017

PARTIAL FINAL AWARD – ARREST AND ATTACHMENT OF VESSEL – MARITIME LIEN – DEFAULT IN HIRE – UNSEAWORTHY

The vessel was denied entry into a prior port for other charterers’ accounts which subsequently delayed her arrival at charterer’s disport. The panel was tasked to determine the party at fault for the delay and whether demurrage and other damages for barges awaiting the vessel at charterer’s disport for transshipment purposes were to be considered as consequential.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

London Arbitration 23/17

DEMURRAGE – OIL SPILL – FORCE MAJEURE – PROCEED THERETO – REACHABLE ON ARRIVAL – ARREST OR RESTRAINT OF PRINCES – BPVOY3

Before the vessel’s arrival at port, a vessel at the vessel’s intended berth had an oil spill which delayed the vessel once she arrived at the port.  Charterer argued to split the delay 50/50 wherein owner stated that BPVOY3’s “proceed thereto” was to be read as “reachable on arrival”, the spill was not an exception, and the prior vessel’s arrest was not an “arrest or restraint of princes, rulers or people”.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Tankschiffahrts GmbH & Co KG v. Ping An Property and Casualty Insurance Co of China Ltd (MT “Cape Bonny”) – QBD (Comm Ct), 4 December 2017

ENGINE BREAKDOWN – TYPHOON – SEAWORTHINESS – GENERAL AVERAGE – REASONABLE EXPENDITURES

After suffering an engine breakdown, the shipowner employed a tug to avoid a typhoon and to bring the vessel to port.   The owner then brought claim against the insurance company for general average contribution. The defendant argued that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage and that the casualty was caused by actionable fault of the Owner and thus no contribution was due. Further, the defendant argued that owner’s expenditure as claimed under general average was unreasonable.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

London Arbitration 1/18

NYPE – NON PAYMENT OF HIRE – PREMATURE WITHDRAWAL BY OWNER – REPUDIATORY BREACH – BALANCE OF HIRE – ADDITIONAL HIRE

After charterer missed making hire payments, the owner informed charterer of its “rights” under the C/P.  When no payments were made by the 3rd day after its notice, owner withdrew the vessel. Charterer pointed to a clause in the C/P requiring owner give “3 clear banking days notice” prior to withdrawal.  Charterer claimed the balance of hire and owner claimed additional hire.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

London Arbitration 27/17

CARGO SHORTAGE – OWNER PROACTIVELY SETTLED WITH CHARTERER’S RECEIVER – CHARTERER INDEMNIFY OWNER – NON REVERSIBLE – DEMURRAGE

After discharging, the receiver claimed a cargo shortage and detained the vessel.  The shipowner settled the receiver’s claim in order to allow the vessel to depart the disport and in turn claimed reimbursement from the charterer.  Owner also claimed demurrage incurred at the disport despite laytime being saved at load given that the laytime was non-reversible.  

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Gard Marine & Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Co Ltd and Another (The “Ocean Victory”) – UKSC 35 – 10 May 2017

TIME CHARTER – SAFE PORT – CLAIM AGAINST DEMISE CHARTERERS – LIMITED LIABILITY

When a ship sank upon departing a port in a storm, the court was tasked with answering 3 questions.  1) Was there a breach of the safe port warranty? 2) If so, did provisions for joint insurance preclude owner from the right to recover losses covered by hull insurers?  3) If there was a breach, are losses by a sub-charterer limited to the losses incurred by it’s owner to head owner’s insurance company.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Fulton Shipping Inc of Panama v Globalia business Travel SAU (The “New Flamenco”) – Supreme Court

TIME CHARTER  – ANTICIPATORY BREACH – DAMAGES – VESSEL REDELIVERED EARLY – VALUE OF VESSEL SOLD AT REPUDIATION GREATER THAN VALUE OF VESSEL AT CONTRACTUAL DATE OF REDELIVERY Under a time charter, Charterer redelivered the Vessel to the Owner two years early. In doing so, Owner considered Charterer in anticipatory repudiatory breach of the contract...

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.